/lit/ - Literature

>>13287318
Or you can obliterate the fact-value distinction and start living like a human again.

>>10316077
>citing the views of historians on history is an appeal to authority if I can't cite their reasoning myself

Looking into it, the dating comes from it being given to Paul while in Jerusalem for his conversion in 33 or his conversion in 31/32. Historians attribute time to this creed being formalized and spreading. Hence it being dated to with 24 months of his death. His death, specifically, because the evangelizing of the church began at pentecost a little over a month after.

>>10215427
Generally so, yes. That's a good way of summarizing it.

Mainstream disagreements are usually:
>What caused the first mover?
This is leading to a claim of special pleading because they assumed the first premise was a universal "everything has a cause". In this they are just mistaken.
>talking about past causation or a big bang
Most versions of the cosmological argument, besides the Kalam, are focused on a constant sustaining causation rather than a chain of causation going back in time. As such, the chain they are speaking about is all in one instance. This is another case of the dissenter being confused. It's very common to critique the Kalam and see all cosmological arguments as if it was the Kalam.
>something about infinite chains of causation being possible and the defaulting to a first mover is just a way of handling a situation you can't understand
This is mainly just an accusation as the argument is logically sound in the respect they are calling out. There's no throwing in variables to make sense of things.
>mutual causation
That there is no chain of causation but rather they all are interdependent and cause each other. This honestly just has no grasp of causation.
>why can't the first cause be the universe itself?
Because the arguments speak an unmoved mover and the argument began with examining how there was movement in the universe. The universe can't be moved and unmoved at the same time.
>it doesn't prove Christianity is true
Which it doesn't intend to do in the first place.
>it's a God of the Gaps argument
This is coming from ignorance, thinking the argument just injects God at the end.
>composition fallacy
Well the burden of proof is on the critic to show non-contingency in the universe. Most work would show matter is inherently contingent.