The KCA!

[POI]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

[benchwarmer]

The irony here is definitely interesting. Special pleading is exactly where this argument usually leads as soon as someone concludes God doesn't need a cause and is eternal.

Well, when you are able to explain how a universe can begin to exist without an external cause, you'll effectively explain why God isn't needed.

Easy peasy (as far as a hypotheses go anyways). The energy that makes up our universe may have always existed in some form or other. No God required.

If you can claim your God always existed with no observational data to support it, I can just claim the same thing with the energy that makes up our universe.

Both claims are simply guesses and we have no data to show evidence one way or the other (though we can observe energy and not gods, so there's that).

[SiNcE_1985]

The irony here is definitely interesting. Special pleading is exactly where this argument usually leads as soon as someone concludes God doesn't need a cause and is eternal.

Well, when you are able to explain how a universe can begin to exist without an external cause, you'll effectively explain why God isn't needed.

Easy peasy (as far as a hypotheses go anyways). The energy that makes up our universe may have always existed in some form or other. No God required.

Difficult Pifficult.

Your hypothesis involves the possibility of infinite regress..but the KCA demonstrates why infinite regression is not possible.

The infinity problem is a fundamental part of the KCA, yet you are purposely (and conveniently) going out of your way to avoid addressing this issue.

Now, I diverted your attention to this issue so that you can address it...and you clipped the post (ignored it), just to maintain the same hypothesis that the KCA says cannot happen...which is crazy work.

So basically, you ain't really addressing the argument in its entirety...until you address what the KCA would call an unobtainable position, which is your infinite regression hypothesis.

If you can claim your God always existed with no observational data to support it, I can just claim the same thing with the energy that makes up our universe.

You're clearly so concerned about keeping God out of the equation, that you're either unable (or unwilling) to see the irrationality of your own hypothesis.

Now sure, we can certainly discuss why "God" is the best explanation to explain the effect...but we can't move progressively forward until you acknowledge the irrationality of your hypothesis.

You speak as if your hypothesis (nature) is on equal playing field as the God hypothesis, but the KCA is arguing they aren't on equal playing fields, and gives reasons why.

You cannot ignore those reasons, while at the same time thinking you are offering viable critiques to the argument.

Both claims are simply guesses and we have no data to show evidence one way or the other (though we can observe energy and not gods, so there's that).

Um, yes we do. We have data in science, math, and philosophy...all which support premises in theistic arguments and in particular, the KCA.

[benchwarmer]

The irony here is definitely interesting. Special pleading is exactly where this argument usually leads as soon as someone concludes God doesn't need a cause and is eternal.

Well, when you are able to explain how a universe can begin to exist without an external cause, you'll effectively explain why God isn't needed.

Easy peasy (as far as a hypotheses go anyways). The energy that makes up our universe may have always existed in some form or other. No God required.

Difficult Pifficult.

Your hypothesis involves the possibility of infinite regress..but the KCA demonstrates why infinite regression is not possible.

The infinity problem is a fundamental part of the KCA, yet you are purposely (and conveniently) going out of your way to avoid addressing this issue.

What are you on about? You can claim your God is eternal, but I can't claim the energy that currently makes up our universe is eternal? Special pleading much?

The KCA does no such thing (demonstrate anything about infinity). It's simply a syllogism.

You seem to be trying to rescue the premises in the KCA and talking about infinity. I'm hoping you are not the user than didn't even understand how to make an infinite series. We went down that rabbit hole in another thread with someone. They couldn't figure out how to divide by 2 for some reason.

Now, I diverted your attention to this issue so that you can address it...and you clipped the post (ignored it), just to maintain the same hypothesis that the KCA says cannot happen...which is crazy work.

So basically, you ain't really addressing the argument in its entirety...until you address what the KCA would call an unobtainable position, which is your infinite regression hypothesis.

You are building strawmen faster than we can keep up here. Where did I mention anything about infinity in this thread?

