(May 12, 2016 at 7:09 am)SteveII Wrote:(May 11, 2016 at 9:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.
(May 11, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There doesn't -have- to be evidence against -any- premise. That's not how this works. FFS. You've just pulled the "prove me wrong" card.
First, It was LadyForCamus that objected that WLC did not respond to the scientific objections. I was wondering what they were. Second, the way this works is you listen to the premise and the support of the premise and offer defeaters (either undercutting or opposing).
The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia
Therefore, and this is the point so many of you are missing, it is not enough to answer "you didn't prove it!!!"
The first premise was presented in the link as:
1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
Let me give three reasons in support of premiss (1'):
1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.
2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!
3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...z48RDdCeQH
Addendum:
"Something cannot come from nothing" suggests that there even IS such a thing as "nothing." Another assertion you'd need to provide evidence for, before you even get to your aforementioned premise. Your excluding other possibilities, which I'm pretty sure is a logical fallacy, eh?
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.
