Only two options for the origin of the universe

[Archaeopteryx]

correct. you could use it to argue for the divine flame. and then i would argue that God is a better explanation by using supplementary arguments and evidence to support my claim.

A better explanation? I'm not yet convinced that it even is an explanation to begin with. It's a speculation at best. As I already demonstrated, I too can speculate.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

A better explanation? I'm not yet convinced that it even is an explanation to begin with. It's a speculation at best. As I already demonstrated, I too can speculate.

I don't think it is speculation.

Can i provide some type of coercive proof? No.

Can i prove God exists the way i can prove a square has four right angles?

No.

But I can demonstrate that Christianity when compared with its competitors best explains the data we have. Do we do away with faith? By no means.

But that is no problem for the one who says that science will one day answer everything because they too are numbered among those who have faith.

Christianity is superior to every other worldview in doing what it must do and I can back up my claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't think it is speculation.

Can i provide some type of coercive proof? No.

Can i prove God exists the way i can prove a square has four right angles?

No.

But I can demonstrate that Christianity when compared with its competitors best explains the data we have.

Christianity is superior to every other worldview in doing what it must do.

I'm sure you think that you can demonstrate the epistemic superiority of Christianity, but I'm likewise sure that the Muslim apologist feels the same way for Islam. It's the theological commitments that drive the arguments.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm sure you think that you can demonstrate the epistemic superiority of Christianity, but I'm likewise sure that the Muslim apologist feels the same way for Islam. It's the theological commitments that drive the arguments.

Assuming he does...

So what?

Assuming the arguments are driven by theological commitments?


So what?

 

[Conscious Z]

First off, nothingness cannot be investigated. Nothingness possesses no properties subject to investigation.

Nothingness is not a state of affairs. Nothingness possesses no properties that would be labeled states of affairs.

Therefore from nothing, nothing comes. From nonbeing being does not come.

There is never "nothing." Literally. What scientists used to think was "nothing," is now widely acknowledged as having a lot of somethings. Not matter. Other stuff.

See Krauss' most recent book, A Universe From Nothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Assuming he does...

So what?

So you cannot both be right, though you both could be wrong.

Assuming the arguments are driven by theological commitments?


So what?

So the arguments are inessential and ad hoc, adding almost nothing to what is already there. You would believe regardless.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

So you cannot both be right, though you both could be wrong.

I believe I am right and I have evidence for my claim.

Nor did I repent and ask Jesus to forgive me of my sins because of some argument for His existence.

I came to Christ because I was drawn to Him, by the grace of God, as metal is drawn to a powerful magnet. He is altogether lovely and wonderful to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe I am right and I have evidence for my claim.

The Muslim apologist is no less devout or sincere than you are.

Nor did I repent and ask Jesus to forgive me of my sins because of some argument for His existence.

I came to Christ because I was drawn to Him, by the grace of God, as metal is drawn to a powerful magnet. He is altogether lovely and wonderful to me.[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

Precisely. As I said previously, the arguments are inessential and ad hoc, adding nothing to what is already there. You would believe regardless.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe I am right and I have evidence for my claim.

Nor did I repent and ask Jesus to forgive me of my sins because of some argument for His existence.

I came to Christ because I was drawn to Him, by the grace of God, as metal is drawn to a powerful magnet. He is altogether lovely and wonderful to me.

Hey, if at works for you, then great. I just wouldn't be surprised, if some disagree with you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

correct. you could use it to argue for the divine flame. and then i would argue that God is a better explanation by using supplementary arguments and evidence to support my claim.

You said "arguments and evidence"...

I'ld like to hear more about the "evidence" part.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Assuming the arguments are driven by theological commitments?

That's not something that needs to be assumed. That your arguments are driven by theological commitments (and loaded with a priori theological beliefs) is a given. A fact. An observation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You said "arguments and evidence"...

I'ld like to hear more about the "evidence" part.

I have evidence. Cosmology confirms the Divine Flame. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the ethereal afterglow of the Divine Flame that spawned the universe.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Every event has a cause.

And you know this how?

I consider this to be a fundamental law of reason,

That's nice.

People used to consider the earth to be flat.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You said "arguments and evidence"...

I'ld like to hear more about the "evidence" part.

Refer to " Apologia of the Cosmos, Evidence of God Thread".

It is a thread on the Kalam

 

[bhsmte]

Refer to " Apologia of the Cosmos, Evidence of God Thread".

It is a thread on the Kalam

I see you are a big Billy Craig fan.

Well, if you are one that likes to make assumptions without evidence, Kalam is something that will clearly appeal to you.

 

[Davian]

.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I have evidence. Cosmology confirms the Divine Flame. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the ethereal afterglow of the Divine Flame that spawned the universe.

God is a consuming fire according to Hebrews 12:29. So the Divine Flame you claim as proven in cosmology is a confirmation of God's existence.

 

[bhsmte]

God is a consuming fire according to Hebrews 12:29. So the Divine Flame you claim as proven in cosmology is a confirmation of God's existence.

Is you're interpretation of scripture infallible?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I see you are a big Billy Craig fan.

Well, if you are one that likes to make assumptions without evidence, Kalam is something that will clearly appeal to you.

Which premise do you object to and why?

We can debate it if you want.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Is you're interpretation of scripture infallible?

I don't need to interpret a straightforward statement in Hebrews.

"For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:29)