• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Stephen Hawking and God


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#61 DAMABO

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Mars

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:06 PM

DAMABO of course I can have no evidence for the absense of an immaterial being, as I explained many times. belief in something immaterial is more faith, since there can never be presented evidence for it.


I assume you have no evidence for this statement either. How are these statements consistent? You have no evidence and yet you know for sure.

for materialism however, the evidence is plentiful. Nobody believes that things just pop into existence, that is correct, for every effect there must be cause. but if you postulate god, you will resort into postulating another god (etc), unless of course you think he is uncaused. If you think god is uncaused, you might as well suppose a more parsimonious explanation: the universe was not caused (this actually would be consistent with the law of conservation of matter). this way, no need for an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

God is uncaused and never begin to exist. We need to discuss the Kalam Argument elsewhere on topic.

How come you didn’t deal with the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem nor Hilberts Hotel since this is about Hawking. Since I have recently posted on BGVT, I will ignore it and give information on Hilberts Hotel at the end of this post. The point is the cosmos is finite no matter what model you use and infinity is impossible. You have said nobody believes the universe just popped into existence which is what we are talking about in this thread.

Wrong, a universe that has a beginning has to have a cause, (Kalam Argument) The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. The law of the conservation of matter does not apply here.

Consciousness is not material nor are laws. Read this paper.
http://www.pdfdownlo..._Laws_draft.pdf

Every real thing isn’t material (prove it) and the present limitations of the scientific method are causing you all kinds of errors. Let me identify at least two different kinds of real things.

THE MATERIAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws - see the paper I posted above relating to this. Laws may be immaterial.
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

THE IMMATERIAL WORLD OF INFORMATION. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules (and the possibility of breaking them) (maybe Physical Laws as well)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

Neither of these lists are exhaustive. For example where would we put consciousness and intelligence? Where would we put God? You are to simplistic and limited with your hard atheistic materialism. Saying that materialism is the only real thing is atheistic ir-rationalism.

Of course, I have no way of knowing that only that that which we can detect now, or will be able to detect ever with extremely advanced technology, is truth. however, to postulate the existence of immaterialism is quite inparsimonious, and impedes science itself, for explanations for what happened before, or did this event even happen, can of course always be explained by this immaterial being and never be rejected as an explanation. So whether, there really is an immaterial being would not even matter ( ;) ), since we would not be able to abstract any useful information of it, and it would only be a strong impediment to our science.


You sure know a lot about what you claim you can know nothing about and if you did it would be unimportant we are assured. Some things that are real are immaterial. Science has limitations but then science never clammed it could solve all kinds of issues. No one ever proved Science was the only way to know everything. Who proved science?




THE IMMATERIAL WORLD OF INFORMATION. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules (and the possibility of breaking them) (maybe Physical Laws as well)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

Consciousness clearly arises from the brain, if you define consciousness as 'being self-aware' (this is clear when the higher you go into the animal kingdom, the more chance it will recognize itself in the mirror). If you define consciousness as 'things that are alive, seem to react', a more scientific standpoint however would be to posit that consciousness does not exist, since we are but molecules brought into motion by chemical affinities. it should be clear that molecules have chemical reactions, and thus move and change, 'react' constantly. If you want to call in some spiritual, immaterial life force, you have been debunked many years ago by science: molecules are just as alive as people, so there is no distinction between living and dead.

Truth is a manmade concept. Meaning is a manmade concept. Are you saying that all human thoughts and concepts are immaterial? thoughts reside in your brain. Thoughts will be easily predicted (or created in AI in the future). Immaterial is a nonsensical concept made up to somehow lift humankind up from nature, from an extremely anthropomorphic standpoint (complex thinking should form some special thought world, very different from animals no, a soul or something? Wrong, less complex brains just give less complex thought.) Language is clearly located in your brain, or if you mean the sound, it comes in material soundwaves. messages are always in a material form. this one is clearly represented by a physical LCD screen or the other kind of screen, again soundwaves are clearly material. funny that you seem to believe all motivations are immaterial. motivations stem clearly from our biological disposition: to survive, and to reproduce. This distinction between material and immaterial is based on your the faulty reasoning that anything you cannot touch and detect (directly, without MRI for instance)does not exist in the physical world (and is immaterial).
I didn't say I believe the universe had a beginning. Even stephen hawking (who you quote as thinking the universe sprang to existence at the big bang) doesn't think this is the only universe, but rather a multiverse exists. So this multiverse would then be your universe. This multiverse is unexplored however. This is what the other person meant with ignoring his post.
Explain this hilbert thing. Why should infinity not exist? And, if infinity doesn't exists, your favorite speaker Marc Craig Lane (or something) postulates (in of those videos) that there is a 'timeless' being. Clearly, if infinity does not exist, then a being can not be timeless (eternal) can it? (oh no that's right, in the immaterial world everything which is not possible (if we try to be consistent with your argument) in the material world is possible, how handy).
The video, you mentioned, I have not seen but you said something of infinite space-time regression. Maybe you can talk to me directly about that, or whatever you wish to share (I'm usually to lazy to watch all those videos you send, so perhaps, if you'd wish, you can discuss the idea instead of posting videos; i like responses toward me to be direct arguments against what I say, so I don't have to listen to all the superfluous things, and can focus on what is relevant to our conversation, what your point is. See it as a challenge: my belief is that, if you can't tell it in you own words, you don't know what argument you are giving.)

