too bad current scientific discoveries are taring the cosmological argument to small, laughable pieces.

>> ^kir_mokum:

too bad current scientific discoveries are taring the cosmological argument to small, laughable pieces.


Which discoveries would those be, kir_mokum?

as far as i understand it the only thing that create something from nothing is in fact nothing.



http://videosift.com/video/A-Universe-From-Nothing-by-Lawrence-Krauss-AAI-2009

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^kir_mokum:

as far as i understand it the only thing that create something from nothing is in fact nothing.

http://videosift.com/video/A-Universe-From-Nothing-by-Lawrence-K
rauss-AAI-2009


What Dr Krauss is referring to when he says "nothing" is actually something..he changes the definition of that something many times throughout his book..sometimes calling nothing a quantum vacuum, or the laws of nature, or a condition that is lacking any matter or energy, but at no time is the "nothing" he is referring to purely nothing..it is always something. So there is no theory of how "nothing created everything".

Doesn't logic itself tell you that from nothing, nothing comes? The first cause must be eternal because if there ever was "nothing", that's all there ever would be.

then truly nothing doesn't exist.

>> ^kir_mokum:
then truly nothing doesn't exist.


Then how is the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

honestly, i don't give a shit about trying to sway you because i know how pig headed you are about the whole thing. especially when the crux of the discussion revolves around a semantic argument on the definition of "nothing". i just wanted to point out that the god of the gaps has been pushed even further out of the conversation.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter shinyblurry.