If you can claim your God always existed with no observational data to support it, I can just claim the same thing with the energy that makes up our universe.

You're clearly so concerned about keeping God out of the equation, that you're either unable (or unwilling) to see the irrationality of your own hypothesis.

No, I'm showing the large dose of special pleading that usually follows this argument. i.e. if you buy into the KCA, then the answer is usually an eternal, timeless prime mover that some theists like to label 'God' as if you can poof your God into existence with a syllogism.

Now sure, we can certainly discuss why "God" is the best explanation to explain the effect...but we can't move progressively forward until you acknowledge the irrationality of your hypothesis.

I think you mean your hypothesis. You are the one that laid this idea about infinity at my feet and pretended I left it there. Maybe you could quote me in this thread where I put forward this hypothesis?

Both claims are simply guesses and we have no data to show evidence one way or the other (though we can observe energy and not gods, so there's that).

Um, yes we do. We have data in science, math, and philosophy...all which support premises in theistic arguments and in particular, the KCA.

I await the peer reviewed science that mentions God. I'll even take some math. I'll grant you that some philosophy mentions god(s), but that's hardly useful when it comes to actual, observable data (which is what I mentioned).

[SiNcE_1985]

What are you on about? You can claim your God is eternal, but I can't claim the energy that currently makes up our universe is eternal? Special pleading much?

Um, no, it's not special pleading..because my claim is; it's equally impossible for God to have existed from eternity past.

If, existing from eternity past is impossible for both hypothesis'...and yet, one of them must be true, then we have to figure out a way as to how one could have produced the effect without having undergone an eternally existent past, and the other couldn't have.

They are mutually exclusive. Both can't be true, and both can't be false.

And the argument gives reasons why your hypothesis can't be true, and if your hypothesis can't be true, then mines win by default.

Again, you may not find this news desirable, but that is a personal problem...the argument doesn't deal with logical feelings, it deals with logical facts.

You are bringing feelings to a facts fight, and you'll lose every time when you do that.

The KCA does no such thing (demonstrate anything about infinity). It's simply a syllogism.

Ohh, I see what the problem is...

Now I gotta pull the "You just don't understand the KCA" card (the same card y'all pull on those who don't believe in evolution, "you just don't understand evolution!!).

Because if you knew what the KCA was all about, you'd know that your claim above is completely and demonstrably false.

Newsflash; the Kalam Cosmological Argument is Dr. William Lane Craig's argument.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_c ... l_argument

It is his baby.

And in his formulation of the argument, he uses two arguments against infinity to support P2.

That's why I keep stressing infinity, since we are debating the KCA and that is a key component of the argument.

And the reason infinity is argued against in the KCA, is precisely because of people like you, who appeal to this idea of the universe existing eternally within time.

So, until you deal with that, then you simply ain't addressing the KCA in its entirety.

You seem to be trying to rescue the premises in the KCA and talking about infinity. I'm hoping you are not the user than didn't even understand how to make an infinite series. We went down that rabbit hole in another thread with someone. They couldn't figure out how to divide by 2 for some reason.

Go ahead.

Try me.

You are building strawmen faster than we can keep up here. Where did I mention anything about infinity in this thread?

Um, no strawman is being built here.

You put forth the possibility of an externally existing universe, in time.

To do so^, is to imply infinite regression.

Did you not know that?

Or, think of it this way..

"I think Ben is guilty of first degree murder."

implies..

"I think Ben is guilty of intentionally taking someone's life".

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
To say one, is to imply the other.

Get it?

No, I'm showing the large dose of special pleading that usually follows this argument. i.e. if you buy into the KCA, then the answer is usually an eternal, timeless prime mover that some theists like to label 'God' as if you can poof your God into existence with a syllogism.

Um, no.

The premises in the syllogism are supported by current knowledge and empirical evidence we have in science..and also with the timeless, never-failing-to-be-true mathematical and philosophical evidence.

