Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[genkaus]

What do you think about the evidence of the finely tuned physical laws that created a life permitting Universe? How about the information in DNA?

---

Since more that 99% if the universe does not permit life as we know it, the tuning is not fine at all. Further, you have any evidence that some other form of life would not be possible with different tuning?

You're still running into the logical contradictions which arise from postulating an actual infinitity of past events. Actual infinities don't exist in reality. Transfinite math has no actual ontological import. I think you may enjoy this article:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/kalam.htm

---

Lots of errors in the argument.
1. While the author realizes that "before" and "prior" are spatio-temporal concepts, he fails to realize that so is "beginning". The universe cannot have a beginning for the same reason it has no "prior".
2. Common mistake while presenting Kalam's argument: proof of applicability of causality in absence of spatio-temporal context.
3. Special pleading w.r.t. god. If actual infinite cannot exist, neither can god.
4. Complete misunderstanding of Aristotle's argument against actual infinite. According to Aristotle, actual infinite means that it is a known set with infinite items. That is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist. If the set is unknown, it is potential infinite and that can exist. Further, Aristotle held that time was infinite.

The argument against time being infinite is that successive addition of units would not then lead to infinite. The hidden but implied word here is "finite", i.e. finite successive addition of units would not lead to infinity. But infinite successive addition cannot lead to anything but infinity.

It's not at all cryptic. Some Christians have reinterpreted the scriptures to accomodate deep time; I do not. The text clearly indicates they are 24 hour days.

Only if you are on earth.

If you're going to interpret by what scriptures say, the flood came 1500 years after the creation of Adam and Eve. The civilizations that existed before the flood were all completely wiped out, except for eight people. So hinduism is a post flood religion, and the reason it contains a flood story is the same reason that every culture in the world and in our history has a flood story. Because there actually was a worldwide flood which is still imprinted onto the collective consciousness of mankind. If you compare them, you will see the details all line up with the story in Genesis:

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

You cannot be more wrong. The flood was actually in Satyuga, which was much more than 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago, the Kaliyuga began which led to the corruption and misinterpretation of truth. The ancient flood legend was imprinted into the collective consiousness, but other religions got its timing wrong. Every religion is a post-flood religion, obviously, but according to the True Religion of Hinduism, others are false.

It's widely agreed upon that time and space began with the big bang, and I've shown you the evidence, from as recently as last month, which shows the Universe had an absolute beginning. Why do you refuse to admit this? It's interesting that everything suddenly becomes really vague and unknowable when we're discussing facts that lean towards my explanation and away from yours. You're now satisified with ignorance as an answer and we can just assume anything could be true about origins, as long as it isn't God of course.

Wrong. "Beginning" is a spatio-temporal contextual event. Therefore, space and time cannot have a beginning and therefore neither can the universe.

The real magic happens in the singularity, and you're perfectly fine with that. It's the thought of the Universe having an intelligent cause that you can't accept. You try to make this sound implausible but when you consider all of the facts it is a better explanation, which is how you are supposed to evaluate the evidence. You have no trouble in believing in something eternal, but it is just an eternal being that you reject.

---

Wrong. Causation too is a spatio-temporal contextual attribute. It is not applicable prior to the big-bang and therefore the universe cannot have a cause.

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmol...-argument/

Both theists and non-theists in the last part of the 20th century generally have shown a healthy skepticism about the argument. Alvin Plantinga (1967, chap. 1) concludes “that this piece of natural theology is ineffective.” Richard Gale contends, in Kantian fashion, that since the conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an impossibility, no cosmological arguments can provide examples of sound reasoning (1991, chap. 7). Similarly, Michael Martin (1990, chap. 4), as do John Mackie (chap. 5), Quentin Smith (Craig and Smith, 1993), Bede Rundle, and Graham Oppy (2006, chap. 3), reasons that no current version of the cosmological argument is sound (1990, ch. 4).

Yet dissenting voices can be heard. Robert Koons employs mereology and modal and nonmonotonic logic in taking a “new look” at the argument from contingency, William Lane Craig defends the kalām argument, and Richard Swinburne, though rejecting deductive versions of the cosmological argument, proposes an inductive argument which is part of a larger cumulative case for God's existence. “There is quite a chance that if there is a God he will make something of the finitude and complexity of a universe. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe…can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God” (1979, 131–2). In short, contemporary philosophers continue to contribute detailed arguments on both sides of the debate.

As far as I can see, the theists continue to present the same old argument in new forms and others continue to refute it. That does not mean the "debate" is still going on, it simply means that it is being repeated.