Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[diver52]

And sometimes, Cinderella and Snow White are taught improperly. And then if thats the case...the parents who care to... can correct that improper teaching. Same with your beliefs on Noah. Keep it away from my kids, please and thanks, and I'll advise them on Religion according to when and how I find it appropriate.

And in the meantime you, like driver52, support a public education system that imposes your religion on other people's children. Got it, Adolf.

Sniff

I smell hypocrite.

I'm sure you do smell a hypocrite. But you can't smell over the internet so perhaps you should take a shower.

And it is Diver, not Driver.

 

[Meriweather]

Id rather take my chances on waiting until they're of an age that I deem appropriate.. to be presented with the Cults. And hell, if they ended up believing in one of them, Id sleep at night knowing that I did my due dilligence in waiting until they're at an appropriate age...and then allowing them the freedom to decide from there on their own.

Sure. Children should not be introduced to any sport or hobby until they are of age and understand the commitment and the potential for injury or taking attention off something more important. Perhaps we all should wait until we are in our thirties? (Yes, I'm kidding.)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Id rather take my chances on waiting until they're of an age that I deem appropriate.. to be presented with the Cults. And hell, if they ended up believing in one of them, Id sleep at night knowing that I did my due dilligence in waiting until they're at an appropriate age...and then allowing them the freedom to decide from there on their own.

Sure. Children should not be introduced to any sport or hobby until they are of age and understand the commitment and the potential for injury or taking attention off something more important. Perhaps we all should wait until we are in our thirties? (Yes, I'm kidding.)

^^

Not an apt analogy for brainwashing children with faith.

 

[diver52]

Except I do not trust that is what you mean. Nor do I trust that is what the teachers would mean.

Be assured I am presenting exactly what I mean. What cannot be assured is whether such a vision would be faithfully implemented in the way I propose. I doubt that myself because it is true that just like it is for the atheist parent who fears a child being brainwashed into a religious cult, a person of faith fears a child embracing a different understanding that what someone says in church/temple/synagogue. What you can trust is that people on both sides of the issue would debate my vision. Still, I hold the very strong opinion that children should be educated about (not for not against) religion and the philosophy of the human spirit simply because it infuses--and has always infused--society and cultures on this planet.

I am not assured. I am certainly not assured what a school board means or a teacher might mean. Perhaps your intention is pure, but you are not who will teach our children. They I certainly am not assured by. I trust none of them and I do not trust you. Much better to simply say no to the whole thing and allow those who are interested in religion to pursue that on their own. There is more than enough information out there for anyone to do their own study.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is a big difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion. I really don't believe you mean teaching about religion.

That's because you project your wont, lefty. In any event, Meriweather's notion is impractical and would just be another avenue of indoctrination for lefty. I vehemently oppose it. There is only one constitutional solution: universal school choice.

.

There is only one constitutional solution: universal school choice.

- in observance of the state curriculum, again that was the ruling of the warren court.

 

[Meriweather]

I am not assured. I am certainly not assured what a school board means or a teacher might mean. Perhaps your intention is pure, but you are not who will teach our children. They I certainly am not assured by. I trust none of them and I do not trust you. Much better to simply say no to the whole thing and allow those who are interested in religion to pursue that on their own. There is more than enough information out there for anyone to do their own study.

And the same can be said of history, science, literature, math, etc. It appears you do trust what is being taught students about these topics.

 

[Ringtone]

That is the question, is it not? I cringe at the thought of a school district board (or any other government agency) designing math courses let alone a course in religion and the philosophy of the human spirit. Grass roots? A different way of teaching such a course at private schools that become known and flow over into public education? Still, isn't the first step discussion, especially discussion in what is lacking in our educational system?

Sure. But you're not going to get an honest discussion with lefty. The only thing that lefty will ever understand about the rights of others—about the parental consent and authority of others—is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at his stupid head. That's not a threat, mind you. It's an observation regarding the state of mind of lefty. You can't reason with lefty because in addition to being a statist bootlick, he's a pathological liar, incessantly accusing others of precisely what he's doing in the state schools especially. He must be defeated. If we do not wrest control of the state schools from him and establish a public education system of universal choice in keeping with natural and constitutional law soon, America is finished. Put a fork in it and get ready for civil war. Millions are not going to be ruled by the socialist thugs, nihilists, hedonists and degenerates the state schools are turning out like sausages.

Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the same can be said of history, science, literature, math, etc.

The difference being -- and this is an important one, so pay attention -- math is the same for everyone. Everywhere. Science? Same. Historical events? Same.