I think you mean your hypothesis. You are the one that laid this idea about infinity at my feet and pretended I left it there. Maybe you could quote me in this thread where I put forward this hypothesis?

Just like I explained above..

"Maybe the universe could have existed since past eternity" (paraphrase).

That is what you put forward, right?

Ohh, I get it..

You were under the false impression that "In order for infinity to be implied, the word infinity must be used ".

Guess what? You were wrong.

I await the peer reviewed science that mentions God. I'll even take some math. I'll grant you that some philosophy mentions god(s), but that's hardly useful when it comes to actual, observable data (which is what I mentioned).

To be honest, I don't think you understand what's going on here, BW.

[benchwarmer]

What are you on about? You can claim your God is eternal, but I can't claim the energy that currently makes up our universe is eternal? Special pleading much?

Um, no, it's not special pleading..because my claim is; it's equally impossible for God to have existed from eternity past.

Please quote me where I said 'eternity past'. I think you are projecting your poor argument on me. Again, stawman.

If, existing from eternity past is impossible for both hypothesis'...and yet, one of them must be true, then we have to figure out a way as to how one could have produced the effect without having undergone an eternally existent past, and the other couldn't have.

They are mutually exclusive. Both can't be true, and both can't be false.

And the argument gives reasons why your hypothesis can't be true, and if your hypothesis can't be true, then mines win by default.

Huh? All I'm saying is that whatever traits you want to imbue on your God, I can equally (with the exact same amount of evidence i.e. none) claim the same for the energy that makes up our universe and whatever state it may have been in before expanding.

Again, you may not find this news desirable, but that is a personal problem...the argument doesn't deal with logical feelings, it deals with logical facts.

I've yet to see you post many facts. I guess we will let readers decide who has the more persuasive argument.

You are bringing feelings to a facts fight, and you'll lose every time when you do that.

The irony is killing me. I'm sure readers are aware who has 'feelings' involved here.

The KCA does no such thing (demonstrate anything about infinity). It's simply a syllogism.

Ohh, I see what the problem is...

Now I gotta pull the "You just don't understand the KCA" card (the same card y'all pull on those who don't believe in evolution, "you just don't understand evolution!!).

Because if you knew what the KCA was all about, you'd know that your claim above is completely and demonstrably false.

Newsflash; the Kalam Cosmological Argument is Dr. William Lane Craig's argument.

No, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has a long history and WLC is simply a modern apologist and philosopher who has built on the past iterations of the cosmological argument and loves to write and debate about it.

In this thread, I have been going after the premises as presented. Readers are free to agree or disagree with me. I only hope they research the argument for themselves.

You are building strawmen faster than we can keep up here. Where did I mention anything about infinity in this thread?

Um, no strawman is being built here.

Except for the one above and the other one you laid at my feet. Nope, no staw in sight.

You put forth the possibility of an externally existing universe, in time.

Look, there's another one. You claim to not build strawmen and one sentence later you do it. Classic.

Please quote me where I said anything about an 'externally existing universe'. I'll wait.....

No, I'm showing the large dose of special pleading that usually follows this argument. i.e. if you buy into the KCA, then the answer is usually an eternal, timeless prime mover that some theists like to label 'God' as if you can poof your God into existence with a syllogism.

Um, no.

The premises in the syllogism are supported by current knowledge and empirical evidence we have in science..and also with the timeless, never-failing-to-be-true mathematical and philosophical evidence.

Well, I've been waiting for the science. No one has given me any yet that has data on time = 0 when our universe started expanding. Maybe you have some and are holding back from sharing it? At least historia gave some science (even if it was not was I was talking about).

I think you mean your hypothesis. You are the one that laid this idea about infinity at my feet and pretended I left it there. Maybe you could quote me in this thread where I put forward this hypothesis?

Just like I explained above..

"Maybe the universe could have existed since past eternity" (paraphrase).

