Michael, have you put me on 'ignore' or something?
Besides, all this is a derail: you were going to provide evidence of your Catholic God (not of a vague 'creator') so that we may suggest experiments based on the evidence. Please can you do so?
(September 5, 2014 at 9:12 am)Michael Wrote: ...all we get from the Kalam argument is that there is a first cause, an unmoved mover.No, we get nothing from Kalam because of what we know about the start of our universe: there was no time or space for there to have been 'causes', 'movers' or whatever you call them. Whatever 'happened' (for want of an accurate word), we can't know if it was person, mechanism, framework, n-dimensional interference... Automatically ascribing 'personhood' to whatever happened is a false claim that can't be supported by the argument. As I said before, the argument itself isn't even coherent because P1 fails.
Besides, all this is a derail: you were going to provide evidence of your Catholic God (not of a vague 'creator') so that we may suggest experiments based on the evidence. Please can you do so?
Sum ergo sum