Yes "I sure know a lot for something that no-one can be sure about": immaterial would be the last thing that would come to mind for any scientific explanation. And yes science is the best explanation possible with the current available methods. If you however believe that you are somehow smarter than the whole of science by making up concepts that don't have basis in physical reality (definition of immaterial) and can never be tested (side-effect of being immaterial), be my guest, that is what religion has always been about: prophets who claim absolute truth, with lack of any empiric/experimental basis. Speculation with lack of empiricism < speculation based on empiricism.

Edited by DAMABO, 13 April 2012 - 09:43 PM.


#62 DAMABO

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Mars

Posted 14 April 2012 - 12:15 AM

"Wrong, a universe that has a beginning has to have a cause, (Kalam Argument) The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause."
With that I agree. If by universe you mean 'the whole thing' then any theory that postulates a beginning to it is in violation of the law of conservation of matter.
However, a universe that did not have a beginning does not need to have a cause. There are many theories that don't postulate the beginning of the universe, as in plasma cosmology, or as said the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse does implies creation of new universes, but not necessarily the creation of the first one.
Even the big bang, normally, is not a creation ex nihilo:
Wiki gives: "According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly." Where does this say: the universe was once in a state where it did not exist?.

#63 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:44 PM

The problems created by religious people arise because they assume that whatever created the universe, (assuming for the moment that it is created) has to be an intentional divine agent, and that it matches all their preconceptions of impossible perfection. Obviously there is not, and can't possibly be, any evidence for this supposition, ever.

By the way, if you decide to waste some time watching these videos posted by shadowhawk, turn your sound down a bit. He has a screeching penetrating voice full of righteous indignation and stagey disbelief. He attempts to demolish Hawking's book by declaring that its position is an example of an obscure technical position in one of the more pointless backwaters of philosophy, and therefore is all nonsense. It reminds me of a short essay by Jerry Fodor, discussing evolution; halfway through he (metaphorically) flings his hands in the air and declares that for some very technical philosophical reason evolution is impossible and he's not going to waste any more time discussing it. Fodor of course has a reputation for winding people up and making mischeivous comments for his own amusement, unlike Lane who's outrage is probably proportionate to his vapidity and credulity. The best bet is to read the Hawking book yourself; it's quite cheap in an ebook version. You'll see then that the points Lane attacks are actually well developed and sensible.

#64 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:50 PM

Have just had a quick reread back through this thread and realised that one the more important reasons it is impossible to get sensible interactions with shadowhawk is that most of what he posts is actually quotations but there is nothing to separate them from his own contribution. If you dispute something he then makes nasty insulting remarks about who you imagine you are arguing with etc.

It is normal good behaviour to put quotes in quotation marks and to make clear atributions. Students who write essays like yours, shadowhawk, are failed, or if they are lucky, sent off to do a rewrite in the proper form. A marker with no sense of humour would accuse them of plagarism.

#65 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

"God is uncaused and never begin to exist. We need to discuss the Kalam Argument elsewhere on topic.

How come you didn’t deal with the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem nor Hilberts Hotel since this is about Hawking. Since I have recently posted on BGVT, I will ignore it and give information on Hilberts Hotel at the end of this post. The point is the cosmos is finite no matter what model you use and infinity is impossible. You have said nobody believes the universe just popped into existence which is what we are talking about in this thread."

