(June 12, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Ah...when I saw Simon Moon's post, I thought that must be who you were parroting.
And I dealt with those objections, didn't I?
No, the threads you gave me left me with the impression that in quiet discussions amongst yourselves (with no apparent theists around to close ranks around), a lot of you were still scratching your heads over how to deal with the KCA. I'm not sure you have even come to any definitive conclusions about whether the universe has always existed or not.
Parroting? Not exactly, as you may or may not be aware, what he posted is an accurate refutation of Kalam, which is you know, the same regardless of who's presenting it.
No, you didn't. You outright dismissed the idea that Kalam is special pleading, continued to disregard the difference between the two meanings of 'beginning to exist', didn't even address the composition fallacy by stating that Kalam was not trying to prove the universe has a cause (when it obviously is. Cosmological argument, remember?), continued to ignore the fact that we simply cannot comprehend what was 'before' the universe and in response to Esq you just said you don't know enough to debate it. You also refused to see the god of the gaps in your reasoning and made a weak attempt to tu quoque abaris who clearly said he was fine with saying 'I don't know' by saying atheists are using 'science of the gaps'.
No, Randy. You didn't address shit. And until you do, I'm done wasting time on your dishonest tactics.