Literature? You DO know they teach that it is fiction... Right?

 

[Ringtone]

And the same can be said of history, science, literature, math, etc. It appears you do trust what is being taught students about these topics.

driver52 just lives in a fantasy world where institutions of education exist in ideological vacuums in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[BreezeWood]

That is the question, is it not? I cringe at the thought of a school district board (or any other government agency) designing math courses let alone a course in religion and the philosophy of the human spirit. Grass roots? A different way of teaching such a course at private schools that become known and flow over into public education? Still, isn't the first step discussion, especially discussion in what is lacking in our educational system?

Sure. But you're not going to get an honest discussion with lefty. The only thing that lefty will ever understand about the rights of others—about the parental consent and authority of others—is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at his stupid head. That's not a threat, mind you. It's an observation regarding the state of mind of lefty. You can't reason with lefty because in addition to being a statist bootlick, he's a pathological liar, incessantly accusing others of precisely what he's doing in the state schools especially. He must be defeated. If we do not wrest control of the state schools from him and establish a public education system of universal choice in keeping with natural and constitutional law soon, America is finished. Put a fork in it and get ready for civil war. Millions are not going to be ruled by the socialist thugs, nihilists, hedonists and degenerates the state schools are turning out like sausages.

Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state

.

Millions are not going to be ruled by ...

anything less than the state is a cult - no cult should be in charge of public education, too bad for you that is what was terminated in the 50's. an arrow to the heart of the bible belt, squirm all you like. humpty dumpty never got back together again and neither will you.

 

[Meriweather]

Sure. But you're not going to get an honest discussion with lefty. The only thing that lefty will ever understand about the rights of others—about the parental consent and authority of others—is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at his stupid head. That's not a threat, mind you. It's an observation regarding the state of mind of lefty. You can't reason with lefty because in addition to being a statist bootlick, he's a pathological liar, incessantly accusing others of precisely what he's doing in the state schools especially. He must be defeated. If we do not wrest control of the state schools from him and establish a public education system of universal choice in keeping with natural and constitutional law soon, America is finished. Put a fork in it and get ready for civil war. Millions are not going to be ruled by the socialist thugs, nihilists, hedonists and degenerates the state schools are turning out like sausages.

I overlook labels and insulting words towards anyone. It goes back to "Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; actions become habits and habits decide destiny. That goes for individuals and it goes for nations. A wise man once told me that we don't get what we deserve; we get that for which we negotiate. School choice is a good place in which to begin negotiations.

This nations would be better off if we quit thinking of politics as a team sport with a winner and a loser. We need to think of it as where we can begin negotiations so that all feel they are being heard and recognized.

My proposal are classes that are an elective. No one is forced into these classes. If there is no interest, there would be no classes; if there is an interest...why should either side be unhappy?

 

[diver52]

I am not assured. I am certainly not assured what a school board means or a teacher might mean. Perhaps your intention is pure, but you are not who will teach our children. They I certainly am not assured by. I trust none of them and I do not trust you. Much better to simply say no to the whole thing and allow those who are interested in religion to pursue that on their own. There is more than enough information out there for anyone to do their own study.

And the same can be said of history, science, literature, math, etc. It appears you do trust what is being taught students about these topics.

.Yes, I do. I have already told you I was a student when what you wanted was happening. I know what that means. I know what happened then and I do not trust any assurances about what would happen if it is brought back. Your good intentions had its shot at me, it will not have its shot at my grandchildren.

 

[Meriweather]

The difference being -- and this is an important one, so pay attention -- math is the same for everyone. Everywhere. Science? Same. Historical events? Same.

Literature? You DO know they teach that it is fiction... Right?

We are on different trains of thought. Actually, as every teacher knows, math, science, history, literature are not the same for everyone, but perhaps only teachers are able to see the distinctions. Each student is unique, and each student's perception of each subject may vary from the norm. Also, there are many ways of teaching or presenting a lesson.

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, I do. I have already told you I was a student when what you wanted was happening. I know what that means. I know what happened then and I do not trust any assurances about what would happen if it is brought back. Your good intentions had its shot at me, it will not have its shot at my grandchildren.

Back in the fifties, you were at a school who offered these types of classes as an elective? What grade levels?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, as every teacher knows, math, science, history, literature are not the same for everyone

Hmm, no, you are just saying things that sound nice to yourself. No teacher would say that mathematics is different for everyone. Same for science. And, again, with literature, it is taught from the start that it is fiction.

