This is true and to expand, the key thing that modern physics has told us is that not only does classical intuition give us wrong answers, it leads us to ask questions that are nonsensical. Given 2 events in space time A and B it naively makes sense to ask which happens first in time and treat that as a universal fact but it turns out that is completely wrong and different people can get different answers and both be correct. So i don't see how somebody in 2009 can even make the claim that the question of what caused the big bang is well posed with a solution that all observers will agree on.

You may be able to provide some much needed sanity here. Are there any arguments that you think are ludicrous ITT made by atheists? I haven't read the fossil hijack so don't worry about those.

When have I even mentioned the fossil record in this thread, let alone debated it?

All I have done is respond to your posts on an increasingly wide range of topics. We were debating the Kalam, you told me I was missing support for a premise, I asked what I was missing, and since then you have made over a dozen posts in this thread without responding to my request. Am I a moron to respond to your other posts as I wait for you to return to Kalam?

In this thread, you claim that scientific consensus supports your argument. In other threads, you claim that scientific consensus is utterly irrelevant. That is relevant to the argument at hand. Then you posted your position on the importance of man. I believe that explains why you are prepared to accept one scientific view, but are so opposed to another. You can disagree.

In this thread, you claimed that geocentrism was not important theologically. I offered evidence to the contrary. You can disagree.

I don't believe any of that makes me moronic, or the discussion idiotic. You asked for a discussion of the Kalam under very particular conditions. I have been more than happy to accommodate those conditions. I continue to await your answer to my repeated request: What support for premise 4.271 am I missing?

2.The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

RLK, no that is not what I meant. I'll try to clarify.

I was trying to account for NotReady's opposition to common descent through natural selection in the face of his seeming acceptance of scientific positions on issues like the origin and age of the universe, even though those views are in turn opposed by other theistic groups. It appears to me that his theistic view includes the special creation of man, and that no amount of evidence will change that view. I can't know that, it is simply an observation that might explain his position.

I believe that man evolved through descent by natural selection from a common ancestor of all life on Earth. I also do not believe that man is imbued by God with certain special properties. But that belief does not follow from or depend on my belief in evolution.

I know many theists who believe in evolution, and hold that it does not conflict with their belief in God. They may hold that God created the spark of life, knowing that evolution would ultimately lead to man, or they may hold that God intervened along the way to achieve the same result, or any number of other positions.

All of this stems from NotReady's claim that rational enquiry, in the absence of the Bible, would lead to the obvious conclusion that God exists. I disagree, but make no claim of certainty. In the course of that debate, NotReady has made a number of tangential claims, some of which I have challenged.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but based on your post, it appears that you disagree with NotReady's position on evolution. As has been discussed in other threads, this is not a theist vs atheist issue, but a NotReady (and some others) vs the vast majority of people who have made a rational inquiry of the evidence.

(And before NotReady responds to that point - that is not to say that NotReady has not made his own rational inquiry into the evidence - but simply that I and many, many others, believe his conclusion is incorrect.)

Not Ready, I already granted 3 for the sake of argument. And I already pointed out that 3. does not support 4.271.

Let's make this as focused as I can. Please explain how 3. The universe has a cause of its existence, proves that the universe, as claimed in 4.271 came "out of nothing."

All clear. I was not sure what you meant, but I now understand your point. I do not share all of your views, but acknowledge that as stated they are not demonstrably false.

Two points:

First, I have never meant to imply that you need an injection of sanity or that I was in sole possession of sanity in this forum. I may have implied that sanity is not universal. So be it.

Second, I do not understand the second sentence. Maybe it's a consequence of being 55 and hence speaking text messaging as a second language, but ITT says nothing to me.

ITT means "In this thread." You referred to ludicrous statements from both sides of the debate that should be challenged. I share Max's interest in your pointing out any ludicrous points made by atheists here - especially if I have done so. But I am interested in challenges from you to any position presented here.

Ah, thank you. I should have been able to figure that out I guess but...obviously I didn't.

My comment was aimed at the forum more broadly, not specifically this thread. I will take a look though and see if anything meets my definition of ludicrous. Might be this evening though, have to run now.

Cool, I picked you out because you had a good point about letting things go that happen to be on your side, and wanted to see if you thought some of us were doing that here. Being a theist you may notice some things that we missed due to a bias.

I did get a chance to read through the entire thread which I had not done before I entered into the exchange. I have no issue with the opposition to NR and withdraw my comment on "ludicrous posts" wrt this thread to this point.

Why is the Earth being the center of the universe a scientific question that can be disproved by physics and modern science but the cause of the universe (another descriptive attribute which is what science deals with) is a philosophical question that scientists get laughed at when they try to address?

Premise 2 is not necessarily true. Even if it is, this argument does not prove there is a God. Have read very little of this but just wanted to say something to some of the original posts on the first page

In an attempt to get this thread back on track, NotReady, do you have a problem with the substitution of premise 1 with this version:

If so, why? If not, do you still consider this premise obvious via metaphysical intuition?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5180

Well, NotReady, you got me. I fell for it. Good one.

I offer up a 350 word response to a 450 word argument, and you accuse me of "throwing in the kitchen sink." So I ask you to prove one part of one premise of that argument, and after three requests, you come up with a link to an eight thousand word article with 67 footnotes.

But I fell for it. I read it all. Unfortunately, it doesn't prove the premise I asked you about. I'm not even sure it claims to - the conclusion sets out an argument that doesn't even mention "out of nothing."

The article itself mentions "out of nothing" or "ex nihilo" many times, but without any proof. Most of the references seem to imply nothing from our universe. Our best explanation now is that space, time and matter for our universe were created with the Big Bang. If true, there was nothing in our universe to create from. But so what.

You have argued that something exists outside our universe. You say that it is obvious from rational inquiry. Then how can you argue against the idea that something else exists outside of our universe?

And once you accept that, how can you argue against the idea that the cause of the universe is simply unknown?

Lol, you are far more patient than I am.

Yup, there are tons of models but nothing even close to definitive and probably not even a clear favorite.

Still waiting...

Craig only argues that his Just-So Stories aren't obviously false. He doesn't care if they could be false in an infinity of ways not obvious to him.

I think NotReady shares that mindset, so you're probably waiting for Godot on this one.

Metaphysics has never proved anything.

Subfallen, no worries. I'm keepin' busy while I wait.

I don't know if Craig argues that his stories aren't obviously false, but NotReady has quite clearly argued that God is obvious from rational inquiry. He set out specific criteria to demonstrate that, and started here with his very best argument. The fact that he can't support even one part of one premise is telling.

He's happy to argue ITT about Galileo and geocentrism and the fossil record, and then insult and criticize those who engage him on those subjects. But he asked for this specific topic to prove his position. I will continue to wait...

NotReady now says he doesn't care, and he's probably getting out of the debate business (though he does seem willing to make these same arguments in other threads).

So before giving up on this thread, is there anyone here who agrees with NotReady's assertion that the existence of a theistic God is obvious from rational inquiry?

My guess is that most theists' beliefs come from their upbringing, from personal experience and from the Bible or other religious teachings. In the absence of all of that, I would not be surprised to hear that people have concluded a deistic god exists. But I am genuinely curious if a theistic God is that obvious to many.

No need to debate it - just state your opinion. And if you do believe it is obvious, and you find one or two arguments most compelling, please mention them. In any case, it appears my wait is over.

Thats so stupid so anybody who tries to defend it won't be able to do a good job.