Look, more straw! So you couldn't quote me because I didn't say it and now you are 'paraphrasing' to pretend I did. Nice job! You must own a straw farm.

That is what you put forward, right?

Nope.

I await the peer reviewed science that mentions God. I'll even take some math. I'll grant you that some philosophy mentions god(s), but that's hardly useful when it comes to actual, observable data (which is what I mentioned).

To be honest, I don't think you understand what's going on here, BW.

Oh the irony....

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Since one of our interlocutors has been going on and on about infinities, eternal pasts, etc. that are central to the KCA I'll just drop this here for anyone interested. Don't worry, I realize not everyone is going to watch this. Warning, it's close to an hour long.

I do find it interesting that KCA proponents have apparently been bouncing from one scientific theorem to the next as each theorem has been shown to NOT support whatever the KCA was trying to use. Color me shocked.

This video has some of the actual scientists (and philosophers) talking about what their theorems actually say and what they don't.

I don't intend to debate any of this, I'll just let the scientists speak for themselves. Enjoy (or ignore).

[SiNcE_1985]

Please quote me where I said 'eternity past'. I think you are projecting your poor argument on me. Again, stawman.

Hmm.

So please kindly explain what you meant when you said (and I quote), in post #73..

"What are you on about? You can claim your God is eternal, but I can't claim the energy that currently makes up our universe is eternal? Special pleading much?"

Or am I in the twilight zone?

If the energy that makes up our universe is eternal, then our universe is eternal.

C'mon now, let's get it together here.

Huh? All I'm saying is that whatever traits you want to imbue on your God, I can equally (with the exact same amount of evidence i.e. none) claim the same for the energy that makes up our universe and whatever state it may have been in before expanding.

That's the point, you are making that claim, when the argument against infinite regress (as laid out in the argument) demonstrates why such claims are false.

And instead of dealing with the case made against your position, you are simply ignoring it while still making the claim.

That's crazy work.

I've yet to see you post many facts. I guess we will let readers decide who has the more persuasive argument.

Please deal with the argument.

I shouldn't have to beg you guys to address key points in an argument of which you claim is invalid and unsound.

If the argument is as invalid and unsound as you people claim, then you should be all over it with counter-arguments and refutations.

Instead, all I see is stalling, gaslighting, and flat out ignoring it.

Claiming "there is no evidence for God" while being unable to refute theistic arguments which presents evidence for God, is wild.

The irony is killing me. I'm sure readers are aware who has 'feelings' involved here.

Readers can get the business, too.

No, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has a long history and WLC is simply a modern apologist and philosopher who has built on the past iterations of the cosmological argument and loves to write and debate about it.

Right, the KCA is his version of the Cosmological Argument.

It is his.

I never said anything to the contrary...and in fact, I said it is his baby.

You're using a red herring for that moot point, to divert away from the fact you weren't aware that the argument against infinity is a key component of it.

In this thread, I have been going after the premises as presented. Readers are free to agree or disagree with me. I only hope they research the argument for themselves.

The premises themselves must be supported with factual information.

You are attacking the premises, instead of attacking the support for those premises which allows the premises to hold weight.

That is what a syllogism is; you provide the premises, and then you present evidence which supports those premises.

Look, there's another one. You claim to not build strawmen and one sentence later you do it. Classic.

Please quote me where I said anything about an 'externally existing universe'. I'll wait.....

Wait a minute, so you deliberately clipped the response of me quoting when you insinuated an "eternally existing universe", just to respond here by challenging me to quote you saying the exact same thing??

It's crazy that you would do this, as if I can't go back and pull up the exact post (#73) and exact paragraph (1st) of you saying it.

Well, I've been waiting for the science. No one has given me any yet that has data on time = 0 when our universe started expanding. Maybe you have some and are holding back from sharing it? At least historia gave some science (even if it was not was I was talking about).

The universe didn't exist before it started expanding.

