(May 11, 2016 at 9:37 pm)SteveII Wrote:(May 11, 2016 at 9:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Strange...I don't see WLC using any actual scientific evidence (he only gives it a shout out) to support either his grand assertions about the natural laws of the universe, or his responses to scientifically grounded objections.
All I see here are simplistic, condescending, and childish metaphors that should insult the intelligence of any average, grown adult: "Well, why don't bicycles just pop into existence, then?" Really, WLC?
So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.
Nope. Doesn't work like that
Claim 1: everything that begins to exist has a cause
Claim 2: the universe began to exist
Unless these scientifically grounded claims about the physical laws of the universe can be demonstrated by the claimant, then the entire argument is vapid, and I am free to remain unconvinced and unaffected by its conclusion...a conclusion that you can't even logically explain, btw.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
