RE: William Lane Craig
August 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm
(This post was last modified: August 14, 2011 at 2:39 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
What cosmological argument? You mean circular reasoning mistakenly referred to as an argument? The universe in the cosmological "argument" is only a consequence until you question it. Then the believers demand that you provide them an answer to fill the void you've left in their understanding of the universe around them. It's real easy. When some fundie asks you your opinion, you say "I don't know, and neither do you."
It honestly pisses me off to the point of being red in the face when people refer to what they believe as what they know, or somehow assume that what we know is subservient to what they believe. We've obviously failed these people as educators.
Calming down. The proper way to respond to the cosmological argument is to politely remind them that their premise and conclusion are identical, and that if they could come up with a premise that is not identical to the conclusion, that they would then have to show evidence of their assumptions. After that they would need to make a successful case for a specific god, since the cosmological argument only applies to a deists god. It makes no distinctions.
In other words, they have an assload of work in front of them. Not that this flag hasn't been taken up before. The cosmological argument is one of the oldest arguments for any god, if it was going to be made into an airtight case, it would have been by now. Once all of that has been done, then they would have an argument for the existence of a god, but they would still need to provide evidence before it could be called "real". An idea of a god, is not a god.
It honestly pisses me off to the point of being red in the face when people refer to what they believe as what they know, or somehow assume that what we know is subservient to what they believe. We've obviously failed these people as educators.
Calming down. The proper way to respond to the cosmological argument is to politely remind them that their premise and conclusion are identical, and that if they could come up with a premise that is not identical to the conclusion, that they would then have to show evidence of their assumptions. After that they would need to make a successful case for a specific god, since the cosmological argument only applies to a deists god. It makes no distinctions.
In other words, they have an assload of work in front of them. Not that this flag hasn't been taken up before. The cosmological argument is one of the oldest arguments for any god, if it was going to be made into an airtight case, it would have been by now. Once all of that has been done, then they would have an argument for the existence of a god, but they would still need to provide evidence before it could be called "real". An idea of a god, is not a god.
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!
