Kalem cosmological argument

a reply to: Thetan

1) Yes it is

2) Yes I have

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I didn't necessarily initiate an infinite regress scenario. Notice, the words, "Whatever begins to exist."

a reply to: GetHyped

No. Asking a question is not an argument, and you never actually challenged the argument.

a reply to: Thetan

Your premise: unfounded

/end thread

originally posted by: Thetan
I didn't necessarily initiate an infinite regress scenario. Notice, the words, "Whatever begins to exist."

Except the full statement you made is:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

That is an infinite regression paradox.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No. It's an infinite regression paradox if the universe didn't begin to exist.

a reply to: Thetan
Answer the guy and tell us what you think...other than 3 words "I argue for". Justify your point . You do this all the time and I don't know why. If you want valid interaction without ridicule than participate in your own thread plz.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: GetHyped

No. Asking a question is not an argument, and you never actually challenged the argument.

but your "infinite regression" tactic has two options: 1) its infinite, 2) it ends with something that has no beginning.

my question is, why cant that 'something' be the universe?

en.wikipedia.org...

clearly, a "divine catalyst" is not necessary. there are several models demonstrating a distinct lack of supernatural forces.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No. It's an infinite regression paradox if the universe didn't begin to exist.

*facepalm*

You're making all the other creationist sh#t show threads look good in comparison to this one.

a reply to: rossacus

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm arguing in favor of the argument. No one but Augustus has actually challenged it, and actually, he didn't make an argument.

a reply to: GetHyped

Still not an argument.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: rossacus

I don't understand what you're saying.

Evidently.

No one but Augustus has actually challenged it.

You mean other than everyone else in the thread?

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: GetHyped

Still not an argument.

I'm not convinced you know what that word means.

a reply to: GetHyped

It means many things, I mean it in this sense. Argument- "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."

well if your to believe everything thats told then you can,t get something from nothing unless scientists have no idea them selfs and its the only theory they can come up with.

this big bang theroy is just a cop out if you ask me cause as long as they try force it on us i,ll never believe it.

it throws up so many questions,nothing existed but did space exist? what is space and if everying just exploded into existence and space didn,t exist then was it dark before everything existed and if it was then wasn,t it space before everything came into existence?

its just a complete mind fu*k trying to work your mind round it.

a reply to: Thetan
You don't understand? I have asked you to elaborate on why you have come to that conclusion. Is it seriously that difficult to answer your own question. Do you want everyone to participate like you and just type either "for" or "against" without justification for the conclusions drawn. This is a debate forum you know. Not a yes no website.

I have challenged the concept but as always you only respond to the people that point out the stupidity of your responses.

Say why you feel my interpretation is wrong so a debate can happen. Stimulate the debate, not your usual responses please. It's becoming predictable.

originally posted by: Thetan
No. It's an infinite regression paradox if the universe didn't begin to exist.

You have that backwards. If it always existed it is not an infinite regression paradox. If it had a beginning then what came before, ad infinitum?

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: GetHyped

It means many things, I mean it in this sense. Argument- "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."

which you took to mean "google this hypothesis, copy it and paste it onto this page, click the post button and receive unlimited internets for your audacious display".

sorry, thats not how it works. but i suspect if you actually cared how it works, you would have taken the time to discover that for yourself. BUT...if you had hoped to completely discredit the kalem cosmological hypothesis with this thread, congrats, you blew it out of the water. and for that, i tip my hat to you.

a reply to: sparky31

Same goes for how god created the universe and what world did he exist in. Adleast the big bang can justify it with measurable science, even if the conclusions may be wrong. It has sound foundations based on our current knowledge.

Saying god did it without having to justify how is so last century.

I hoped for a real elaborated topic, i hold an answer which i wont share..But i hoped you might evolve this to an interesting thread