You already admitted that it started expanding, so I don't know what the issue is.

Look, more straw! So you couldn't quote me because I didn't say it and now you are 'paraphrasing' to pretend I did. Nice job! You must own a straw farm.

I only paraphrased, because I was too lazy to go back and dig up the quote.

But since you refuse to keep it real about what you said and are pretending you didn't say it...I went on ahead and copy & pasted your exact quote, along with the post # associated with it.

I posted it above but I'll do it again..

"What are you on about? You can claim your God is eternal, but I can't claim the energy that currently makes up our universe is eternal? Special pleading much?"

And you've made that claim more than once, so I'll dig up the other quotes if needed...because the above quote is an insinuation of prior similar claims.

And since you are so mindful about your beloved "readers", we'll let readers decide what is what.

I said all that to say this; although I play around a lot on here, I'm really not the one to play around with.

Those apologists you're used to dealing with..they are not me..and I am not them.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Since one of our interlocutors has been going on and on about infinities, eternal pasts, etc. that are central to the KCA I'll just drop this here for anyone interested. Don't worry, I realize not everyone is going to watch this. Warning, it's close to an hour long.

So instead of addressing the argument yourself, you appeal to a video?

As if I can't search YouTube and find videos supporting my position.

Anyone can do that. That's easy.

But can you defend the position of the video, against the argument I put forth?

No, you can't.

I do find it interesting that KCA proponents have apparently been bouncing from one scientific theorem to the next as each theorem has been shown to NOT support whatever the KCA was trying to use. Color me shocked.

This video has some of the actual scientists (and philosophers) talking about what their theorems actually say and what they don't.

I don't intend to debate any of this, I'll just let the scientists speak for themselves. Enjoy (or ignore).

The video isn't your Savior, and won't help you.

The argument against infinity is independent of science...so you searching (confirmation bias) for the video was a waste of your valuable time.

This one is done.

I'll take the W from you as well.

One thread. Two W's.

[benchwarmer]

Please quote me where I said 'eternity past'. I think you are projecting your poor argument on me. Again, stawman.

Hmm.

So please kindly explain what you meant when you said (and I quote), in post #73..

"What are you on about? You can claim your God is eternal, but I can't claim the energy that currently makes up our universe is eternal? Special pleading much?"

Or am I in the twilight zone?

It appears you may be 'in the twilight zone'.

If the energy that makes up our universe is eternal, then our universe is eternal.

No. Our current universe is the result of whatever happened at time = 0 (where time in our universe started at the expansion of whatever was at the initial state). Whatever that initial state was, it wasn't our universe.

What you are saying is analogous to "If the metal that was mined in 1984 that currently makes up my bicycle is 41 years old, then my bicycle is 41 years old". Note that this is different than the 'began to exist' disagreement that historia and I are having. 'Began to exist' and 'became a functioning X' are different things. Our universe became "our universe" at the beginning of the expansion. Whatever it may have been before is the open question and whatever that thing was (or may have been) is the issue.

C'mon now, let's get it together here.

Indeed.

Huh? All I'm saying is that whatever traits you want to imbue on your God, I can equally (with the exact same amount of evidence i.e. none) claim the same for the energy that makes up our universe and whatever state it may have been in before expanding.

That's the point, you are making that claim, when the argument against infinite regress (as laid out in the argument) demonstrates why such claims are false.

I've seen no such demonstration. I've seen WLC wax on about it and you repeat some of it here with no real explanation.

My understanding is that WLC argues about infinite regress (all the while ignoring future infinity) in regards to an infinite past. That's an open question as it depends on what you mean by 'past'. Our current scientific understanding is that time is a property of our current universe. Once the expansion began and our universe became 'a universe' time was a relevant variable. We have no clue if there was a time property to whatever may have existed prior to that.

Let's attack this another way. You claim your God is eternal and at some point created the universe right? i.e. your God is the cause of our universe.

