I see you are still trying to balance on your bow-legged Shetland pony while you alternate between fake rushes at windmills and hiding in the long grass of deceit and misdirection! Pathetic. Don’t you ever get tired of what you are??
Let us move on to the generous gift I gave you of a free premise (or 3) in order to encourage you to at least come within a few intellectual miles of the argument--rather than continue dodging your little pony solely in zigzag mode out 15 miles or so from where the rest of us are camped.
After your normal verbal diarrhea you came forth with Lane's version of Kalam (as expected):
Major Premise:
Everything that has a beginning has an antecedent cause.
Minor premise:
The universe had a beginning.
Conclusion:
The Universe has an antecedent cause.
I would be happy to accept Lane's three premises (with the understanding, as I said, that they are mere speculation beyond the actual observation, measuremen, or reach of science)--and provided (naturally) that they have no inherently nested premises that make them mutually conflicting. So let us get those potential problems out of the way by clarifying what you mean.
The first thing to do is to pin you down, so that you do not dodge and squirm all over the devil's doorstep. I will go very slowly and I will keep all my questions very precise so that we can move toward whatever truths may be suggested by those premises.
The universe either contains everything that exists AND everything that begins to exist or it does not. You appear to be limiting the universe in some fashion by suggesting that there are things that do not begin to exist. Of course, that may be accidental, but everything that has a beginning (that begins to exist) seems to suggest that the universe holds things that do not begin. That is confusing but can easily be solved with a bit of clarification as to why you are not using the parsimonious (and seemingly more simple and accurate) "everything that exists has a cause"?
Well, not to worry. The thread can benefit by your answer to very precise and simple questions:
When you say "The universe" do you mean the set of everything that exists AND everything that begins to exist (yes or no), or do you mean ONLY the set of everything that begins to exist? Keep in mind that if you believe (scientifically or logically} that the universe contains things that do not begin to exist then your premise ("Everything that has a beginning has an antecedent cause) fails to explain whether or not the things that are (hypothetically) in the universe that do not have a beginning have an antecedent cause. I don't care how you mean it, as long as you pick a meaning and stick to it.
Does everything include the universe? Yes, no, don't know.
Does the universe include everything? yes, no, don't know.
Does your use of "universe" reference the SET of everything that exists AND everything that begins to exist? Yes or no.
As you have used these in entwined and supporting premises you must know exactly what you mean and be capable of giving an unequivocal answer to each question. Thanks for that. |