The Kalam argument is one of the biggest piles of distraction in the history of conjuring. It goes to enormous effort to prove, like Hilbert's Hotel, that infinities are absurd and cannot exist and therefore the universe must be finite and have a cause, and then with a wave of the magician's hand produces an infinite uncaused being as the answer. True absurdity of the highest order, and when it is presented with all the strident smugness of Craig, truly painful to watch.
Hilberts hotel is equally pointless except as entertainment for teenagers learning about infinity for the first time. The example used to show the absurdity of infinities and therefore their impossibility is flawed. In case 1, the infinite hotel is full and all the guest, ie infinite guests, depart, leaving no guests; in case 2, all the guests with room numbers higher than 3 depart, also an infinite number, but this time leaving 3 guests. It is claimed that this shows that you can take away the same number, infinity, and get different answers, thereby showing that infinites are absurd and therefore immpossible. The sleight of hand here is linguistic; the amount subtracted is called infinity both times, but they are atually two different infinites. The same number is not taken away. In case 1, the infinite set of all numbers over 0 is subtracted; in case 2, the infinite set of all numbers over 3 is subtracted. The sums are not the same and the proof fails. Infinites may well be absurd but it isn't shown by this example.

Edited by johnross47, 16 April 2012 - 04:11 PM.

  • like x 1

#66 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:30 PM

Nice post.

#67 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:02 PM

We simply do not know.

So we can
  • become religious to find infinite anchors for the frightening uncertain aspects of our existence
  • become scientists to start an infinite journey to find out whatever we are able to understand about the challenging uncertainties of our existence
  • become forum philosophers to debate over infinite dogma's while at the same time changing pragmatics to dogmatics to avoid compromise
  • ....
Who sais we do not comprehend infinity? We are creating it this very moment.

#68 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:35 PM

Anyone who is curious as to what sort of person W. L. Craig is should read this item

http://www.guardian....liam-lane-craig

#69 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:53 PM

Anyone who is curious as to what sort of person W. L. Craig is should read this item

http://www.guardian....liam-lane-craig


And listen to what happend when Dawkins did not show up. :) Off topic and you quoted someone! Want to know what Craig is like? Here he is with Dawkin's empty chair.



#70 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:35 PM

That's a totally pathetic response. You keep accusing everyone else of producing no substantial arguments but then ignore them when someone does.W.L. Craig's abuse of Hilbert's Hotel to con people into one of his carefully contrived set pieces is a perfect example of the techniques used by this repellent bullying charlatan to "win" arguments. He is a highly intelligent and highly educated man, but unfortunately without the moral sense or decency to produce a straight argument. Unlike proper philosophers or scientists he starts off with the conclusion he wants to find and then sets out to build an enormous convoluted structure of pseudo argument to reach it. He never can actually reach it of course, so, like a conjurer waving his right arm in the air to distract from what his left hand is doing, he slips in an unsupported jump while the audience is trying to catch up with the preceding torrent of irrelevance. You might notice that his conclusions are always framed in the form of "the best answer is..." and not in the form of properly connected conclusions arising directly from an orderly sequence of premises. One day somebody in the audience will shout out, "No it isn't" and the emperor will be revealed in all his nakedness. The real best answer is "we can't possibly know" because the one thing all the science agrees on is that the physics doesn't go beyond the singularity.

If you want to do a bit of proper reasoning for a change, instead of quoting other people all the time, try getting your head round what I said about the use Craig makes of Hilbert's Hotel.

Edited by johnross47, 17 April 2012 - 10:38 PM.


#71 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:18 AM

That's a totally pathetic response. You keep accusing everyone else of producing no substantial arguments but then ignore them when someone does.W.L. Craig's abuse of Hilbert's Hotel to con people into one of his carefully contrived set pieces is a perfect example of the techniques used by this repellent bullying charlatan to "win" arguments. He is a highly intelligent and highly educated man, but unfortunately without the moral sense or decency to produce a straight argument. Unlike proper philosophers or scientists he starts off with the conclusion he wants to find and then sets out to build an enormous convoluted structure of pseudo argument to reach it. He never can actually reach it of course, so, like a conjurer waving his right arm in the air to distract from what his left hand is doing, he slips in an unsupported jump while the audience is trying to catch up with the preceding torrent of irrelevance. You might notice that his conclusions are always framed in the form of "the best answer is..." and not in the form of properly connected conclusions arising directly from an orderly sequence of premises. One day somebody in the audience will shout out, "No it isn't" and the emperor will be revealed in all his nakedness. The real best answer is "we can't possibly know" because the one thing all the science agrees on is that the physics doesn't go beyond the singularity.

If you want to do a bit of proper reasoning for a change,(Like You) instead of quoting other people all the time, try getting your head round what I said about the use Craig makes of Hilbert's Hotel.


