Posted: Sep 27, 2010 5:25 am
by Ichthus77
Hello. I last participated back on page 7 or 8. I updated that article I posted to include what I like to call the Bootstrap Gambit:

The physical cannot come into existence by its own bootstraps that don't yet exist--it would be like "the" circular argument. To suggest there is some as-yet unfound explanation for a bootstrap universe is to suggest there is a valid circular argument out there--we just haven't found it yet. It is to be satisfied with making the physical universe into a circular argument. That's just not logical. Bombarding that assertion by throwing an infinite number of rolling balls (the unproved multiverse) at it, because one thinks it more simple than a simple God one cannot imagine, just pushes the question back, because, as Brian Greene explained--there is a beginning. Dawkins' Ultimate 747 Gambit cannot fly. Long live the Cosmological Argument, or, the Bootstrap Gambit, if you like.

Please also check this out: