tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8327433573289996257.post147640762781293027..comments2023-08-09T03:07:43.408-07:00Comments on Why Theism is Irrational: William Lane Craig Cosmological FallacyAllocutushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07834876421376068213noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8327433573289996257.post-38690397437912431902013-04-18T04:58:43.065-07:002013-04-18T04:58:43.065-07:00Lane Craig's KCA is of course simply an attemp...Lane Craig's KCA is of course simply an attempt to beg the question and rig it so the only possible answer is his particular god, at least in the minds of his target audience. He does this with the subtle ploy of relying on the parochial ignorance of cultural arrogance of his target audience who won't question his implied claim that the only uncaused thing will be the locally popular god, the Christian god he is spinning.<br /><br />Of course, to do this, he must never say how he examined all things to determine which should be in his implied set of things which don't begin to exist and which shouldn't. The question of whether a natural process can be included in this set is never asked or answered because that would give the game away and expose the trick.<br /><br />Thus he arrives at a question which he has rigged by including only the required answer <i>a priori</i>. You can try this for yourself by assuming something else is uncause, allowing only that to occupy your set of things which are uncaused and applying Lane Craig's 'logic' to prove it cause the Universe. My favourite is a peanut butter sandwich; others may prefer a chocolate teapot or a Spaghetti Monster.<br /><br />In effect, Lane Craig's KCA, if he actually believes it, is nothing more than the assertion that his god exists because he believes it does.<br /><br /><br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8327433573289996257.post-88674665733210866192012-10-29T01:00:41.635-07:002012-10-29T01:00:41.635-07:00What's more, let me quote from your own source...What's more, let me quote from your own source's conclusion:<br /><br />"From a historical point of view, there has been little correlation between religious views of scientific cosmologists and their proposed cosmological models. From a epistemological point of view, there are numerous obstacles to claiming that the big bang confirms the hypothesis that God exists. And from a metaphysical point of view, God's hand is not manifest even in big bang models: these models have no first state for God to create, and these models have no time for God to exist in before the big bang."<br /><br />Thus, not only have you used a source that fails to address my argument; you have used a source that concludes that Big Bang Cosmology does not a proper basis for claiming that a God (in the sense of an intelligent, sentient and personal being) exists. Why would you use a source that discredits your own hypothesis?Allocutushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834876421376068213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8327433573289996257.post-90685311342876786912012-10-29T00:47:05.440-07:002012-10-29T00:47:05.440-07:00Scholars of atheism? There's no such thing. At...Scholars of atheism? There's no such thing. Atheism is not a scientific discipline. Neither is it something that can really be studied. Sure, you can study trends amongst atheists or different positions under the umbrella of atheism. But atheism does not have anything to do with cosmology. This is something theists just simply fail to understand. Let me put it like this:<br /><br />1. Theists think that just because they've invented an omnipotent spirit (what in the world is a spirit anyway?) who created the Universe, they become experts on cosmology. This is absolute nonsense.<br /><br />2. Atheists don't have such pretences. We don't believe in a god because we see no evidence that a god exists. We don't pretend to be cosmologists. <br /><br />Cosmology is a scientific field. Neither believing nor non-believing in a god magically qualifies one as an expert. There are no scholars of atheism.<br /><br />What's more, Craig NEVER SAID "Scholars of atheism". He said "the atheist". <br /><br />Finally, you're addressing a side-point, something I said in passing, something that isn't even relevant to my actual argument. <br /><br />I'm familiar with your link and this simply doesn't assist your case at all. If you have an answer to my objection (please re-read the post carefully; I'm a little put-off by your complete failure to address it), please feel free to provide it. Allocutushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834876421376068213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8327433573289996257.post-59594661130626214532012-10-28T08:03:22.222-07:002012-10-28T08:03:22.222-07:00Hey,
This is Jared with Conversion Radio.
During...Hey,<br /> This is Jared with Conversion Radio.<br /> During our discussion you shot me this link and impugned Craig's character on the count, that he is speaking to a lay audience and is deliberately being dishonest.<br /><br /> I disagreed with this and your first detail and retort to Craig's argument is a clear example of this.<br /><br /> Craig is NOT saying the average lay atheist. He is not saying the common atheist would say anything of the sort. He is speaking to strictly the scholars of atheism.<br /><br /> Since Aristotle, steady state cosmology has been used to refute theism, as theism asserts a creation concept. Steady state cosmology = eternal universe btw.<br /><br /> Most recently in Craig's contemporaries on the atheist view, utilize steady state cosmological evidences to invalidate theism. In modern atheism within academic circles, Hoyles theory took hold. <br /><br /> When Craig makes the statement "typically atheists have answered this question by saying the Universe is eternal and uncaused" he is absolutely correct. Also realize his entire overarching argument is a cosmological one for creation.<br /><br /> And again, he is speaking of scholars within the relevant discussion. Here is a link to bring you up to speed and hopefully relax your vehemence against Craig's character.<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology-theology/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01139742316015247780noreply@blogger.com