tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post9119355918412981567..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: William Lane Craig's Logical KalamityRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-44995463398343164772013-07-24T13:15:29.848+01:002013-07-24T13:15:29.848+01:00Let's go back to the old and trusted chestnut,...Let's go back to the old and trusted chestnut, where did your god come from? Out of nothing?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01605173019530482894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-68278629498986286592013-01-01T01:55:14.957+00:002013-01-01T01:55:14.957+00:00BTW, what is your reason for assuming that non-exi...BTW, what is your reason for assuming that non-existence is the default state of existence in the first place, and what definition of 'nothing' are you using to justify that assumption?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-26614899267204903772013-01-01T01:52:59.555+00:002013-01-01T01:52:59.555+00:00You appear to have merely repeated Lane Craig'...You appear to have merely repeated Lane Craig's logical fallacy and to have forgotten to say how you and he decided what should be in the set of things which don't begin to exist and why you have, apparently without any justification, limited it to the god you want to beg the question with to arrive at your intended conclusion.<br /><br />Perhaps you would like to run through your reasoning here, including why anything natural has been excluded.<br /><br />After all, that was the entire point of the blog and you wouldn't want readers to think you were just trying to create the impression that you <b>could</b> have explained it if you had wanted to when you couldn't really, would you?<br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-71428518575521576172012-12-31T21:40:20.945+00:002012-12-31T21:40:20.945+00:00I think Craig's reasoning is being misrepresen...I think Craig's reasoning is being misrepresented here, or at least abbreviated to the point of absurdity. Because there is general consensus among cosmologists that at the Big Bang the universe came into existence from literally nothing, then the CAUSE of the universe cannot be something that came into existence as a component of it, such as space, time, matter, and energy. Craig's argument in more detail is that a space-less, timeless, immaterial entity caused the universe. He posits that only two things possess those properties - abstract objects such as numbers, or a disembodied mind. Then he makes the conclusion that it must have been a mind since the universe does not necessarily exist and a mind possesses the motivation to cause it to exist. He argues that a god caused the universe, but through further arguments other than the Kalam, he posits the Christian God.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06026687971024275770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-52977434239675215952012-08-25T17:56:20.990+01:002012-08-25T17:56:20.990+01:00Oh, I posted a link to a short video explaining it...Oh, I posted a link to a short video explaining it. The traits that follow necessarily from being the cause of space and time redefine the thing that you are proposing. What you are calling a peanut butter sandwich would have to be timeless, spaceless, personal, intelligent, and powerful. So you are really just describing God, renamed, peanut butter sandwich. Richard Busheyhttp://thereforegodexists.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-40780392245509362112012-08-25T00:09:02.301+01:002012-08-25T00:09:02.301+01:00I'm surprised that, if it's that bad an ob...I'm surprised that, if it's <b>that</b> bad an objection, you appear unable to say why, and if it's <b>that</b> trivially easy to answer, you appear to be unable to do so.<br /><br />No doubt there is a simple explanation for these shortcoming...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-4648668442102765722012-08-24T23:33:11.997+01:002012-08-24T23:33:11.997+01:00Doctor Lewis Wolpert raised this bad objection dur...Doctor Lewis Wolpert raised this bad objection during their debate. He said that the cause did not have to be God. This was trivially easy for Doctor Craig to answer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUE10dY3Rc&feature=bf_prev&list=PLB5F1CFD398216BB6Richard Busheyhttp://thereforegodexists.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-3411600552615894932012-08-22T18:46:23.834+01:002012-08-22T18:46:23.834+01:00Also, this argument has other issues, such as caus...Also, this argument has other issues, such as causality being dependent on Time, which "began to exist" at the instant of the Big Bang. There was no "before the Big Bang" because there was no Time until the Big Bang, unless WLC would like to admit that he's speculating on things existing "outside" this universe, for which I would immediately demand supporting evidence.<br /><br />fromkentuckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17024430503689259860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-35341153923800511102012-08-22T18:35:22.719+01:002012-08-22T18:35:22.719+01:00The universe didn't begin to exist either, it ...The universe didn't begin to exist either, it simply changed form when the singularity expanded and became space-time.fromkentuckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17024430503689259860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-46267113427850781812012-08-14T18:27:54.520+01:002012-08-14T18:27:54.520+01:00Indeed. There are probably an almost infinite num...Indeed. There are probably an almost infinite number of members of Lane Craig's set of things-which-don't-begin-to-exist, all of them perfectly natural.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-78150182542636589392012-08-14T08:45:17.319+01:002012-08-14T08:45:17.319+01:00The multiverse could be something that did not &qu...The multiverse could be something that did not "begin to exist" and hence the origin of our universe is the multiverse. <br /><br />(or indeed, a peanut butter sandwich). <br /><br />@NullanVoidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com