You're not sidestepping this one. Pointing out the similarities with religion that "beliefs are expressed" (which is the short version of your careful obliqueness) ignores all the differences. And you can't account for them. So instead we are treated to nonsense like, "Math is different for everyone. Every teacher knows that!"

Come on.

 

[Ringtone]

Alex O'Connor is a successful youtuber that actually studies philosophy @University and has the nuts to debate in person..

and hes only like 19.

And ringtone's "epic" take down of the 19yr old kid was a wall of TEXT on a youtube discussion board...i.e. the part of youtube that nobody even uses, because theres no "tube"...and alex doesnt even know it exists

O'Connor is a third-rate hack with a British accent. By the age of 19, I'd already read most of the pertinent literature from Moses to Aristotle to Hume to Descartes and beyond, and O'Connor is very much aware of my critique.

Behold the caliber of O'Connor's . . . snort . . . apologetics. . . .



From "A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument":

Excerpt:

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (O'Connor's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent. But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether O'Connor is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a noncontingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom!

Right over his head.

Apparently, O'Connor lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble.

No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternally self-subsistent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a snot-nosed teenybopper—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards.

(Earth to O'Connor: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . . At 5:00, O'Connor opines:

A few centuries earlier in fact in Islamic theological circles people like Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali were talking about this very thing and they effectively changed one of the premises. Instead of saying that everything has a cause, now all of a sudden it's everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's the change they made, and that's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

That's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument?!

A bit later in the video, O'Connor says: "Let it not be said that I tamper with anyone's premises".

It will be said, and it will be said by me.​

A little history. . . . Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is dramatically different from that of classical theism. Given the divisibility of magnitude (or mass), Aristotle held that God's existence is axiomatic. Aristotle's primary concern was to establish an ontological justification for his cosmology and the physics thereof, wherein the Prime Unmoved Mover and the several dozen subordinate unmoved movers are discrete individual beings of an immaterial substance that affect change and the uniform circular motion of the celestial spheres in time. The celestial spheres comprise the astronomical infrastructure of the co-eternal, geocentric universe. While the unmoved movers are independent beings in terms of their essence residing in the highest heaven beyond the outermost celestial spheres of magnitude, their existence is contingently bound to the physical universe and vice versa. Though Aristotle doesn't satisfactorily account for how divisible magnitude could be temporally infinite, there is no everything has a cause of its existence in Aristotelian cosmology either, and while Aristotle played lip service to the created gods (or immortals) of the Hellenistic pantheon, there's no reason to think that he actually believed they existed.

Islamic philosophers seized on Aristotle's terminology and related it to the eternally self-subsistent and wholly transcendent Creator of all other things that exist. They developed two distinct lines of the cosmological argument: (1) the impossibility of an infinite regress of causation, albeit, in terms of contingency (the argument of a necessary existent) and (2) the impossibility of an infinite regress in time (the argument from the absurdities of an actual infinity). These are also referred to as the vertical and horizontal versions of the cosmological, respectively, and the ontological justification for both is the logical necessity of eternalism.​

Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna, 980–1037 A.D.) extrapolated the argument from contingency, which was further developed by Aquinas (1225–1274 A.D.). However, the Christian theologian and early empiricist philosopher John Philoponus of the 5th Century was actually the first to argue from the impossibility of an infinite regress in Against Aristotle wherein he not only refuted a temporally infinite universe but the credibility of Aristotelian cosmology concerning the composition of the lower heavens and celestial spheres.

Following the arguments of Philoponus, Al-Kindi (801–873 A.D.) composed the first formal version of the horizontal cosmological: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." (I don't remember when exactly, but I encountered an article written by someone who wrongfully attributes this formulation to Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali uses it, but it didn't originate with him.)

Aristotle himself understood that an actual infinity is impossible; i.e., the physical universe couldn't be spatially infinite. Philoponus and Al-Kindi argued that precisely because the universe is divisible magnitude as Aristotle points out, nothing about the universe could be infinite. An infinite past would be an actual infinity. Absurdity! Hence, the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Philoponus and Al-Kindi's primary interest was to evince why no divisible entity could possibly be the necessary existent and invited one to conclude that only an indivisible and, therefore, timelessly immaterial entity could be the necessary existent.

While Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 A.D.) wholeheartedly agreed, he was dissatisfied with the unnecessary ambiguity of the argument. Like Philoponus and Al-Kindi before him, he argued that the universe is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena, and given that an actual infinite is impossible, such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity. Then Al-Ghazali brilliantly observed that not only must the universe have a timeless cause of its existence, but this timeless cause must be a personal free agent; for if the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical. This would mean that the cause could never exist sans its effect, as from eternity the sufficient causal conditions for the effect to occur are given.

