RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
September 23, 2021 at 4:34 pm
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2021 at 4:36 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(September 23, 2021 at 3:07 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(September 17, 2021 at 12:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: The problem with Kalam is that it employs colloquial, generic, non-specific language to try and describe complex, technical hypotheses physics and cosmology,
Um.. that's a feature of the Kalam, actually. Technical details don't add much to the assertion "the universe began to exist" which has a perfectly clear meaning.
It does? What does it mean? That the universe just…popped into existence? 😏
Quote:What's ironic about your statement above is that atheists generally complain about how hard proving God is,
We do? All we ever ask for is evidence. You’re the one lamenting your god is protected from demonstration.
Quote:and when they are given simple, generic arguments that don't delve into the details, they switch to LadyForCamus mode.....?
Kalam isn’t an argument for god. You can’t even demonstrate it to be a sound argument for a first cause. Couching your premises in ambiguity doesn’t make them true.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.