Big Bang Theory

[Truth Matters]

It's worse than that. He's following the Kalam(itous) model, which massages the terms of the problem such that not only a god but God is defined into existence. I'm sure I could concoct any number of scenarios in which I win every argument, as long as I get to define what the rules should be.

1) The KCA is not meant as a stand alone proof. It's one piece of evidence in a comprehensive case.

2) The KCA is meant to prove the necessity of those attributes historically attributed to God: Immaterial, Timeless (eternal) and spaceless, enourmous capacity.

3) You are trying to make a vice out of having a fully sufficient and plausible causal agency, when you have no possibility of any sufficient explanation of the absolute physical beginning confirmed by science.

---

It's very simple: I don't know if a god exists, but until evidence is presented to me that he/she/it does, I will be an atheist. And you haven't given any evidence for yourself, you've just claimed that science is wrong.

Then you are merely Agnostic? You have no position on whether or not God exists?

You are not entitled to call yourself an Atheist, then hide behind agnosticism to avoid any intellectual burden to justify your Atheist belief. That's just intellectual laziness and sophistry. You need a justification. Otherwise, your position is slop.

Of course, that's your actual problem. Your belief position is unjustified slop that you fail to defend in arguments evidence or reason.

I'm glad I can justify Thiesm in arguments, evidence and reason. I don't need sophistry to avoid accountability like you Atheists.

BTW I don't claim Science is wrong. I'm claiming science is correct. I'm claiming Atheism is wrong. Oh, the irony.