As explained by Craig:

The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. . . . Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to a Personal Creator.​

Hence, Al-Ghazali appends the syllogism per his ontological analysis of the properties of the cause. Known today as the Kalam, it's this version of the argument that came to the medieval Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74 A.D.), and it's this version that's championed by Craig et al. today with the very same philosophical supports for the second (or pivotal) premise, albeit, as decisively supplemented by Al-Ghazali's personal-impersonal distinction. Craig et al. have since mathematically and analogously elaborated on the philosophical supports and formulated a syllogistic expression of Al-Ghazali's ontological analysis.

Note that neither of the main premises were ever changed. Of course, they were never changed! O'Connor's notion is conceptually absurd, and his chronology regarding the historical development of the Kalam is nonsensical. Only the philosophical support for the second premise, deduced from the first principles of metaphysics, was revised, and the first premise is a metaphysical axiom! Axioms don't require additional proof. They are proofs (or logical necessities) in and of themselves.
​

That's just a taste. Your boy has a whole lot of reading and thinking to do to catch up with me . . . and I'm only 28.

​

 

[Ringtone]

I'm sure you do smell a hypocrite. But you can't smell over the internet so perhaps you should take a shower.

And it is Diver, not Driver.

I wasn't talking to you, Diver52. G.T. is the hypocrite. You might be one too, but all I know about you so far is that you're a cryptic mumbler of doublespeak: freedom is tyranny!

 

[Ringtone]

I overlook labels and insulting words towards anyone. It goes back to "Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; actions become habits and habits decide destiny. That goes for individuals and it goes for nations. A wise man once told me that we don't get what we deserve; we get that for which we negotiate. School choice is a good place in which to begin negotiations.

This nations would be better off if we quit thinking of politics as a team sport with a winner and a loser. We need to think of it as where we can begin negotiations so that all feel they are being heard and recognized.

My proposal are classes that are an elective. No one is forced into these classes. If there is no interest, there would be no classes; if there is an interest...why should either side be unhappy?

I overlook them to a point. But I don't take guff from fools, and diver52 is a fool. The man is at least twice my age and still living in the fantasy world of ideological vacuums while he thinks to lecture me and lie about the contents of my post. Now the fool is calling me a hypocrite. For what?

 

[BreezeWood]

I overlook labels and insulting words towards anyone. It goes back to "Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; actions become habits and habits decide destiny. That goes for individuals and it goes for nations. A wise man once told me that we don't get what we deserve; we get that for which we negotiate. School choice is a good place in which to begin negotiations.

This nations would be better off if we quit thinking of politics as a team sport with a winner and a loser. We need to think of it as where we can begin negotiations so that all feel they are being heard and recognized.

My proposal are classes that are an elective. No one is forced into these classes. If there is no interest, there would be no classes; if there is an interest...why should either side be unhappy?

I overlook them to a point. But I don't take guff from fools, and diver52 is a fool. The man is at least twice my age and still living in the fantasy world of ideological vacuums, and it was his generation that saddled mine with an education system that sexualizes children, teaches them to hate America and live in fear of everything that moves. Lefty must be defeated.

.

Lefty must be defeated.

the role of christianity since the 4th century ... some religion you have there ringtone worshiping a concocted messiah, yours being among the worst. as recorded throughout history.

 

[G.T.]

Alex O'Connor is a successful youtuber that actually studies philosophy @University and has the nuts to debate in person..

and hes only like 19.

And ringtone's "epic" take down of the 19yr old kid was a wall of TEXT on a youtube discussion board...i.e. the part of youtube that nobody even uses, because theres no "tube"...and alex doesnt even know it exists

O'Connor is a third-rate hack with a British accent. By the age of 19, I'd already read most of the pertinent literature from Moses to Aristotle to Hume to Descartes and beyond, and O'Connor is very much aware of my critique.

Behold the caliber of O'Connor's . . . snort . . . apologetics. . . .



From "A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument":

Excerpt:

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (O'Connor's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent. But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether O'Connor is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a noncontingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom!

Right over his head.

Apparently, O'Connor lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble.

No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternally self-subsistent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a snot-nosed teenybopper—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards.

(Earth to O'Connor: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . . At 5:00, O'Connor opines:

A few centuries earlier in fact in Islamic theological circles people like Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali were talking about this very thing and they effectively changed one of the premises. Instead of saying that everything has a cause, now all of a sudden it's everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's the change they made, and that's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

That's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument?!

