Your understanding of this topic is so minuscule. Please stop acting like you have a clue what you're talking about and read a philosophy of religion textbook.

>inb4 complaint about me denigrating you instead of teaching you the entirety of the field

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 9 2017 10:38am

presenting your pard religious soccer team:

Boom



A teacup could be the original uncaused cause of the universe?

No, you're being obtuse for convenience here.

His logic is sound. It is logic that isn't sound. Nature does not feel compelled to obey our grammar or 'natural' laws.

I'm going in a different direction here than Voyaging ofc.

Logic is handy when making long-distance telephone systems obviously

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 9 2017 11:15am

Logic itself is not the concern. There is nothing that doesn't obey our mathematico-logical laws (we created them to specifically emulate reality, remember). The concern is whether or not the universe itself began to exist (one of the premises), which it need not have.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 9 2017 11:07am

Bullshit. You like to sit there and talk down to people with your useless philosophy degree. I may not have the deepest understanding of philosophy but I know enough to know Craig's argument has no bearing on reality. Anyone not utterly braindead can see that the Kalam Cosmological Argument does nothing to prove the existence of the God of Abraham. It does nothing to prove that what it calls god is endowed with the properties of omniscience, infinite goodness or even consciousness.

So really - fuck off with your condescending bullshit. Not everyone wants to waste 3-6 years studying for a worthless degree and nor do they need to to understand and reject Craig's horseshit.

This post was edited by Scaly on Jan 9 2017 11:08am

Nature isn't obeying our math-logic laws, math and logic are internally consistent systems and like any other kind of inductive reasoning they are true because the conclusion is pretty much already in the premises, which is what we mean by saying something equals something else to begin with.

Math and logic are internally consistent because they are made that way, like an internal combustion engine. They're just more on the realm of abstraction compared to other man made systems.

I'm going to go on and say that despite us being clever beasts who have invented 'knowing' our star will cool and die and so will our planet and overall nothing can really be said to have really happened.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 9 2017 11:10am

You can't know what you don't understand.

You can keep going down the rabbit hole but at the end of the day your own senses have flaws and so do our brains.

Humans basically will have to have some type of huge evolutionary/technological event to really understand the beginnings of the universe because currently we can't even get past the mundane and complexity that is existence just being as it is.

Lol I'm a college drop out bud.

You seem to think that you are capable of having a conversation about a topic you've never even studied. You seem to think you are informed enough to argue against WLC's arguments despite never having read one of his books.

It's not my fault you're so arrogant to think you can understand a subject before even attempting to learn about it. You remind me a lot of climate change deniers. You think you're somehow an expert despite being completely wrong and think those who disagree are propagandists.

Your rebuttals of Craig's argument have mostly been attacking a strawman (because you refused to inform yourself of his actual arguments), or were from a misunderstanding of the argument (such as your analogy to a teacup).

People deserve to be called out when they refuse to inform themselves about a topic, then still have the nerve to act like they know better and to attack the person who disagrees due to your own misunderstanding. Just like climate change deniers, just like religious fundamentalists, just like yourself.



Nature doesn't obey our laws, but our laws were created to obey nature. We've invented a system (mathematics) that allows us to perfectly describe nature, through our theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. They describe nature in a perfect, mathematically precise way.

Although I think as far as their internal consistency, they aren't because of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 9 2017 11:16am

I'm saying that if you define God only as 'the original uncaused cause' then you are ignoring all the other properties that God is almost universally endowed with. Omniscience, consciousness, an interventionist interest in humanity etc. You might as well call a teacup God in that case.