RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 12, 2016 at 7:55 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2016 at 8:20 am by The Grand Nudger.)
SteveII Wrote:If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
............................................................
Quote: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.If you wish to point to this claim as support for some other claim, fine...but you'll have to remain consistent with it - and we both know you won't.
Quote: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!Why are you asking questions as though someone had to answer for your lack of imagination or knowledge, lol? Generally, when a person is supporting a premise, they offer explanations.
Quote: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.The science of cosmogeny is based upon methodological materialism and causal determinism, which, like the first bit of support you offered...we both know you won't be able to remain consistent with.
-In summary: It's insensible to point to authorities or authoritative statements that you will later deny the authority of: "These statements are true, except when they aren't..and my case is a case where they aren't". Fine, but why are we discussing authorities or authoritative statements that do not apply to the god you are proposing? Their truth in one case speaks to an exemption to that truth how? More confusingly...why are we discussing something and nothing at all? Where in the premise is either referenced...how could such a discussion be support of the premise -regardless of the truth of any proposition offered-?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