This is all you have? Ad Hominems one after another. Not one substantial argument. Never is..No use arguing with a logical fallacy. :sleep:

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 April 2012 - 02:26 AM.


#72 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:18 AM

johnross47 The Kalam argument is one of the biggest piles of distraction in the history of conjuring. It goes to enormous effort to prove, like Hilbert's Hotel, that infinities are absurd and cannot exist and therefore the universe must be finite and have a cause, and then with a wave of the magician's hand produces an infinite uncaused being as the answer. True absurdity of the highest order, and when it is presented with all the strident smugness of Craig, truly painful to watch.


You have said nothing except your normal name calling. :sleep:

Hilberts hotel is equally pointless except as entertainment for teenagers learning about infinity for the first time. The example used to show the absurdity of infinities and therefore their impossibility is flawed. In case 1, the infinite hotel is full and all the guest, ie infinite guests, depart, leaving no guests; in case 2, all the guests with room numbers higher than 3 depart, also an infinite number, but this time leaving 3 guests. It is claimed that this shows that you can take away the same number, infinity, and get different answers, thereby showing that infinites are absurd and therefore immpossible. The sleight of hand here is linguistic; the amount subtracted is called infinity both times, but they are atually two different infinites. The same number is not taken away. In case 1, the infinite set of all numbers over 0 is subtracted; in case 2, the infinite set of all numbers over 3 is subtracted. The sums are not the same and the proof fails. Infinites may well be absurd but it isn't shown by this example.


The proof does not fail. The Multi verse is the issue and Atheists claiming if you have an infinite number of universes, one such as ours would have to exist. Since infinities are useful only in math but do not exist the point is made. What is the difference between one infinity and three? The issue is not just linguistic. I think the absurdity is shown by the example and Craig did not invent it. But I am not arguing with you, it appears. You have done nothing but repeat, how be it poorly, my point. :)
  • like x 1

#73 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 18 April 2012 - 05:15 AM

Hilberts hotel is equally pointless except as entertainment for teenagers learning about infinity for the first time. The example used to show the absurdity of infinities and therefore their impossibility is flawed. In case 1, the infinite hotel is full and all the guest, ie infinite guests, depart, leaving no guests; in case 2, all the guests with room numbers higher than 3 depart, also an infinite number, but this time leaving 3 guests. It is claimed that this shows that you can take away the same number, infinity, and get different answers, thereby showing that infinites are absurd and therefore immpossible. The sleight of hand here is linguistic; the amount subtracted is called infinity both times, but they are atually two different infinites.


Actually from the point of view of mathematics they are precisely the same infinity. Two sets are considered to have the same size -- to be equicardinal -- if they can be put into a 1-1 correspondence via a bijective map (a one-one and onto map.) Certainly the positive integers and the positive integers greater than are equal to 3 are equicardinal since the function

f(x)=x-2

provides just such a bijection.

I don't know if any infinity quantity actually exists, but the notion of infinity is not absurd; mathematically it is very useful. its just that one needs to be careful performing arithmetic operations on them -- sometimes it makes sense (or can be shown to make sense), sometimes it doesn't.
  • like x 1

#74 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 18 April 2012 - 08:12 AM

Yes, but there is still an important difference. Set one contains three numbers not in set two, which is why there are two different answers. The fact that they can be mapped is used by Craig to cover up the reason for the different answers.

#75 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 18 April 2012 - 08:21 AM

[

"The proof does not fail. The Multi verse is the issue and Atheists claiming if you have an infinite number of universes, one such as ours would have to exist. Since infinities are useful only in math but do not exist the point is made. What is the difference between one infinity and three? The issue is not just linguistic. I think the absurdity is shown by the example and Craig did not invent it. But I am not arguing with you, it appears. You have done nothing but repeat, how be it poorly, my point. :)"




I'll try to make some sense out of this gibberish. The multiverse is not the only issue. It is one of the potential solutions to the question of the nature of the universe that is currently being examined. All of the potential solutions share one common problem which is that we can only see the physics back to a certain point. The theists then make a jump without logic or evidence to insist that "It must be god," It is because he hides this jump in a torrent of verbiage and, up to that point but not beyond it, logic, that Craig is no better than a stage conjurer. There really is no link between his premises and his conclusion.

#76 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:09 PM

You have said nothing except your normal name calling. :sleep:


Stop playing the role of martyr and being the very definition of a hypocrite. It adds nothing to the conversation.

