Owchywawa fails to debunk me by agreeing with me or not understanding the critizism

***** 

Ok, I wrote a full response, and I lost it, so here is a summary: 1) The Kalam Cosmological argument only claims that the universe had a cause.  Yes WLC thinks this is God I would never deny that, but the Kalam Cosmological argument does not, nor was it intended to demonstrate that on it's own.  That is why we have subsequent arguments. 2) If I am defining God as necessary being, then anything which exists necessarily is God.  What you are doing is like saying, yes it has 180 degrees summed, and 3 sides, but that doesn't mean it has to be a triangle!  If the universe requires a cause that exists necessarily, then that is God. 3)  It does not mater if we haven't observed the universe coming into existence from nothing.  That doesn't mean it is impossible, nor unnecessary.  We don't argue that because the stars have a cause for their existence that the universe must either.  We observe that things don't just randomly pop into existence for no reason at all.  If they did, everything would at all times. 4) All TBS said was that we have always seen something acting on something else causing a change.  It is too tied to verificationism for me to take it seriously. 5) Saying that the universe cannot exist with nothing at all is not an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.  It just explains what there is; not why it is the way that it is. 6)  On Quantum mechanics.   You do realize that Edward Feser is arguing for the principle of causality.  Right?  You should be immediately aware that  this is not going to be arguing that quantum events are not uncaused: "The principle of causality itself does not make any claim about how exactly efficient causes operate in all of these diverse cases.  It just tells us that whatever the details turn out to be, any potential will only be actualized by something already actual." "Now for the Aristotelian, the substantial form of an inanimate substance is not the efficient cause of its natural operations; rather, those operations flow “spontaneously” from it, precisely because it is in the nature of the substance to operate in those ways.  (See James Weisheipl’s Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages for an important treatment of the subject.)  Hence that a planet exerts a gravitational pull is just something it does by virtue of its nature or substantial form; it does not need a continuously operating efficient cause to make it exert such a pull.  That does not mean that there is in no sense an efficient cause of a thing’s natural operations, but that efficient cause is just that which gave the substance in question its substantial form in the first place, i.e. that which generated the substance or brought it into being.  It is not something that needs continuously to operate after the thing is brought into being.  Hence the efficient cause of a planet’s exerting a gravitational pull on other objects is just whatever natural processes brought that planet into existence millions of years ago, thereby giving it the nature or substantial form it has.  Its exerting that pull is now something it just does “spontaneously,” by virtue of its nature.  (Mind you, that does not mean that it can exist or operate even for a moment without a divine sustaining cause; it cannot do so, for reasons I spell out in my ACPQ article “Existential Inertia and the Five Ways.”  But that is a separate issue.  What I am talking about here is whether there needs to be some efficient cause alongside it within the natural order that causes it to exert a gravitational pull.)" http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/oerter-contra-principle-of-causality.html Let me know if you think I missed something important because I just don't feel up to redoing all of that.

in his second quote @ 3:19, perfectly illustrates, why his definition is not justified... again its arbitrary... he is saying, whatever the cause was... is therefore attributes of god... the problem is, even if you want to say that... there is this book, have you heard of it? its called the bible,  if you can define the cause of our universe as "god" and that word has baggage from other locations.. therefore the God defined by the bible is the same one that was arbitrary concluded from conjecture... (Aka conceptual analysis) in other words, "i attribute the cause of this universe as being defined as necessary, and god is a necessary being, and the god i presuppose exists is the god of the bible, therefore the god of the bible is the nessary being i have arbitrary defined as a necessary cause. so the cause of the universe is the god of the bible" Great way to link the bible and your presupposed creator... by defining "necessary being" as god.

Owchywawa is very confused about what it means to be self evident. I.e., axioms are self-evident and are an example of being true by definition. Those things which are true by definition, such as, all bachelors are unmarried men, is an analytic proposition.