• *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile

This video shows clearly that Krauss in his debate with Craig deliberately tried to deceive not just Craig but the audience and the world. Scientist are suppose to be trusted to care about the truth of the world we live in. Not to mention he deliberately straw maned Craig.

Why or how is it atheist still take his rebuttal seriously even though they lack evidence for a eternal cosmos but insist in this eternal state that cannot be defined

On a serious note. Naturalist make no sense. They believe the universe created us to care about survival just to kill other things that care about surviving in order to survive just to find out survival is impossible! And I forgot the kicker...they believe this happened for no reason at all.

When they say there is no meaning or purpose of the universe. I imagine in my mind that the universe should look like a empty devoid of life and intelligible universe. I don't see this meaningless empty space but instead I see life beauty and complex systems. That alone instinctively tells me the universe has meaning and purpose.



  • *
  • 3 Posts
    • View Profile
Yes, but one thing I would struggle with is that even though we see things that are purposeful and we have complex systems, we could still say that just because things may seem as though they do have purpose, does not mean that they have purpose.

The arguments I would stick to is the sheer amazing fact that we exist at all in a universe who's fine tuning is so utterly important that if one factor veers off the mark even slightly then the whole makeup of elements would make it impossible to have a life sustaining universe. Or yes, the idea that an eternal universe with matter eternally in the past also gives rise to issues such as, when did matter start interacting to create the universe if it existed eternally in the past? And if it started acting together to make a universe eternally in the past, shouldn't we have an eternally large sized universe?

So they add the hypothesis of multiverse theory as a philosophy of science, because they don't believe that God could have created the universe simply because they deny His existence, so they say because God doesn't exist, we must come up with an additional hypothesis to deal with the fact that an eternal universe doesn't make sense unless we constantly have universes springing into being, expanding, and being destroyed, and we start the process all over again. The whole thing becomes a little ad hoc in the case that we don't have any evidence for such a thing, and possibly could never have such evidence to find that there was a universe before us.

Still, I wouldn't use how we relate to things in this world as an argument necessary, but rather the lack of probability that this universe would exist in the first place as a way of saying God said He did it, it makes sense, it's the perfect explanation, and there are no other better explanations so if you still don't want to believe it is because of your preferences in your beliefs, not because of your logical arguments.



  • *
  • 2 Posts
    • View Profile
Can be considered as a very demanding information.