RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
September 23, 2021 at 5:03 pm
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2021 at 5:04 pm by Angrboda.)
@Klor:
I'm going to be short because I'm tired of responding to your continued incompetence. In the context of Kalam, assuming that there was a time before a beginningless universe is begging the question and therefore an invalid objection. Otherwise you are talking about time beginning after the beginning of time, which is fucking incoherent. The whole point of models such as Hawking-Hartle is to show that time can be past eternal in the sense that all of time precedes the present, yet all of time is still finite. You keep wanting to stuff things into the requirements of your apologetic like a square peg in a round hole and only end up showing that you are bad at logic and believe that you understand things that you don't in fact understand.
Now, as to this law of thought deal, the idea that "past eternal" and "began to exist" are mutually exclusive is not itself a law of thought, it's just a bit of dogma that you have uncritically accepted because it fits with what you wish to be true. And dogmatically is the only way you've defended it. If it is nothing more than dogma, then it can be validly rejected without argument.
So both of your objections are crap and we are done.
I'm going to be short because I'm tired of responding to your continued incompetence. In the context of Kalam, assuming that there was a time before a beginningless universe is begging the question and therefore an invalid objection. Otherwise you are talking about time beginning after the beginning of time, which is fucking incoherent. The whole point of models such as Hawking-Hartle is to show that time can be past eternal in the sense that all of time precedes the present, yet all of time is still finite. You keep wanting to stuff things into the requirements of your apologetic like a square peg in a round hole and only end up showing that you are bad at logic and believe that you understand things that you don't in fact understand.
Now, as to this law of thought deal, the idea that "past eternal" and "began to exist" are mutually exclusive is not itself a law of thought, it's just a bit of dogma that you have uncritically accepted because it fits with what you wish to be true. And dogmatically is the only way you've defended it. If it is nothing more than dogma, then it can be validly rejected without argument.
So both of your objections are crap and we are done.