Sunday semi-sermon: Arguing with a theist

Appropriately enough, my “Arguing with theists” post has evolved into an argument in the comments. A fairly boring one, I’m afraid (Kalam cosmological argument, some flip-flopping on the merits of “materialistic” science, the usual stuff). I’m not posting this to invite people to join in (you’re welcome to, though to be honest I’d prefer if you didn’t, just to avoid confusion and overload), but because it’s one of the more interesting things that’s happened to me lately.

The other is that I finally got a job (woot!), so I’ve been pretty  busy with that, and tying up loose ends while I still have some free time. I’m not sure what will happen to this blog (or my main blog) after I’m working full-time (and maybe more — I also have a part-time gig lined up), but I guess it’ll be an adventure (that’s what my wife and I always say to each other when we’re about to try something that could be a total epic disaster).

(cartoon via Atheist Eve)

One response to this post.

  1. The real problem is that sabepashubbo got the Kalam Cosmological argument wrong TWICE.

    The first premise is this: “Everything that BEGINS TO exist has a cause.”

    Without it, you have a regular (and considerably weaker Kalam.)

    With that adjusted premise, you can believe one of two things: the universe is self-existent or the universe began to exist.

    Many people look at the Big Bang and say, “aha, the universe began to exist.” But I think that a cyclical model of the universe sidesteps this issue.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: