Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

How exactly is the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument rational when it cannot even be established as true? A sound conclusion cannot be built upon a faulty premise

Agreed. So we'd have to examine what you consider the second premise. How would you wish to word it, so as to reflect your understanding of it?

Do you mean, "The universe has a beginning?" Is that the proposition you mean "cannot be established as true?"

If that's it, then I think you'll find it's as well-established as any scientific fact we have, and better than most we have. Or do you not believe in the Big Bang? Or are you supposing the BB happened causelessly, somehow?

Certainly causality is well enough established to warrant belief until further notice. No extant theory has so far appeared that is capable of falsifying it, and all the available data currently supports it (the Red Shift, for example)...so I wonder what epistemological standard you're supposing we ought to achieve before belief in a start to the universe is warranted...

[Science Fan]

IC: I am open-minded, but not so much that my brains fall out. You are a bigot. That's a fact anyone can observe by reading your posts. You repeatedly make hateful accusations against atheists, without anything backing up your claims, except your own personal god-delusion and hatred and bigotry against atheists.

Frankly, I'm tired of you avoiding the most basic questions put to you. You still have not coughed up a single coherent argument for this alleged god of yours. You still have not shown how this alleged god of yours could provide a moral standard. You still have not established that you know what this alleged god of yours is stating on moral issues. You are merely making up claims that you know such things, and your claims are delusional, since they have no evidence backing them up.

I would also point out another fundamental error on your part. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that your god exists, that you can establish your god as a basis for morality, and you personally know what your god is thinking about moral issues, you still face another fatal flaw. Even if you could do all of the above, that would not rule out other methods for grounding morality that do not need a god. All you would have accomplished is a specific grounding for morality, not the only basis for grounding morality.

Of course, now you can flop around, make hateful remarks about atheists, while denying your bigotry against atheists, and avoid answering this additional question that undermines your claim.

You know? You remind me of Donald Trump.

[Immanuel Can]

IC: I am open-minded, but not so much that my brains fall out. You are a bigot. That's a fact anyone can observe by reading your posts. You repeatedly make hateful accusations against atheists, without anything backing up your claims, except your own personal god-delusion and hatred and bigotry against atheists.

You're upset...I understand. It's hard to see your basic worldview challenged. I get it. But that has nothing to do with bigotry. I've given you reasons, reasons that you've even had to recognize yourself, to know that Atheism is amoral.

You've conceded it: what else is to say?

And yet, you continue to make moral judgments. You've admitted that as an Atheist, you have no grounds for them; and yet you still do it....

...this shows you know I'm right. You may not like it, but your actions prove you know it.

Frankly, I'm tired of you avoiding the most basic questions put to you. You still have not coughed up a single coherent argument for this alleged god of yours.

We've been working on other things, as the OP has it...the allegation that Theists "demonize" Atheists. And we have found that not only is it untrue, but Atheists themselves have no rational entitlement to even word the question, since they follow an entirely amoral ideology.

Whatever is, is as good or bad as any Atheist can say. They've put themselves outside of the moral 'game' entirely.

You still have not shown how this alleged god of yours could provide a moral standard.

Oh, that's dead easy. IF you allow the postulate that it's even possible that a Supreme Being exists, you've already granted thereby that there is a sufficient grounds for objective morality.

You are merely making up claims that you know such things,...

Actually, we never got that far. I haven't told you what I think morality is, because we've been working on testing the OP. If you're content that the OP is a failure as a question, then I'm quite happy to move forward.

... Even if you could do all of the above, that would not rule out other methods for grounding morality that do not need a god.

There isn't any. If God does not exist, and Dostoevsky said, "Everything is permissible." And if everything is permissible, then there is no objective morality.

No God, no good. It's that simple.

You know? You remind me of Donald Trump.

You continue to believe that this is about ME? Ad hominem remarks are a) unphilosophical, b) irrelevant to the question in hand, and c) too darn entertaining to me.

I wonder if I can get an orange hairpiece...

Too funny.

[Science Fan]

IC: You have not challenged my world-view in any way. Delusions simply do not cut it with me, nor with any other rationally-minded person. You are a bigot, nothing less and nothing more. I consider you the same as David Duke. And David Duke also does not challenge my world view with his deranged nonsense.

[Science Fan]

IC: It's not a fallacy that I am using against you. Far from it. It's a rationally, accurate assessment of the facts. You are delusional, and a bigot. You have no rational arguments of any kind, nor any factual evidence backing up your claims. Absolutely none. Since you have offered nothing of substance to refute, you literally have yet to get out of the starting blocks, it's rational to point out the reason for your failure.

[Immanuel Can]

IC: You have not challenged my world-view in any way.

Yes...yes...I think I believe you.

[Science Fan]

IC: Seriously, why do you think your delusions are in any way rational arguments?

[surreptitious57]

How exactly is the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument rational when
it cannot even be established as true? A sound conclusion cannot be built upon a faulty premise

Agreed. So we would have to examine what you consider the second premise. How would you wish
to word it so as to reflect your understanding of it?

Do you mean The universe has a beginning? Is that the proposition you mean cannot be established as true?

If that is it then I think you'll find it is as well established as any scientific fact we have and better than
most we have. Or do you not believe in the Big Bang? Or are you supposing the BB happened ceaselessly somehow?