How is that possible without running into the exact same infinite regress issues that you like to go on about? How could an eternal God ever get to the point of deciding to do anything? If you are going to claim your God is timeless, then it cannot cause anything, because that would imply a "cause then effect" situation that requires some sort of time (otherwise it's not a cause, it's just an eternal 'always there'). If you follow that logic it must mean our universe has always existed because it will have existed at that timeless cause point. As far as I see it, your goose is cooked either way.

So, instead of trying to pretend we have the answer, let's follow the scientific method and keep looking. It's ok to say "I don't know".

And instead of dealing with the case made against your position, you are simply ignoring it while still making the claim.

That's crazy work.

What claim have I made? Care to quote which claim you think I made? All I have done to this point is put forward some possibilities. When I say "it could be" or "it may be" that is not a claim.

I've yet to see you post many facts. I guess we will let readers decide who has the more persuasive argument.

Please deal with the argument.

I have been dealing with what you have been posting. Readers can agree or disagree.

I shouldn't have to beg you guys to address key points in an argument of which you claim is invalid and unsound.

If the argument is as invalid and unsound as you people claim, then you should be all over it with counter-arguments and refutations.

Instead, all I see is stalling, gaslighting, and flat out ignoring it.

Claiming "there is no evidence for God" while being unable to refute theistic arguments which presents evidence for God, is wild.

It really is wild isn't it when the pot can't see it's calling the kettle black.

First, the syllogism is a 'valid syllogism'. I have not refuted that. So one more strawman to notch on your belt. You must be running out of room.

My argument is that the premises are not sound. So finally at least one right about my argument.

The irony is killing me. I'm sure readers are aware who has 'feelings' involved here.

Readers can get the business, too.

Not sure if you are insulting readers or saying you don't care. If you don't care about putting forward a persuasive argument to sway readers, why are you here?

In this thread, I have been going after the premises as presented. Readers are free to agree or disagree with me. I only hope they research the argument for themselves.

The premises themselves must be supported with factual information.

Oh my goodness! We are agreeing wholeheartedly on something!! Did a rift just appear in the space/time continuum?

You are attacking the premises, instead of attacking the support for those premises which allows the premises to hold weight.

I've yet to see any facts presented. I've seen plenty of hand waving and pretending the science supports any of this (maybe the video I recently posted will clear that up for you, but since you don't watch videos, I guess not).

That is what a syllogism is; you provide the premises, and then you present evidence which supports those premises.

Sort of. A syllogism is just a form of reasoning and to be valid must have a particular format. In the simple case I originally presented with 2 premises and a conclusion, the two premises must tie together with something. That something is 'began to exist'. That is the sticking point with this entire syllogism. If that is not defined carefully, we all end up talking past each other.

Look, there's another one. You claim to not build strawmen and one sentence later you do it. Classic.

Please quote me where I said anything about an 'externally existing universe'. I'll wait.....

Wait a minute, so you deliberately clipped the response of me quoting when you insinuated an "eternally existing universe", just to respond here by challenging me to quote you saying the exact same thing??

So you think your gaslighting of me (look at that, more pot/kettle action) by saying I insinuated something is the same as me actually saying something? LOL!

I ask for a quote. You realized I never actually said what you claimed I said, so now project what you think I said and pretend I said it. Wow.

It's crazy that you would do this, as if I can't go back and pull up the exact post (#73) and exact paragraph (1st) of you saying it.

Yet you couldn't because I didn't. I could post a clip from you and pretend it means something other than what you actually said as well. I don't do that though because I realize that readers will just laugh and move on.

Well, I've been waiting for the science. No one has given me any yet that has data on time = 0 when our universe started expanding. Maybe you have some and are holding back from sharing it? At least historia gave some science (even if it was not was I was talking about).

The universe didn't exist before it started expanding.

