One of the folks on CARM today says "Craig's argument has been beaten so you argument is down the drain." now I just got through saying Craig says the universe come to be, had a beginning, my argument says it probably didn't but it doesn't matter. Yet this mental giant decided that my argument is tied to the success of Carig's argument.
why can't they think?
They got their comeuppance and they are pissed as hell. I proved my argument and they could not answer it so they are mad as little wet hens.
give them the empirical evidence for god they ask for and they can't handle it.
(1) they have to distort the concepts because get them off script and they can't cope.
Dante had nothing at all to say that applied even a little to the temporal beginning argument. everything he said was tailor made to answer Craig and the temp arg has nothing to do any of Craig's assumptions really.
(2) Dante was confussed by the term "becoming."
I used that phrase not to suggest that the universe going "bing" from nothing to something in a flash, but in abstract terms, the Greek? being and becoming.
In a state of timelessness there is no becoming. The explasion of the BB is a state of becming becuase it's expanding. It's moving from one size to a bigger size becuase its exhanding that is becoming. It's becoming expanded. But he asserts that I mean something else and then asserts that I know anything because he's off script and he can't cope
(3) If he said anyting at all to contradict the argument please tell me what it was? he said nothing.
(4) I quoted physicsts he never responded to the issues at all. never addressed he quotes which clearly say he is wrong.
In all athiest assertions to the extent that "there is no empircal evdience for your God" it's only becuase when it is givne you stick your heads in the sand and say "I will not look! No ! nNo it can't be there I reruse to see it! no nononnon"
(5) After it became obvious that they could not answer the argument they began going "this has all been talked abuot before and you lost then. In former discussions with whomever may have been invovled, the atheist lost. they did the same foolish little games of deniel that they are doing now. no atheist has ever won a God argument becuase they can' play fair and they refuse to deal with the facts.
(6) Here's the clencher. If Dante is right about his argument against the temp argument then he's wrong in his argument about Craig!
that is totally ture, listen up.
He says Craig's argument that the universe "began to exist" is wrong. According to him (really to Richard carrier) if the universe began from a timeless nothing then God is outside time. If God is outside time he can't create or even think about creation because there is no change in a timeless void.
Now if that is a good argument it means to make it you have to attempt all the prmeises of my argument! No change in a timeless void
the only difference is Dante disputes that there is this timeless void because the universe doesn't just pop into being from a state of nothingness, it's continually and infinitelly expanding from an infintessimal point.
The problem is the evdience says (phsyicists experts the numbers) that there is no time and time is meaningless the closer you et to the expansion.
(a) he's wrong in saying that there is no going forom nothing to something. that Hawking thign is disproven. There is a state where QM flux does something for the first time then inflationary expansion. In that gap between the two there is no time. that measn there should be no inflationary expansion.
(b) He never answered the documentaiton I laid down from experts. He is not an expert, his opinon does not our weight experts.
(7) another problem with atheist answer. they always assuem their opinons are iron clad and experts that disagree wtih them are iditos and don't know anything.
The next time you whine about "there's no empirical evidence for your God" just remeber these simple rules.
(1) atheists can't handle facts or evidence.
(2) empirial evidence is irrevlivant becuase if it says something don't like you just refuse to accept that it means anything. thus it's pointless asking for evidence.
(3) I have given empirical evidence. I've showen that empirical data backs up good reason to believe in God. But you cannot accept that there is a good reason.
because you fear hell you must convence yourselves that christians are sutpid and there can't be a single good reason to ever believe in God, not even a little bity bity bity bit. So that means it's pointless to talk to you.
It's foolish to call for empirical proof of God, not only because you dont' want it and you will always refuse no matter how good the evidence, but also because world views are not things that can be proven with any one peice of evidence or arguemnt.
why would that be? Because world views, like belief in God, are paradigms. Paradigms require a whole world understanding. It's not a matter of stacking up facts to prove a view point. Its' a matter of coming realize there's a whole other world if you look through the lens of the new paradigm.
Science is a paradigm. Thomas S. Kuhn proved that there are no facts that build up to prove science. Science is a paradigm and it progresses through paradigm shifts not through a progression of facts. That means you have a world view change in order to see through he lens of the new paradigm.
There are lots of individual reasons to beileve in God, many of them are very good. No one of them is going to "prove" God because God, like science, like materialism, is not something that can be proved with evdience.
Science cannot be proved, nor can materialism. These are world views, they require paradigm shift. It is silly, regressive and unfair to say things like "there's no proof for your God." That's like saying "there's no proof for reading." "There's no proof for realizing that love life."
Do you realize there is no empirical evidence you could ever offer that proves someone loves life? you have to love life then realize that you do, you can't prove you do you can't prove someone else Does. belief in God is like that. It's not a matter of proof it's a matter of realization.
But for someone who really has that realization, it's real strong and it can't be shaken. you think they are stupid because they don't pay by your rules. They don't look at the world through your lens so you think that's real stupid becasue you not looking through their lens.