Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

But isn't Hawking, according, to you faulty for entertaining the idea of an origin of the universe?

Read the piece and stop lying.

[Rhiannon]

There must be something congenital about religionists that means they are not able to understand that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a tricky question. Perhaps that is one reason why religion is so successful; people would rather accept any old crap rather than embrace their ignorance on a topic.

It’s actually a weirdly modern thing I think. Paul had no problem in seeing through a glass darkly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Read the piece and stop lying.

Your getting shirty now and your request is a bit misleading because Hawking doesn't speak for all scientists. What about M theory or the theory that ''The big bang'' is merely the creation of our ''Pocket universe''. Or the theory of eternal inflation.

You talk about how things began. There is and can be no scientific comment on a situation where the laws of physics break down can there?

And if you are talking about beginning then I'd like to see your demolition of the Kalam cosmological theory namely ''Everything that has a beginning has a cause'' something that there is plenty of scientific evidence'' to at least put one's money on.....but feel free to demonstrate it's a non runner.

[Gordon]

Your getting shirty now and your request is a bit misleading because Hawking doesn't speak for all scientists. What about M theory or the theory that ''The big bang'' is merely the creation of our ''Pocket universe''. Or the theory of eternal inflation.

You talk about how things began. There is and can be no scientific comment on a situation where the laws of physics break down can there?

And if you are talking about beginning then I'd like to see your demolition of the Kalam cosmological theory namely ''Everything that has a beginning has a cause'' something that there is plenty of scientific evidence'' to at least put one's money on.....but feel free to demonstrate it's a non runner.

For starters the Kalam is an example of begging the question: a non-runner right enough.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For starters the Kalam is an example of begging the question: a non-runner right enough.

What do you mean. How is it begging the question?
I have to check your definitions since I found your definition of NPF frequently faulty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Your getting shirty now…

Telling you to stop lying isn’t “getting shirty” – it’s just telling you to stop lying.

…and your request is a bit misleading because Hawking doesn't speak for all scientists. What about M theory or the theory that ''The big bang'' is merely the creation of our ''Pocket universe''. Or the theory of eternal inflation.

No it wasn’t, and no-one “speaks for all scientists”. I told you that science already tells us a great deal about the origin of the universe, and I provided a link to a short lecture by a scientist talking about the origin of the universe. QED

You talk about how things began. There is and can be no scientific comment on a situation where the laws of physics break down can there?

READ THE EFFING LECTURE!

And if you are talking about beginning then I'd like to see your demolition of the Kalam cosmological theory namely ''Everything that has a beginning has a cause'' something that there is plenty of scientific evidence'' to at least put one's money on.....but feel free to demonstrate it's a non runner.

More gibberish. If you’d bothered to read what Hawing said you’d see where you keep going wrong. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Telling you to stop lying isn’t “getting shirty” – it’s just telling you to stop lying.

No it wasn’t, and no-one “speaks for all scientists”. I told you that science already tells us a great deal about the origin of the universe, and I provided a link to a short lecture by a scientist talking about the origin of the universe. QED

READ THE EFFING LECTURE!

More gibberish. If you’d bothered to read what Hawing said you’d see where you keep going wrong.

A lot of scientists saying that the big bang may not be the origin of the universe but a wee part of is hardly science explaining the origins of the universe is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More gibberish. If you’d bothered to read what Hawing said you’d see where you keep going wrong.

How is saying the universe either began or is eternal with no commitment to either ''going wrong''?

[Gordon]

What do you mean. How is it begging the question?
I have to check your definitions since I found your definition of NPF frequently faulty.

We did the KCA to death when Alien was posting: it is an argument associated with the odious William Lane Craig (who Alien was in thrall to at that time). It begs the question because its premises assume the conclusion of the argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We did the KCA to death when Alien was posting: it is an argument associated with the odious William Lane Craig (who Alien was in thrall to at that time). It begs the question because its premises assume the conclusion of the argument.

Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
I didn't ask for a demolition of Lane Craig I asked for a demolition of Kalam.

So the Kalam argument is wrong because?

[BeRational]

Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
I didn't ask for a demolition of Lane Craig I asked for a demolition of Kalam.

So the Kalam argument is wrong because?

What is the conclusion of the Kalam?

[BeRational]

Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
I didn't ask for a demolition of Lane Craig I asked for a demolition of Kalam.

So the Kalam argument is wrong because?

What is the first premise of the Kalam?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the first premise of the Kalam?

I'm asking why it's wrong.

Is this wrong?

All ball bearings are ball bearings.

[Gordon]

Oh so another 'this has been explained' coupled with an ad hominem on William Lane Craig.
I didn't ask for a demolition of Lane Craig I asked for a demolition of Kalam.

So the Kalam argument is wrong because?

Just read it Vlad, and then think about it - it is very obvious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just read it Vlad, and then think about it - it is very obvious.

I want your explanation as to why it is wrong.

Is this wrong?

All ball bearings are ball bearings

[BeRational]

I'm asking why it's wrong.

Is this wrong?

All ball bearings are ball bearings.

What is the conclusion of the Kalam, and where does it get you.

The first premise is not demonstrated, so the argument is useless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the conclusion of the Kalam, and where does it get you.

The first premise is not demonstrated, so the argument is useless.

I'm not arguing that it is demonstrated. I'm asking you why it isn't the case.

[BeRational]

I'm not arguing that it is demonstrated. I'm asking you why it isn't the case.

Why what isn't the case?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why what isn't the case?

Why is it that the premise is definitely incorrect?

[Gordon]

I want your explanation as to why it is wrong.

Is this wrong?

All ball bearings are ball bearings

I suggest you firstly ensure you know what begging the question involves and then you look closely at the first premise of the KCA.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest you firstly ensure you know what begging the question involves and then you look closely at the first premise of the KCA.

Why is the first premise definitely incorrect?

[BeRational]

Why is it that the premise is definitely incorrect?

I reject the first and second premise, so the conclusion is flawed.

If you can demonstrate the premises, then that's different of course.

Can you?

[BeRational]

Why is it that the premise is definitely incorrect?

I have not said it is not definitely incorrect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I reject the first and second premise,

On what grounds can we reject the idea that everything that has a beginning has a cause?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have not said it is not definitely incorrect.

But you have rejected it.