--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > You haven't advanced the idea any further beyond, "I believe > this." And you have every right. I know this isn't your > argument, you didn't create this syllogism but whoever did > was not being as clever as they thought. It is nothing more > than an assertion of belief without proof. It is lipstick > on a pig.
Curtis, did you read the essay at the link I provided? It demonstrates that if the Craig syllogism is indeed lipstick on a pig, it's an exceedingly elaborate application of lipstick which very highly qualified scientists and philosophers have to strenuously exert themselves to attempt to wipe off. IOW, if you had to defend your assertion against Craig himself, you'd be in a bit of a pickle. That said, I have to concede that you were right initially that *John* is using "fallacious inductive logic" to reach his conclusion. But you had no basis for knowing that at the time you said it. He could have used some of the sophisticated logical arguments devised by Craig and others for the syllogism's conclusion, in which case you'd have been dead wrong. You merely made an intuitive guess as to what John would come up with, not based on analysis or knowledge of the issues raised by the syllogism. I'm disappointed that he didn't use the sophisticated arguments, because they're fascinating. <snip> > < But how can that be? Is it possible for the universe to > create itself?> > > It just changed its form out of the singularity before the > big bang expanded it and unfolded according to the nature > of the laws contained in the matter itself. It appears you've changed your language here, in that you're no longer saying the singularity existed *prior to* the big bang. It's important to emphasize that the emergence of the singularity is the *beginning* of the big bang. <snip> > You are quoting someone who is trying to create a universal > assumption about the universe beginning needing a cause. > It is up to you or him to show us why we have to assume that > the inconceivable density of the singularity before the big > bang expanded it doesn't account for all the matter in the > universe since the big bang. Actually what Craig is proposing is that the *singularity itself* must have had a cause. That the singularity may account for all the matter in the universe is irrelevant to that premise.
