[Senator Bedfellow]

What "the finest thinkers" think is wholly irrelevant - you do know what "empirically false" means, right? It means that there have been observed cases where that proposition is not true - i.e., there are cases where something has begun to exist with no cause for its existence. It really doesn't matter whether all the world's finest thinkers tell me that a rock will always fall upward when dropped, because the proposition is empirically false on its face. Causality is not a universal principle - there exist effects without causes, and such causeless events happen all around you, during every minute of every hour of every day.

All I can suggest is that perhaps the "finest thinkers" aren't quite as fine as they're touted to be, in such a case, although I suppose we can allow that the kalam argument is the pinnacle of Islamic theology. Which is really quite sad in its own way, considering how bankrupt the argument is.

[sauron]

i.e., there are cases where something has begun to exist with no cause for its existence.

You might be referring to subatomic particles "popping" into existence?

Just because we don't know why, or where from, doesn't mean that your assertion is correct--it's quite INcorrect. There is a cause.

We just haven't been able to determine their cause for existence, but we know that everything has a cause, unless you are subscribing to some form of "magic."

So I disagree with your reasoning. It makes the assumption there is NO cause, and in time, our science will prove you wrong.

[sauron]

All I can suggest is that perhaps the "finest thinkers" aren't quite as fine as they're touted to be, in such a case, although I suppose we can allow that the kalam argument is the pinnacle of Islamic theology. Which is really quite sad in its own way, considering how bankrupt the argument is.

Kalam was propounded, under different names in different centuries, by many different Christian theologians. The best, most succinct, and elegant version was offered by Islamic theologians (sad to say), and hence the name. (I'm obviously a Christian, btw.)

The logic, and evident truth of the proposition caused many Christian and Muslim scholars to "discover" it quite independently of each other, which alone might indicate that there's something to it.

You like to rely on scholars, unless it doesn't suit you (as in this case). I've read your posts.

You should be aware that mathematicians have no issue with it, and philosophers have no issue with it (though they personally might not want to believe in a god). Logicians consider it both logically valid and true (in logic, truth and validity are entirely separate issues).

Thus, you seem to have a problem with man's finest thinkers. Take it up with them.

As I have already demonstrated, Q.E.D., all things have a cause for their existence. You are sounding silly arguing against that proposition. ;)

---

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as opposed to the Thomistic and Leibnizian, is one of the better-respected arguments for the existence of God. Because its validity is not controversial, because it aligns with the most prominent scientific theories of the universe, and because it agrees with general philosophical insight concerning properties of infinities, it is one of the more interesting pieces of religious philosophy.

(Q.v. post #181 for a full explanation of the KCA, folks.)

Sauron