http://antybu86.blogspot.com - Antybu86 (aka Andy Tyler Burke) lies about the fact that Dr. William Lane Craig did not mention the quantum vacuum fluctuation model... when he did!
WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
The KCA fails on the basic premise that if there were ever 'nothing' there would also be no philosophical or scientific principles such as causality. So it's egregious taxicabbing "These principles break down, but only in so far as it allows me to arbitrarily put my god at the beginning"
your kinda begging the question p1) is false God is the greatest possible being he exists necessarily he can't have a beginning p2) controdicts p)1 & the conclusion doesn't follow its a terriable argument. P1) is also false because that would imply infinte regress which can't be true.
WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
How about Craig admitting that the Cosmological Argument is incoherent?
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
where does nothing come from?!?!!?
sniped101 2 weeks ago
The KCA fails on the basic premise that if there were ever 'nothing' there would also be no philosophical or scientific principles such as causality. So it's egregious taxicabbing "These principles break down, but only in so far as it allows me to arbitrarily put my god at the beginning"
TheScienceFoundation 3 weeks ago
@lxAgnosticxl youre mixing ontological with kalam. epic fail
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@theBartone9119
your kinda begging the question p1) is false God is the greatest possible being he exists necessarily he can't have a beginning p2) controdicts p)1 & the conclusion doesn't follow its a terriable argument. P1) is also false because that would imply infinte regress which can't be true.
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago
@lxAgnosticxl Everything that exists, has a beginning though.
So if your theory is God doesn't have a beginning, then he cannot exist moron.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119
what ever BEGINS TO EXIST moron
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago