Time is a physical component of the UNiverse. Are you telling me that time came into being a finite amount of time ago?
I do not agree that time is physical, but yes I see no alternative to space-time being finite. In theory it may be an unbounded finite, but finite regardless.
Yes, like Thor with lighnings. A gap filling God.
My God was described by bronze age men with the perfect characteristics to explain the existence of the universe, I keep asking for yet have not yet been shown that Thor's original description makes his existence a god candidate for the explanation of lightening(s). Histories' descriptions concerning God(s) are not some monolithic set which must stand or fall together. It is disingenuous to suggest they do or should.
Bold claim. Impossible things entail a logical contradiction. and infinite regress, independently from being relevant for our reality, does not show any obvious one.
I think I will go with Aquinas on this one.
The Argument of the First Cause
In the world we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself, because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is
itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so therefore there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.
[
Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia
I don't need to read it. I am quite acquainted with Leibnitz's cosmological argument. And its modal version. I personally like it, even if flawed. Especially the part that goes from a necessary entity to that cause being conscious. For sure it turns Kalam into a ridicolous alternative. And it puzzles me that Craig does not use it as much as Kalam.
Wow, I have no memory of posting anything from Leibniz. You can actually ask Craig why he doesn't, I think he has been cloned or is a robot, because he seems to be everywhere, including responding to the question of laymen.
Mabe because of this:
Are you aware that the PSM entails the necessity of everything?
Public service messaging? Public sector management? Program staff management? You do to science what the Baha'i to the scriptures of other faiths. You turn models into reality, and reality into a model as they turn literals into allegory and allegory into literals.
Do you know of the hard problem of consciousness?
Or more importantly:
Do you know anything about HDMI and composite breakout circuitry?
i meant nobody in the scientific community. At least to my knowledge. As you correctly observed, their nothing is not your Nothing, usually.
There are many in the scientific community who have the audacity to define nothing the way it should be, however many atheists define nothing by it's opposite. Example being Hawking claiming nothing and gravity are co-equal.
Correct. I wonder why they insist with this nothing nonsense when it is much easier to defuse the whole causality and beginning thing without any speculation whatsoever.
I could guess at their motivations, but the mere fact they do things like this all the time is why I lost faith in theoretical science. I think it is because causation in this context is not a scientific issue but a philosophical one, which they have no competence in.
Scientific reasoning requires absolute precision. So, it is a fact that there cannot be an instant without time. Saying that time started at the same instant as space is utterly nonsensical.
I am not sure how to apply the labels here but I think you can understand that I am talking about space time having a beginning, there could have been some other time before space time (call it God time or something). The simplest way to label it is to say that the supernatural is independent of time but can break into time if necessary.
And as I said, it is like saying space and time started at the same location.
You need all three to come into existence together.
Where can that be? Can you pinpoint it for me?
That is an incoherent question. Space began to exist, all locations are contained within it. For years I kept asking where the location of the big bang occurred, only to eventually see it as a nonsensical question. Like asking where the corner of the circle is.
I would have been more impressed if it mentioned atoms. Like the ancient greeks. And not nonsense like water existing before the stars. True, you can apply some metaphors. But with a sufficient amount of metaphors, I could turn any book into a holy book.
My and my brother were discussing this very matter while playing golf the other day. He has forgotten more about math and physics that both of us combined will ever know. We both found Genesis perfectly descriptive of inflationary cosmology, with the exception of the water part. It talks about moving over the face of the deep, etc..... but I have no idea what that means. I think it does allude to atoms. I will look up both in the meantime and respond in more depth next time.
I don't know. But if I created time, I would have said it. Instead of restricting to the heavens and the earth. Alas, the more logical explanation for this omission is that the authors had no clue of what they were talking about.
If you keep in mind that whatever his description was it had to be intelligible to stone age - space age man. If you want to go deep concerning creation that is fine but you will need to be very specific. What verse, what you claim about it, what was omitted, the original language use, etc....
The Bible is like the Odyssey. interesting mythology with some truths. Which is obvious if we consider that the authors were humans living in some geographycal location.
If that was even remotely true then why are there not 4 billion people who gamble their souls on the Odyssey's claims? Why isn't the Iliad a primary archeological reference for even secular scholars?
But since Apollo and Jaweh share the same evidence, I cannot tell you why I should prefer the metaphysical claims of one over the other.
Where is Apollo's Vatican, then? I have no idea who Jaweh is supposed to be, but the bible (not his texts) is the most scrutinized and cherished text in human history? I am not saying that therefor the bible is true, just that they are not in the same ballpark as concerning evidence and textual integrity. The Bible has no peer.
Electronic holes are no-thing. And without them, semiconductors would not work.
My lab is packed with experts on semiconductors, if you can explain what your argument is and why it is relevant, I can see about whether I can agree or not. We aren't debating processors.
I told you. I don't know. But I can tell you that it must be. I don't know the internal mechanisms of many physical things, but I can tell you that they conserve energy. In the same way, those mysterious mechanisms must preserve information. Ergo, that ball cannot really be anywhere else.
So you cannot mathematically or physically account for a single choice (of your choice) out of a pool containing trillions upon trillions of decisions, but expect others to be persuaded by that? Most physics freshmen can explain the path of the ball once kicked, no one has ever explained through natural laws how the kid determined to kick it to begin with. Again ALL the evidence testifies to my worldview.
Bold statement. Prove it to me. Show me that raping children cannot be a moral value if there is a God that appreciates the raping of children.
What? That appears incoherent to me.
Don't you realize that you are setting a priori requirements on what God could be the real value giver, that assume in advance what is good and evil?
No, I found the description of a God pre-existing. I considered it as the explanation for many of our virtually universal beliefs and found it explained them perfectly. As stated, I found many holes in my puzzle but found corresponding pieces under the table. I conclude those pieces complete the puzzle.
This is not an explanation. It is trying to get out of the corner. You are perfectly aware that if homosexuals were virgin at marriage and faithful all their life, you would have nada secular arguments against that to show us.
So, all your pseudo secular arguments reduce to targetting homosexual male gays who are promiscuous. A minority of all gays. Not really against homosexuality per se.
Hold up, if you limited this to secular arguments I did not take that into account. I made biblical responses I believe.
My computer is screwing up again, let me just mention that you would have to be able to guarantee that the circumstances that define your minuscule sub category would remain stagnant. You also would merely modulate how unjustifiable that sub category of behavior would be, there are far more risks than just promiscuity and aids associated with homosexuality.
I will continue below.
