Im hearing a lot of "WHAT IFS...", "COULD BES..." .... so that is to say
that you need more evidence to recognize that "our universe BEGAN to
exist". Here is one:
(1) In 2003, Arvind Borde and Alexander
Vilenkin and Alan Guth published a paper claiming to prove that the
universe cannot be infinitely old. William Lane Craig is fond of quoting
Vilenkin in defense of his Kalam Cosmological Argument:
It is
said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is
what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now
in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a
past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem
of a cosmic beginning.
Secondly, if you say that the universe
popped into existence by itself (such as boltzmann brains), out of
nothing (as if anything can do that)... it should easy to see many many
many many of such evidences in this universe. But since the predominate
EFFECT from the CAUSE of the universe is "...a cause always leading to
an effect..." it therefore goes to show that the universe can NEVER have
an explanation in and of itself why it came into existence by itself.
It has to be a caused greater than itself.
Also, to infer that
the universe COULD come into existence by itself would denote that the
universe started itself - hence, inferring from that which is common in
our EFFECTUAL universe, we can speculate the logically allowable
POSSIBILITY that the universe is:
- Personal
- Intelligent and
- Conscious
Laws
dont pop things into existence; neither do consequent materials (absent
of laws) ... the above qualities are things known in this EFFECTUAL
universe to pop things into existence.
If not, you maybe be showing greater faith than the theist.
Thirdly,
the KCA does not use the "God of the Gaps Argument" but KCA is an
argument for describing/ defining a PERSONAL, CONSCIOUS being that #may
have started our universe. This is an INFERENCE from what we see in
the EFFECT into what MAY have been in the CAUSE. The "cause" is the
"gaps" but we are not ignorant but rather "SPECULATIVE" of what we know
now, into the unknown. So the KCA is NOT a claim to knowledge but a
claim in BELIEF.
Extra-ordinary claims in this video (need extrao-ordinary evidence):
"Applying Knowledge Requires Time and Change"
"You dont need Omnipotence to Create a universe"
"We dont need singularities to explain our universes" - you haven't considered the numerous black-holes we have.
"Emotions
are bio-chemically driven behaviour..." - too much Occam razor is used
here. You forget we still dont know what the "MIND" is (3).
"Whatever
evidence we have involves a purely natural explanation" - mathematics
is not natural, but concepts, infinity is not natural, the "mind" (is
exclusive of the brain) is not natural (5).
the problem of morality is not compatible with God - so far, with the absence of God - morality is NOTHING but an opinion (4).
Evolution,
as defined per natural selection, is widely destroyed by the existence
of the cambrian explosion - Charles Darwin himself said that (6). So if
the father of natural selection thought it LOGICAL to doubt his own
evolution theory.. it is perfectly OK for theists to do the same too.
The belief that "Faith" is exclusive of rational thought OR evidence is erroneous. This is NOT theology. Here is my defense for
- rational faith:
James 2:16
- If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,"
but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? (7)
and evidential faith:
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the #evidence of things not seen. (8)
Isnt
it disingenuous to be postulation a lot of "what ifs...", " could
bes..." and impressing on us the notion of "I dont know" and yet calling
the people who stand by the KCA ignorant??? when you yourself CANNOT
know to know that we dont know???
This video has been nothing but
a huge rant about why you PERSONALLY and SUBJECTIVELY reject God. This
is nothing objective and it does not consider the argument objectively.
Nor even owning up to a POSSIBILITY that God MIGHT exist. You even took
your time to subjectively re-correct the KCA ... how pontificating can
you be??? You're an amazing guy lol.
Please reiterrate your knowledge about the KCA again first starting with (2).
God bless you - and have a nice life staying away from being self deceived.
References:
(1) http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8016
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
(7) http://biblehub.com/james/2-16.htm
(8) http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment