RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 6, 2021 at 9:02 am
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2021 at 9:04 am by Angrboda.)
(October 3, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(September 23, 2021 at 5:03 pm)Angrboda Wrote: 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.
What a pretty strawman you have there, great job. You dishonestly omitted the bit where I said, explicitely: that I am defining a notion of time independently of the time that began at the BB, think about the word define real hard.
Time is already defined in Hawking-Hartle. If you add another definition then you are guilty of equivocation and your argument is invalid. Don't be stupid.
(October 3, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Hawking-Hartle's model doesn't help your case much, I suggest you find better arguments to rehabilitate your doomed position. The model clearly says, according to Hawking himself: that the universe has not existed forever. The sentence in bold is exactly the definition of beginning to exist.
Yeah, no -- seriously, how many times are you going to try this ipse dixit argument? One meaning of forever is "infinitely" so even if I took this quote at face value it proves nothing. Cite your sources in future or they will be ignored.
(October 3, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(September 23, 2021 at 5:03 pm)Angrboda Wrote: 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.
This must be the stupidest paragraph I ever read. If you rule out the laws of thought as dogma. then I am really proud to be called dogmatic.
And suddenly the law of the excluded middle became dogma, absolutely hilarious.
You have serious reading comprehension issues. Seek help.