RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 16, 2015 at 11:52 pm
(February 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm)YGninja Wrote: And I refuted that point, we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion. Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist, to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.
(February 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm)YGninja Wrote: Quantum vacuums aren't 'nothing'.Everything observed is to come into existence is either a rearrangement of previous stuff or not. You, sound, emotions are a rearrangement of stuff. If you want to claim that they're not, then you cannot claim particles coming on of the vacuum are just rearrangement of stuff. Craig (and your fallacy) is the equavication of the rearrangement of stuff and nothing bringing forth stuff.
Quote:"Not knowing", isn't an alternative, it is not another possibility missing from the statement "you need a prime mover or an eternal regression", its a cop-out. There is no false dichotomy here, just "science of the gaps" argumentation. We're talking about logical probability, neither of us know anything. You've provided no logical justification of your objection, which only works if you can make an argument for an eternal regression.Not knowing is the honest answer. Your jumping to conclusions by creating false dichotomy. The false dichotomy you're espousing is if science isn't explaining it therefore god did it.
Quote:So your argument is that everything recedes into a point in time where we can no longer understand what is happening. This pretty much constitutes a beginning to me, as all you have is an argument of ignorance "we cna't know, it could be possible, some way, that there wasn't a beginning". You recognise we're looking at the matter probabilistically, and hence you should concede the point.You cannot use physics to posit a beginning if physics says it doesn't know. In fact, the physics says its current rules aren't valid at the singularity. The most resent attempts to reconcile the rules with the singularity shows no singularity actually exist.