RE: In Defense of the Kalam
March 5, 2014 at 10:01 am
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2014 at 10:14 am by Cyberman.)
That's exactly my take on it as well. Saying the Universe had a cause is as far as you can go with those three statements, which is why WLC has to palm a whole deck of cards to get his god into the game. We already know the Universe exists and it is reasonable to suppose that at one time it didn't. Stapling a god on the end is just a pathetically obvious sign of desperation. You would be equally as qualified to make a logical chain like this:
1. Everything that is brown tastes of chocolate
2. Shit is brown
3. Therefore shit tastes of chocolate
And we know that the tastiest shit is the god of the bible/kerrang/whatever, because almost every theist from those camps love nothing more than to feed it to us. Therefore the god in those books must exist.
Edited to correct sloppy grammar.
1. Everything that is brown tastes of chocolate
2. Shit is brown
3. Therefore shit tastes of chocolate
And we know that the tastiest shit is the god of the bible/kerrang/whatever, because almost every theist from those camps love nothing more than to feed it to us. Therefore the god in those books must exist.
Edited to correct sloppy grammar.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
