Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Origen

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Recommended Posts

Well done, well argued and concise. Thanks Brother! I will pass it along :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Edited by atpollard
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reading the Premise 1, it is applicable in the Universe but how can we know it is applicable outside the Universe. We don't know the laws outside the Universe and using our laws without evidence is a big mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×