Craig -- After "reconstructing Ham" to turn my assertions into a syllogism (I did not mean them to be), you not only deny the validity of my logic but claim my conclusion is "not at issue".
> If that's the logic, it is invalid. The valid conclusion would be > 4') A particle (that exists) must come into existence. > 4'), however, is not at issue. As I see it, the issue is that whatever exists must come into being. Therefore, a particle that exists comes into being as does a Big Bang. Coming into being presupposes a primary cause or source. You say: > If it all starts with a Big Bang, then there can't be something that > produces the bang: otherwise, it would start with that something. Exactly. That's what we're looking for -- the something that "produces the bang". > What are the possibilities: > I) Everything that exists has existed since the beginning of time > or was created from something that did. > II) Some things come into existence after others but are > not created from them. > III) Some things are created, but not from other things. I will critique your assertions, as you did mine, and say that [II] and [III] are not at issue. What is relevant is [I] and the question it implies: What is it that has existed since the beginning of time? I know of nothing in existence whose being does not have a beginning. Do you? So, if every existent (being) has a beginning, your question "what if you have something that you can't find what it was created from?" actually applies to ALL existents, since we do not have empirical knowledge of what gives rise to being. My question, then, can be reduced to: What do you believe gives rise to being? You can choose to answer this question or not; but I see no point in drawing this discussion into an endless word game. --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
