tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post1932628136261454994..comments2023-05-12T08:29:27.520-07:00Comments on Another Atheist: That Kalam argumentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post-92088164152034818222017-06-26T15:13:57.731-07:002017-06-26T15:13:57.731-07:00Given the plethora of problems outlined in the pos...Given the plethora of problems outlined in the post, you'll forgive me if I wasn't concerned about providing a refutation to Craig's philosophical 'infinity' argument. The theist's task is to show the premises are true. I'm merely outlining the Herculean task of getting Kalam to work. <br /><br />There's a reason Craig's arguments appear on blogs and debates, and not high-ranking, reputable physics journals. His talent lies largely in sifting through a large scientific literature, looking for a few nuggets he can distort and package for debates. It's a not a particularly honest, or respected approach to cosmology. <br /><br />Hilbert's Grand Hotel suffers the usual problem of wanting a deterministic and progressive process (say measured against an entropy arrow of time) to apply at the quantum level and to states where regular GR physics breaks down. Craig wants the quantum world to conform to reality above this level. It doesn't. It has no particular credibility. That's why cosmologists are still happily generating bouncing, or reproducing models of the universe in complete disregard of Craig.<br /><br />P2 remains in an unproven state. Kaimataihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11711401322378210834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post-67248626789237719422017-06-26T01:52:52.043-07:002017-06-26T01:52:52.043-07:00One more problem with this post by Another Atheist...One more problem with this post by Another Atheist is that it ignores the philosophical reasoning that the universe cannot be past eternal. This is a particular disappointment since this is Craig's main reason for arguing that the universe had an absolute beginning, with scientific evidence being a backup to that philosophical reasoning. To see how this is actually argued, you can see it from the transcript of a Defenders class by Craig at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast/transcript/excursus-on-natural-theology-part-9. The most relevant part is when he speaks about Hilberts (Grand) Hotel and the impossibility of forming an actually infinite number of events (there are some other bits in that transcript as well).Alan Cosseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06678090985040068738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post-2125724055950684822017-05-22T14:22:02.252-07:002017-05-22T14:22:02.252-07:00You claimed the answer was your deity. That exclud...You claimed the answer was your deity. That excludes quantum fluctuations. I merely asked to see your proof it wasn't. How odd you can't produce the relevant proof. <br /><br />Nor can you offer any evidence your deity is eternal and uncaused. That's kind of important. Especially when the slave-owners that invented your god, didn't do so until the Bronze Age.Kaimataihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11711401322378210834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post-44566164789688356262017-05-22T14:12:48.214-07:002017-05-22T14:12:48.214-07:00Please show proof that inflation was powered by a ...Please show proof that inflation was powered by a quantum fluctuation. That's an unproven hypothesis, as you very well know. <br /><br />Isn't this fun? Maybe you should unblock me now. 😉SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12701088659106844049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post-82417783531204063492017-05-22T13:53:09.874-07:002017-05-22T13:53:09.874-07:00You miss the point completely. I'm not provin...You miss the point completely. I'm not proving gods don't exist. I'm illustrating why syllogisms don't work as evidence.<br /><br />And all you did was redefine 'everything' to exclude your god. What a desperate and dishonest gambit to try! <br /><br />Kalam does *not* include deities in any of its premises. Your syllogism does *not* inlcude deities. Dieties are added as an AD HOC device by FAITH alone. <br /><br />Please show:<br />1) How a quantum fluctuation could not generate the inflationary expansion of a singularity.<br />2) your deity is eternal and uncaused. Kaimataihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11711401322378210834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post-61661494995964929342017-05-22T11:28:04.501-07:002017-05-22T11:28:04.501-07:00P1: Everything that exists has a natural cause (by...P1: Everything that exists has a natural cause (by induction)*<br />P2: Gods are supernatural <br />C: Gods cannot exist or cause anything that does exist.<br /><br />Yes - every "thing" has a natural cause. God is not a "thing," which is an "inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being."<br /><br />1. Everything material has a cause<br />2. The universe is material<br />3. The universe has a cause<br /><br />The universe began to exist ~ 13.8 billion years ago. What powered inflation and the start of space, time, and matter? The answer is an eternal,immaterial uncaused cause: GOD. SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12701088659106844049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1591986847602925234.post-10086591110830024982017-04-21T17:36:44.535-07:002017-04-21T17:36:44.535-07:00Good analysis. The KCA is dishonest in another re...Good analysis. The KCA is dishonest in another respect. It begs the question by implying that there are two sets of things - those that begin to exist and those that don't. The god being promoted is then designated at=s the only allowable occupant of the second set so that it is conveniently there to be inserted as the only allowable cause. Try the same logic but substitute a peanut butter sandwich for the locally popular god to prove the awesome creativity of peanut butter. <br /><br />Besides, by what logic was there ever 'nothing' in the first place? How can 'nothing' exist when 'nothing' is defined as not existing? There is no logical basis for assuming the default state of existence is non-existence. This is a logical absurdity.<br /><br />As with any religious apologetic which conclude with 'therefore 'God' exists', you can legitimately ask 'Which god?" and not get a logical answer. This invalidates the argument and shows it to have been circular and to have assumed its conclusion a priori. In other words, its a dishonest fraud.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.com