Certainly causality is well enough established to warrant belief until further notice. No extant theory has so far appeared that is capable
of falsifying it and all the available data currently supports it ( the Red Shift for example ) ... so I wonder what epistemological standard
you are supposing we ought to achieve before belief in a start to the universe is warranted ...

The first premise of the Kalam is that everything that had a beginning must have had a cause
The second premise of the Kalam is that the universe had a beginning so must have had a cause

That premise is faulty because it has not been demonstrated to be true. The Big Bang is merely the beginning of local cosmic expansion
and not the beginning of the Universe per se. For those two events are not the same. The BB is as far back as theoretical physics can go
but does not mean nothing happened before it. That is an assumption with no evidence to support it. It is entirely possible the Universe
had no beginning and extends infinitely in to the past. So till an absolute beginning can be determined the Kalam is invalid and unsound

[Science Fan]

The cosmological argument has been shredded, so the fact IC has to rely on it, just shows that he has no rational basis to support his beliefs. Here are some of the well-known problems with the cosmological argument:

1. If everything that exists must have a cause, then any god that exists would also have to have a cause.
2. If, one supposes a god can exist without a cause and is somehow self-explanatory, then this also applies to the universe itself. There is then no reason to believe that the universe requires a cause.
3. Even if the universe had to have a cause, there is no reason for anyone to believe that this cause was god. It could be a blunt physical force of some kind. Or, it could be multiple gods, which rules out monotheism. Or, the god could have died off immediately after causing the universe to exist. The possibilities are almost endless when it comes to this alleged cause, and there is no rational basis to assume it was a god that fits monotheism and still exists.

I can go on, but even one hole in the cosmological argument is enough to shred it.

[Science Fan]

IC argues incoherently that one may not convince others to believe in morality unless everyone becomes a theist. That's absurd, given the actual facts. Muslims believe Christians are headed to hell, and Christians believe Muslims are headed to hell. Catholics and protestants have killed each other throughout the years and still, to this day, often refer to the other as not even being Christian. We have had so many religious conflicts that the idea that a belief in a supernatural being is going to place morality on a firm ground is nonsense.

An appeal to morality based on actual facts has a far greater chance of uniting people than a bogus morality based on made-up delusions.

[Skip]

[S -- Since there are no moral people in the world, that just leaves secular law to keep us all in line.]

Your objection is a practical problem, not a logical one.

It's a practical world, not a logic lesson. You want to destroy secular law, because it is practical, because it works,
and replace it with a wholly impractical, wholly unworkable, holy imaginary moral code.

Morality might still be objective.

It might. If it were written in binary code.

[Immanuel Can]

The first premise of the Kalam is that everything that had a beginning must have had a cause
The second premise of the Kalam is that the universe had a beginning so must have had a cause

Good. Thank you.

That premise is faulty because it has not been demonstrated to be true. The Big Bang is merely the beginning of local cosmic expansion
and not the beginning of the Universe per se. For those two events are not the same. The BB is as far back as theoretical physics can go
but does not mean nothing happened before it.

Quite right. So far so good. But your critique takes the second premise for granted...that is, that there MUST have been something before the BB, which, in fact, supports the Kalam Argument.

What you need instead is a case of something that began WITHOUT a cause, and without anything before it. You're right to say the BB isn't it, since something must have caused the BB. But in that, you're supporting the Principle of Sufficient Cause, and hence, the Kalam.

That is an assumption with no evidence to support it.

Oh, that's untrue. Until you find an object in the universe that exists without a prior cause, the Kalam is supported by every piece of empirical evidence you can find. Everything known has a cause.

It is entirely possible the Universe had no beginning and extends infinitely in to the past.

Actually, no -- we have not a single scrap of empirical proof for such a thing, and in fact, very persuasive evidence against it. Edwin Hubble was but the beginning of this; but no scientist believes what you are saying. All we have right now that could possibly support your view are speculative models like String Theory and the Multiverse Hypothesis. But theorists will frankly tell you they have no empirical basis at present.

For now, the only available scientific evidence -- actual evidence -- supports the Kalam. Check it out.

[Immanuel Can]

It's a practical world, not a logic lesson.

Not an answer. The problem is one of legitimation...meaning not just "can we force people to behave in way X," but "how do we show that X is right."

Unless one is a totalitarian by disposition, legitimation is a necessity. You need to show people why X is right, not just consider how to force it on them.

You want to destroy secular law, because it is practical, because it works, and replace it with a wholly impractical, wholly unworkable, holy imaginary moral code.

Incorrect. I would be happy to see secular morality legitimized...I just never have. And we know it cannot be, because Atheism as an ideology is amoral...it knows no right or wrong, only what "is." An amoral view cannot, by definition, have or sponsor any view of morality.

Hume knew this. And there's been no solving Hume's Paradox since.

[surreptitious57]

Even if the Universe did begin at a finite point this is still not evidence of God. That is both a non sequitur and
a God Of The Gaps type argument. For those reasons the Kalam is still unsound. Furthermore what determines
scientific truth is actual evidence as opposed to a cosmological argument which is ridden with logical fallacies

[Skip]

Unless one is a totalitarian by disposition, legitimation is a necessity.

If your 'morality' is god-given, then you are obliged to commit whatever atrocity the self-proclaimed conduits to the god command.
That is not merely disposition to, but imposition of totalitarian authority. It is, in fact, the essence of totalitarianism.
That is the ultimate aim of every form of militant theism.