A bit later in the video, O'Connor says: "Let it not be said that I tamper with anyone's premises".

It will be said, and it will be said by me.​

A little history. . . . Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is dramatically different from that of classical theism. Given the divisibility of magnitude (or mass), Aristotle held that God's existence is axiomatic. Aristotle's primary concern was to establish an ontological justification for his cosmology and the physics thereof, wherein the Prime Unmoved Mover and the several dozen subordinate unmoved movers are discrete individual beings of an immaterial substance that affect change and the uniform circular motion of the celestial spheres in time. The celestial spheres comprise the astronomical infrastructure of the co-eternal, geocentric universe. While the unmoved movers are independent beings in terms of their essence residing in the highest heaven beyond the outermost celestial spheres of magnitude, their existence is contingently bound to the physical universe and vice versa. Though Aristotle doesn't satisfactorily account for how divisible magnitude could be temporally infinite, there is no everything has a cause of its existence in Aristotelian cosmology either, and while Aristotle played lip service to the created gods (or immortals) of the Hellenistic pantheon, there's no reason to think that he actually believed they existed.

Islamic philosophers seized on Aristotle's terminology and related it to the eternally self-subsistent and wholly transcendent Creator of all other things that exist. They developed two distinct lines of the cosmological argument: (1) the impossibility of an infinite regress of causation, albeit, in terms of contingency (the argument of a necessary existent) and (2) the impossibility of an infinite regress in time (the argument from the absurdities of an actual infinity). These are also referred to as the vertical and horizontal versions of the cosmological, respectively, and the ontological justification for both is the logical necessity of eternalism.​

Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna, 980–1037 A.D.) extrapolated the argument from contingency, which was further developed by Aquinas (1225–1274 A.D.). However, the Christian theologian and early empiricist philosopher John Philoponus of the 5th Century was actually the first to argue from the impossibility of an infinite regress in Against Aristotle wherein he not only refuted a temporally infinite universe but the credibility of Aristotelian cosmology concerning the composition of the lower heavens and celestial spheres.

Following the arguments of Philoponus, Al-Kindi (801–873 A.D.) composed the first formal version of the horizontal cosmological: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." (I don't remember when exactly, but I encountered an article written by someone who wrongfully attributes this formulation to Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali uses it, but it didn't originate with him.)

Aristotle himself understood that an actual infinity is impossible; i.e., the physical universe couldn't be spatially infinite. Philoponus and Al-Kindi argued that precisely because the universe is divisible magnitude as Aristotle points out, nothing about the universe could be infinite. An infinite past would be an actual infinity. Absurdity! Hence, the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Philoponus and Al-Kindi's primary interest was to evince why no divisible entity could possibly be the necessary existent and invited one to conclude that only an indivisible and, therefore, timelessly immaterial entity could be the necessary existent.

While Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 A.D.) wholeheartedly agreed, he was dissatisfied with the unnecessary ambiguity of the argument. Like Philoponus and Al-Kindi before him, he argued that the universe is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena, and given that an actual infinite is impossible, such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity. Then Al-Ghazali brilliantly observed that not only must the universe have a timeless cause of its existence, but this timeless cause must be a personal free agent; for if the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical. This would mean that the cause could never exist sans its effect, as from eternity the sufficient causal conditions for the effect to occur are given.

As explained by Craig:

The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. . . . Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to a Personal Creator.​

Hence, Al-Ghazali appends the syllogism per his ontological analysis of the properties of the cause. Known today as the Kalam, it's this version of the argument that came to the medieval Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74 A.D.), and it's this version that's championed by Craig et al. today with the very same philosophical supports for the second (or pivotal) premise, albeit, as decisively supplemented by Al-Ghazali's personal-impersonal distinction. Craig et al. have since mathematically and analogously elaborated on the philosophical supports and formulated a syllogistic expression of Al-Ghazali's ontological analysis.

Note that neither of the main premises were ever changed. Of course, they were never changed! O'Connor's notion is conceptually absurd, and his chronology regarding the historical development of the Kalam is nonsensical. Only the philosophical support for the second premise, deduced from the first principles of metaphysics, was revised, and the first premise is a metaphysical axiom! Axioms don't require additional proof. They are proofs (or logical necessities) in and of themselves.
​

That's just a taste. Your boy has a whole lot of reading and thinking to do to catch up with me . . . and I'm only 28.

​

Aside from being psychotic and hoish obsession, thats full of appeal to authority, false inference, and baseless assertion. And if ya dont believe me, go claim your nobel prize youve done it!!!!!

Idiot.