The keyword here (as I explained above) is what do we mean by 'exist'. The universe was not 'the universe' before it started expanding. However, what makes up the universe may have been something sitting there right before the expansion started. That is the issue and if there was something, then the universe did not 'begin to exist', it merely changed state. Two very different things.

You already admitted that it started expanding, so I don't know what the issue is.

Correct. The issue is outlined a couple times above. Disagreement on the phrase 'begins to exist'/'began to exist'.

Look, more straw! So you couldn't quote me because I didn't say it and now you are 'paraphrasing' to pretend I did. Nice job! You must own a straw farm.

I only paraphrased, because I was too lazy to go back and dig up the quote.

Ah, just laziness. Right..... If you found the quote you would be slamming it down and dancing around showing everyone I was full of it. Claiming your win and generally loving to prove me wrong. I think we all know what happened. You searched and couldn't find what wasn't there. Ooops.

But since you refuse to keep it real about what you said and are pretending you didn't say it...I went on ahead and copy & pasted your exact quote, along with the post # associated with it.

I posted it above but I'll do it again..

"What are you on about? You can claim your God is eternal, but I can't claim the energy that currently makes up our universe is eternal? Special pleading much?"

And in the quote, where did I say "our universe is eternal" without snipping the first part of the sentence I bolded for you? Perhaps you don't understand how sentence structure works and didn't realize that the word 'eternal' was talking about the word 'energy' and decided to skip that bit of important context and just read what you wanted to read?

And you've made that claim more than once, so I'll dig up the other quotes if needed...because the above quote is an insinuation of prior similar claims.

Dig all you like. Quote me a much as you want. You still haven't found one that says what you say I said. And you complained about gaslighting....

And since you are so mindful about your beloved "readers", we'll let readers decide what is what.

Well, I realize that I'm making a case for readers of this thread. I'm not here to convince my debate opponents or just soak in reading my own words. Whatever floats your ark I guess.

I said all that to say this; although I play around a lot on here, I'm really not the one to play around with.

Good grief. How about just stick to debating ideas and drop all the bravado? Or not I guess.

Those apologists you're used to dealing with..they are not me..and I am not them.

That's clear as day. It's refreshing to go up against users like historia who actually stick to the debate and make a lot of great points. To be honest I usually sweat a little when some of those users decide to engage because it means I'll probably have to do a bunch of reading

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Since one of our interlocutors has been going on and on about infinities, eternal pasts, etc. that are central to the KCA I'll just drop this here for anyone interested. Don't worry, I realize not everyone is going to watch this. Warning, it's close to an hour long.

So instead of addressing the argument yourself, you appeal to a video?

You have been appealing to WLC this entire time. Remember? "It's his baby" and all that? I would be happy to provide a quote if you like?

The point of the video (if you had bothered to watch it) is that the actual scientists who have put forth some of the theorems (and/or who are working in the field) that WLC likes to reference, are explaining that WLC doesn't actually understand what he is pointing at.

So you are appealing to WLC who is appealing to some science. The video is "from the horses mouth" so to speak and directly from the scientists involved in what WLC is pointing at. I get that this would be rather inconvenient for you to watch, so feel free to ignore it as I already mentioned in the initial post.

As if I can't search YouTube and find videos supporting my position.

I wasn't trying to support 'my position'. I was pointing to a video that shows the scientists in question position on the theorems WLC is using for his support.

If you can find a video with the scientists involved in the theorems WLC is using and they support WLC, then please do post it. Though it would be odd to see the same people disagree in one video and then agree in another. If you got it though, please share. I don't have a faith position to protect here. Just looking for the facts.

The video isn't your Savior, and won't help you.

I wasn't looking for a savior, just the actual scientists who put forward the theorems WLC is talking about. Maybe they supported WLC's position. Oops.

The argument against infinity is independent of science...so you searching (confirmation bias) for the video was a waste of your valuable time.

This one is done.

I'll take the W from you as well.

One thread. Two W's.

I thought it was Weird too. Enjoy!