remez said:
But I’m saying with reasonable certainty that the universe began to exist.
You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument. Therefore I am reasonably certain that your claim is a semantic argument only, and therefore reasonably dismissed.
But if you were able to show how any part of that universe began to exist, something simple, then we could have a reasonable discussion. We could then extrapolate that demonstration into that larger observation we call the universe.
But you know you cannot, which is why you don't.
Your position is a faith argument, not defensible science.
This is an important review….before I begin to address your post. So you understand how I addressing your last post.
REVIEW………because ultimately I’m not here to defend the KCA (I will to some extent because of Y)) below. But I here to burn down the straw man that theists have no evidence, which is why I offered the evidence and reasoning I did. Because your reasoning is that since the KCA is X) uncompelling and/or Y) is dead thus theists have no reasoning or evidence for their beliefs.
Well X) obviously fails.
And
Y) you have not made the case for. But you did attempt. That is what you attempted with the first law of thermodynamics. Which failed.
And now you claim some kind of semantics is in error so……………
remez said:
But I’m saying with reasonable certainty that the universe began to exist.
You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument.
I offered….. the expanding universe, GTR, and the BGV theorem, etc.
How is that not plain to see?
Remember that was just a quick few. For any evidence supporting them would be evidence for my reasoning as well. For example and expanding universe is supported by red shift. Thus red shift would be evidence for a past finite universe as well.
Now. We both know that p2 is the universe began to exist. So if I support p2 with the scientific evidence of an expanding universe then why I’m I wrong to reason that I just offered scientific evidence for my beliefs.
For if…….
You rewind the expanding universe with GTR you come to the limit of science (nature) at the singularity. The BGV does not even assume GTR to accomplish same conclusion that you can’t escape a cosmic beginning. This is obviously straight forward reasoning with 3 given evidences.
Now….
Precisely tell me where I’m wrong with that obviously, straight forward, reasoning and evidence. My approach is reasonably obvious …no semantics. You are the one that is going do all the semantic gymnastics to get out of the crystal clarity of what I’ve reasoned.
Further…….
Before you attempt to use the line of reasoning….…..”Well the expanding universe does not ABSOLUTELY conclude that the universe began”…… you need to recognize that it would be YOU arbitrarily reasoning absolute certainty against me as the standard reasoning. And we just painstakingly established that it is not a reasonable approach. So don’t go there and make me waste time having to repeat US.
Also regarding absolute certainty vs reasonable certainty…….
Don’t assert that I’m claiming absolute certainty either. I’m claiming that it is far more reasonable that the universe began then it is eternal in the past. So don’t use absolute certainty to deny the very very very reasonable certainty that my evidence reasonably supports a past finite universe.
So again…….
You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument. Therefore I am reasonably certain that your claim is a semantic argument only, and therefore reasonably dismissed.
……. here is the big question….
Why is the evidence and reasoning I presented above not to be considered evidence and reasoning for what I belief? Sematic or otherwise.
But if you were able to show how any part of that universe began to exist, something simple, then we could have a reasonable discussion. We could then extrapolate that demonstration into that larger observation we call the universe.
But you know you cannot, which is why you don't.
Categorical fallacy in your reasoning there. I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.
Think about it…….
Would it be reasonable for me to conclude that since you can't tell me HOW life began to exist that you are unreasonable to belief THAT life began to exist?
This is essentially your reasoning there. Right?
Hence fallacious reasoning doesn’t damage the KCA.
Your position is a faith argument, not defensible science.
It is your position that is in need of evidence and good reasoning. Because all you just presented was obvious error in reasoning on your part that you concluded eliminates the KCA.
Really examine what I wrote above. What reasoning did you offer (that I did not reasonably counter) to conclude the KCA is dead? And that theists don’t have evidence and reason for their faith.
Thus….for the obvious lack of evidence and reason……….
Your last statement there is one of “faith.”