Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Get in the Ring → Ringside seats → Kalam cosmological argument.

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 30, 2024, 01:32 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 30, 2024, 09:01 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 30, 2024, 08:53 AM
New Britain
November 29, 2024, 08:17 AM
Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Kalam cosmological argument.

 (Read 20546 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     OP - March 21, 2014, 11:17 PM
    Hi guys, I want to debate the KCA for fun. This debate will be regarding the Validity, not the soundness of the KCA.
    Is anyone willing to oppose me & argue why the kalam is invalid as an argument?

    We can establish the rules of the debate once I have found an opponent.

    thanks.

    Edit: I'm willing to play devils advocate just to see how it ends up.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #1 - March 21, 2014, 11:41 PM
    The validity, but not the soundness? WTF?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #2 - March 21, 2014, 11:45 PM
    What?

    Here's a basic explanation for you Ozzy.

    Argument = Sound when:

    - argument is valid & all premises inc. conclusion are true.

    Argument= valid when:

    - conclusion follows from premises.

    Therefore.

    Valid = whatever I said ^

    Sound = Valid + true premises

     
    All sound arguments are valid, all valid arguments aren't sound.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #3 - March 21, 2014, 11:54 PM
    Ok, if you want to chop leporids in half with an axe I'll go along with it.

    Question: why would you bother discussing the validity without worrying about the soundness?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #4 - March 22, 2014, 12:02 AM
    So if I say, "All giraffes are green. The sun is a type of giraffe. Therefore, the sun is green," that argument would be valid but not sound?
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #5 - March 22, 2014, 12:03 AM
    Osmanthus, it's fully accepted in logic that validity and soundness are not synonymous so I hope you can appreciate why I offered an explanation as to why I am right.

    Secondly, I see soundness arguments all the time, I thought I would switch it up and just focus on how p1 and p2 follow in terms of the conclusion they arrive at.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #6 - March 22, 2014, 12:04 AM
    @HM

    Yes.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #7 - March 22, 2014, 12:05 AM
    Here is some information on it.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101017121057AAAkqJ2
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #8 - March 22, 2014, 12:07 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on March 22, 2014, 12:03 AM
    Secondly, I see soundness arguments all the time, I thought I would switch it up and just focus on how p1 and p2 follow in terms of the conclusion they arrive at.

    Ok, go for it. popcorn

    If you want to talk logic though, I have to point out that p1 and p2 don't follow, they precede. Just sayin'. parrot
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #9 - March 22, 2014, 12:07 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on March 22, 2014, 12:04 AM
    @HM

    Yes.


    However, the premises are false.  The conclusion does follow.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #10 - March 22, 2014, 12:08 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 22, 2014, 12:07 AM
    Ok, go for it. popcorn

    If you want to talk logic though, I have to point out that p1 and p2 don't follow, they precede. Just sayin'. parrot



    Sorry, how the conclusion follows from p1 and p2, is that better?
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #11 - March 22, 2014, 12:09 AM
    @Hm

    Your argument may be seen as internally valid. However, externally of course it isn't valid.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #12 - March 22, 2014, 12:10 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on March 22, 2014, 12:04 AM
    @HM

    Yes.


    Learn something new every day.  Wink
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #13 - March 22, 2014, 12:11 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on March 22, 2014, 12:08 AM
    Sorry, how the conclusion follows from p1 and p2, is that better?

    Ok, so what's the discussion going to consist of? Doesn't seem like there's much material to work with.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #14 - March 22, 2014, 12:12 AM
    Quote from: happymurtad on March 22, 2014, 12:02 AM
    So if I say, "All giraffes are green. The sun is a type of giraffe. Therefore, the sun is green," that argument would be valid but not sound?


    My interpretation of your argument.

    (1) A, B.
    (2) A
    (3) Therefore B

    I can see that it follows modus ponens, however I may have not understood it correctly. Please correct me if I haven't considered what you have said fully.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #15 - March 22, 2014, 12:14 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 22, 2014, 12:11 AM
    Ok, so what's the discussion going to consist of? Doesn't seem like there's much material to work with.


    Hmm, you are right in the sense that the argument will be nowhere as long as it's counterpart "soundness" one.
    Probably like this, Since I am the instigator, I will state why i believe that it is valid and my opponent has to undermine me?
    We will start with an opening statement each clarifying the conditions of the debate, if we agree upon conditions then we will proceed.
    We shall end with closing statements.

    I.e., if it was me vs you.

    (1) Qtian sets conditions
    (2) Ozzy sets conditions
    (3) they agree/disagree
    (4) Qtian first argument.
    (5) Ozzy's rebuttal.
    (6) Second argument / addressing your rebuttal.
    (7) your response
    Finally, 8. closing statements.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #16 - March 22, 2014, 12:17 AM
    Why would anyone argue against the logical validity? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say it's not logically valid.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #17 - March 22, 2014, 12:18 AM
    Ok, so how do you think you'll find anyone to argue that it's not valid? It looks like a no-brainer.

    ETA: Ninja'd Cheesy
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #18 - March 22, 2014, 12:21 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on March 22, 2014, 12:17 AM
    Why would anyone argue against the logical validity? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say it's not logically valid.


    @Ozzy & Ishina

    It's just for fun, not everything has to be a deadly serious argument. My opponent can argue that the conclusion doesn't follow from (1) and (2) i.e. by challenging the idea of equivocation.  For instance, how creatio ex nihilo may not be consistent in both premises.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #19 - March 22, 2014, 12:21 AM
    I appreciate that the opponent will be in a tough spot, heck... I'll play devils advocate instead, just for fun.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #20 - March 22, 2014, 12:22 AM
    Sorry, I just double posted by mistake.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #21 - March 22, 2014, 12:23 AM
    Why are you quoting yourself?

    ETA: Ok.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #22 - March 22, 2014, 12:24 AM
    By mistake, which I have apologised for, it's pretty late here :s & my attention isn't great as of late.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #23 - March 22, 2014, 12:25 AM
    Go on then, argue against its validity.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #24 - March 22, 2014, 12:26 AM
    Ok Ishina relax, why are you being hostile lol? I said it's just for fun.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #25 - March 22, 2014, 12:26 AM
    She's not being hostile.

    And use English. None of this P and Q stuff. Tongue
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #26 - March 22, 2014, 12:27 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on March 22, 2014, 12:26 AM
    Ok Ishina relax, why are you being hostile lol? I said it's just for fun.

    Wait... what? How can that possibly be read as hostile?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #27 - March 22, 2014, 12:28 AM
    I felt it was hostile, I guess it's just my current situation making me feel that way. I apologise if your comment was sincere.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #28 - March 22, 2014, 12:30 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 22, 2014, 12:26 AM
    She's not being hostile.

    And use English. None of this P and Q stuff. Tongue


    Can I use P and Q stuff for analogies though? Cheesy
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #29 - March 22, 2014, 12:35 AM
    No.  Tongue

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »