rationalskepticism.org

Shrunk wrote:Ichthus77,

Are you planning on addressing any of the arguments that were raised against your previous posts since you bowed out of this discussion? Here and here for example? Or are you just planning to advertise your blog and leave?

The two "here"s you posted both refer back to my last post (I'm assuming). I'm not advertising my blog--just the gambit. And inviting folks to join the dialogue going on at the Philosophers' Carnival. If I had time (or several clones all linked to a central mind), I'd shoot the poop all day w/ you fellers/fellerinas.

BTW, it's a bit rich for a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause. So God didn't begin to exist, because he is the cause of everything that exists. Therefore, God exists because everything that begins to exist needs a cause, and God is that cause.") to accuse others of making "circular arguments".

Here goes nothin'. I'm sorry I don't have time to reply to the really long reply.

***

1. The universe (the whole of all physical "being") has a beginning, even in the cyclic model (Greene, Fabric of the Cosmos).

2. In order for "doing" to happen, there must be a "being" who does the "doing".

3. All doings of any particular being are done by that particular being "after" that particular being "is" (after it is "being").

4. "Becoming" is a doing.

5. Because of 3, the universe (see 1) cannot "become" until it already "is", therefore

6. (Because of 2), some other "being" than the universe (see 1) made the universe (see 1) "become" in the first place.

Now. It does not follow from this that this "some other being" has no beginning (or that it does). We can't study it like we can study the physical universe, because it is not part of the physical universe (though it can be immanent in it). However--it does follow that there IS some other being than the physical universe, something supernatural. And, if it has a beginning, it will have a cause (a being which makes it become) other than itself.

The theist conclusion is that there is only one supernatural being, and it is uncaused--eternal (a personal God). The atheist conclusion must be (in this case) that there is an infinite regress of those caused supernatural (personal or nonpersonal un-god) beings.

But, that isn't the atheist conclusion. The atheist conclusion is a self-bootstrapping universe (a circular argument). So, that's what I address in my article.

Again, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to answer the really long reply. Hopefully you'll have enough fun w/ this one. And remember to submit something to the Philosophers' Carnival, and tip your waitress.