You throw just as many names at people and stereotypes around than the people you whine and cry about when it happens to you.

It is getting very very old.

#77 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:26 PM

I got involved in this topic because it happens to interest me, though it has nothing to do with why I'm a member of Imminst or take part in this whole forum. I happened to be reading the Hawking book at the time. If this topic was removed completely I would not really miss it; it is mostly frustrating trying to argue sensibly with someone like shadowhawk ; I would still come on here for reasons to do with life extension.
There is always a risk, in disputes like this one, that you will be sucked into strong polemic expression by the appalling behaviour of some participants. It does rather suck the joy out the exploration when it involves being deluged with intellectual dung along the way.

#78 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:33 PM

johnross47 'll try to make some sense out of this gibberish. The multiverse is not the only issue. It is one of the potential solutions to the question of the nature of the universe that is currently being examined. All of the potential solutions share one common problem which is that we can only see the physics back to a certain point. The theists then make a jump without logic or evidence to insist that "It must be god," It is because he hides this jump in a torrent of verbiage and, up to that point but not beyond it, logic, that Craig is no better than a stage conjurer. There really is no link between his premises and his conclusion.


No one said the multi verse is the only issue. Where? (Straw man) The Atheist makes the jump, there is no god. Tell me how logic can answer the big question, why is there something rather than nothing? No one is trying to hide anything and to suggest this is the true gibberish.

His first premise is: 1. Anything that comes into being has a cause.
From this he argues 2. The cosmos came into being.
Then it follows, 3. The cosmos has a cause.

What is not logical with this? No link between his premises and conclusion? Show me without all the Ad Hominem attacks.

mikeinnaples Stop playing the role of martyr and being the very definition of a hypocrite. It adds nothing to the conversation.

You throw just as many names at people and stereotypes around than the people you whine and cry about when it happens to you.

It is getting very very old.



Prove it. Ho Humm, more Ad Hominem attacks. That is all you got?

johnross47 I got involved in this topic because it happens to interest me, though it has nothing to do with why I'm a member of Imminst or take part in this whole forum. I happened to be reading the Hawking book at the time. If this topic was removed completely I would not really miss it; it is mostly frustrating trying to argue sensibly with someone like shadowhawk ; I would still come on here for reasons to do with life extension.
There is always a risk, in disputes like this one, that you will be sucked into strong polemic expression by the appalling behaviour of some participants. It does rather suck the joy out the exploration when it involves being deluged with intellectual dung along the way.



Good me too. I love the Ad Hominem attacks and logical fallacies I have to put up with. :laugh:


  • like x 1

#79 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:40 PM

His first premise is: 1. Anything that comes into being has a cause.

That's incorrect. Don't forget quantum mechanical effects.

From this he argues 2. The cosmos came into being.

That's questionable. case closed.

#80 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:41 PM

Given that you aren't making any arguments of your own to begin with and are instead regurgitating google searches, Ad Hominem hardly applies. I am attacking your behavior not the point being made by the people you quote.

I would welcome something other than your martyr crying and hypocrisy, but you seem to be unable to deliver.

#81 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:22 PM

His first premise is: 1. Anything that comes into being has a cause.

That's incorrect. Don't forget quantum mechanical effects.

From this he argues 2. The cosmos came into being.

That's questionable. case closed.


Hardly. Here is Craig on this point


  • like x 1

#82 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:38 PM

"No one said the multi verse is the only issue. Where? (Straw man) The Atheist makes the jump, there is no god. Tell me how logic can answer the big question, why is there something rather than nothing? No one is trying to hide anything and to suggest this is the true gibberish.

His first premise is: 1. Anything that comes into being has a cause.
From this he argues 2. The cosmos came into being.
Then it follows, 3. The cosmos has a cause.

What is not logical with this? No link between his premises and conclusion? Show me without all the Ad Hominem attacks."






I find it truly astonishing that you can deny saying things only a few column inches from saying them. People don't have to go back very far to see the facts. You said the "multi verse is the issue" just a little bit back this same page.
You have then missed a very important point in the version of the argument quoted (above) from your post. The next step is Craig's real conclusion....that god did it. You've missed that bit out, presumably because it is the unjustified jump that I
complained of. He produces no justification at all for his constantly reiterated claim that the universe was created by an infinite uncreated personal divine being who matches the god of the christian bible. ( a vile psychotic monsterous despot who favours rape killing robbery slavery etc. if the bible is to be believed.)

#83 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:53 PM

Let Craig peak for himself.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users