RE: God is so quiet
February 13, 2018 at 4:24 am
(This post was last modified: February 13, 2018 at 4:27 am by GrandizerII.)
Ok, back home, and quite a bit to go through. So I'll just do a brief post here instead of directly responding to Steve's last posts here. So to start with, Jormungandr eloquently pointed out what the apologetics agenda is. The way Steve is arguing for the necessity of his God, one can use a similar approach to argue the universe/cosmos is necessary as well. And the grander the cosmos (especially with multiple universes and even multiple multiverses), the more "appropriate" it is to argue that the cosmos, by definition, is necessary because then it wouldn't be the cosmos. But Steve can't have that, as he needs God to be the only being to be necessary. He's also not adequately addressing how God is not contingent considering he needs "somewhere" to be (as Khemikal pointed out several times by now). And as LadyofCamus pointed out, if reality/existence is necessary, then why need God in the first place? And one of the points I raised is why we should even consider the logical possibility of Steve's personal God when he is described in such absurd ways as "spaceless" and "timeless" when he is/acts otherwise. Steve talks a big talk about how this isn't logically problematic, but whenever I work this on paper, it does seem like there are some logical contradictions going on. Handwaving these logical concerns isn't solving them.
By the way, pretty sure Sean Carroll ended the debate on what the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies regarding time by having Vilenkin (I think) make it clear to WLC and the listeners of their debate that the theorem doesn't imply there was a beginning to time or universe or whatever.
By the way, pretty sure Sean Carroll ended the debate on what the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies regarding time by having Vilenkin (I think) make it clear to WLC and the listeners of their debate that the theorem doesn't imply there was a beginning to time or universe or whatever.
