Apologetics may be simply defined as the defense of the Christian faith. The word "apologetics" derives from the Greek word apologia, which was originally used as a speech of defense.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument


  • #2
    Well done, well argued and concise. Thanks Brother! I will pass it along :)
    Simul Justus et Peccator ~Martin Luther

    "We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone" ~John Calvin

    "The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us." ~C. S. Lewis

    "The secret is Christ in me, not me in a different set of circumstances" ~Elisabeth Elliot

    "The law is for the self-righteous to humble their pride; the Gospel is for the lost to remove their despair. ~C. H. Spurgeon
    Comment>

    • #3
      So why doesn't a maximally great unicorn exist?

      I think there might be some validity to the argument that the definition of 'maximally great' contains the conclusion implicit in it.
      So the argument reduces to God exists because he must exist. Which may be true, but is not really very convincing.

      The video explains it well (although 'pizza' may not have been the best example to use for a counter-point.)
      Last edited by atpollard; 01-09-2017, 11:33 AM. Reason: spelling
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by atpollard View Post
        So why doesn't a maximally great unicorn exist?

        I think there might be some validity to the arbument that the definition of 'maximally great' contains the conclusion implicit in it.
        So the argument reduces to God exists because he must exist. Which may be true, but is not really very convincing.

        The video explains it well (although 'pizza' may not have been the best example to use for a counter-point.)
        Sorry atpollard but I am a bit confused. This isn't the Ontological Argument but the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Origen View Post
          Sorry atpollard but I am a bit confused. This isn't the Ontological Argument but the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
          Oops. I watched a bunch of them.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Origen View Post
            Sorry atpollard but I am a bit confused. This isn't the Ontological Argument but the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
            OK, rewatched it to refresh my memory.
            Yeah, this was a good argument for a 'first cause'. It doesn't quite get to an irrefutable 'God' of Christianity as the only possible 'first cause' (and that was not its intention), but it forces atheism to attempt to explain an effect without a cause. I checked out several 'refutation' videos and they were all very weak, at best amounting to "we don't know for sure what might have existed before the universe, so we can't observe that it created the universe".

            Which is the equivalent of saying "I'll believe in gravity when I can hold it in my hand".
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by atpollard View Post
              Yeah, this was a good argument for a 'first cause'. It doesn't quite get to an irrefutable 'God' of Christianity as the only possible 'first cause' (and that was not its intention), but it forces atheism to attempt to explain an effect without a cause.
              I think that is an excellent point when comes to these arguments. While they do lay a foundation for belief in a deity, only a revelation from God Himself can us bring to the one true God of the Bible.

              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Origen View Post
                I think that is an excellent point when comes to these arguments. While they do lay a foundation for belief in a deity, only a revelation from God Himself can us bring to the one true God of the Bible.
                Using Aquinas here, and keeping Romans 1 in mind.

                At the very end of the video the narrator came to the conclusion that "it is then very reasonable to believe in God". I noticed the video uses the laws of logic, which seemingly reaches a limitation and results in a "reasonable faith". Wouldn't "reason" itself present a problem for the atheist in making a counter argument (besides its cause), because it falls short of faith? Reason accompanies faith but does not actually result in faith. Reason inquires about what is to be believed before it believes (presupposition).

                Origen, you stated that "God himself can bring us to the one true God of the Bible". Agreed, another words, it is necessary for man to receive through faith not only things which are above reason, but also those which can be known by reason which at its very best can only prove that God exists but cannot convince an unbeliever to believe in God.

                I am amazed about the theological consistency with the Reformed view of regeneration preceding faith. According to Aquinas, “The assent of faith, which is its principal act, therefore, has as its cause God, moving us inwardly through grace.” “Belief is, of course, a matter of the believer’s will, but a person’s will needs to be prepared by God through his grace in order to be lifted up to what surpasses nature”.

                God bless,
                William
                Comment>
                Working...
                X
                Articles - News - SiteMap