If you want to better understand God,
Think in terms of Energy, Vibrations, and Frequencies.
-Tesla-

They'll usually say God only acts within his nature, and cannot perform logical absurdity. So, omnipotence doesn't include realizing the absurd.

Not always, though. Descartes said God could not only create a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it...but that He could lift it anyway. Because performing two impossible tasks is even better than one.

Stating the universe came from nothing or never had a start is an illogical conclusion, so it makes sense that only an entity capable of such a thing made the universe, thus the need for omnipotence.

Unless you're saying the universe is capable of it, then you're low key calling the universe omnipotent. There is no way around this....there is a god one way or another.

The equivocation is that: begins to exist in premise 1 derives from physical objects that exist in time, and the universe in premise 2 does not fulfil the same begins to exist. That isn't to say that the universe cannot have a cause, just that you cannot reach that conclusion from the premises in the KCA!

It's entirely plausible that the universe never had a start

sure, if its a god

My journey was fairly simple. I realized my childhood religion was untrue...

Then I realized there was no tangible evidence that allowed for my to verify the existence of one deity over another. Pretty much every argument that you can make for a deity can be made of ANY deity.

From there are decided to accept the null as default until something had enough supporting evidence for me to take that logical leap.

I don't think there is a zero probability chance that some entity/being/aliens somehow contributed to my existence, but I am relatively certain any story you will tell to explain it would be incorrect.

Premise 1 is 'whatever begins to exist' not 'whatever begins to exist after the start of the universe'.

This is not equivocation fallacy. That is like: Putin is Russian. Russian is a language. Therefore, Putin is a language.

I think you're off base. Only the regular use of 'begin' is in use...which means: to start.

I can't remember who said it but this reminds me of something I heard long ago - "You're an atheist just like me for 99% of the gods out there, I just added one more"

Pretty much how I view it.

Even though I view religion as factually incorrect doesn't mean that I don't think it is valueless. Stories teach lessons even if they aren't "true".

The only things we've observed beginning to exist began to exist after the start of the universe. GOO I'm not sure if you're trolling tbh

Nope, entirely naturalistically

it's pretty much agreed upon that the Universe had a beginning.

so muh random big bang lol.

Religioncells are huge cucks. Put god before themselves. Wearing a man's jersey.Letting him sleep with your wife

this discussion isn't about religion, 129iq.

This is your definition though, not the definition employed in the actual argument. You would need to employ the definition the proponents of the argument use, or else you are making a straw man.

There's only one logical conclusion here, we are not evolved enough as species to answer any of the big existential questions.

It does absolutely make sense for a higher power to be there, we are conscious and understand the scale of our Universe, the visible one. But by looking at the scale of Universe and how volatile it is, it doesn't inspire one to believe in some Jesus or a Mohammed type of a God that watches over you and has a plan for you. Universe is violent and life can end instantly, but one can hope there's a life after life, based on energy/soul, or whatever.


There's nothing wrong with being religious and believing in something greater, it makes absolute sense. But how you view religion should probably change to a more scientific, modern view based around energy and scale of things. This way you can get rid of all the division other multiple religions have caused but keep the good bits of love, peace, unification and all that ****.

I think educating yourself about Space and question what's beyond it is far closer to the God than putting your mind in a box with a strict set of rules for the entirety of your life.

Meh... All observational data kinda starts at explosion from a central point.

You could say that OUR universe started from that point, but there is nothing saying that it couldn't be a repeating cycle.You realize if you ask the same question of "GOD"

you either end up with "GOD" always existing or a much more advance being evolving from "Nothing". You are just pushing the logical leap up a level not solving the question.

No, not trolling although I would agree the KCA is probably frustrating to consider. I'm trying to point out like Bohdy did that it seems you're using your own definition for begin rather than what's involved in the argument...which does make a strawman.

I haven't read about this argument being attacked for equivocation on the begin part. I have seen it be raised that equivocation regarding cause could be an issue. That is, material cause is used in the premise but not the conclusion.

Iirc Craig will say he's only considering efficient cause. That is maybe an area to challenge. Maybe it's not true that everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause...but I'm not sure what that would be. If substance is self-organizing then you might want to say the universe is it's own material cause. I think that would probably lead to pantheism or panentheism.

In that case, the KCA might be considered invalid if you're trying to establish a creator or first cause outside of the universe.

I've not completely thought all that through.

You could assert cause is representation-incorporating in sort of a Humian way and say it's all constant conjunctions, but that is a pretty big side step of the argument and it's known to have issues of its own.

It's not from a central point. That is most certainly NOT what the data shows.

I must be miss understanding the balloon analogy.

It has always been explained to me like points on an inflating balloon going outward. Where am I mistaken?

The inflation happened everywhere. It wasn't like a balloon. It's more like all of space stretched out and scaled up. everything actually wasn't all at a single point. In fact we know there was anisotropy.

The only high IQ viewpoint is that of a chad agnostic, or chadnostic if you will

Equivocation on both. Material cause used in the premises but not the conclusion. Also a different begins to exist in premise 1 vs 2.

Not my definition, just what you can infer from observation of the world in premise 1. All the things we observe beginning to exist do so at a point within already existing time, the universe did not (according to proponents of this anyway).

It's all a bit moot because we can model an eternal universe that is fully compatible with the past-finiteness of classical (GR) spacetime. Whether these models are correct or not won't be determined by theologians.

The JWST has been unraveling the Big Bang theory, at least the current understanding of it, since it began operation.

The truth is, we probably won't ever know. An intelligent creator makes as much and as little sense as "in the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded into everything".

Personally, I'm on the intelligent creator side. I think there are enough examples of intelligent design out there to convince me. I would call it spiritual but not religious. Religion is run by men and men are corrupt. Every religion out there has used violence in the name of their religion.