Philosoft

How, indeed? Who is claiming this?

<strong> Perhaps you're right.

<strong> That's probably why big-bang cosmologists don't ask your opinion during theory-development.

<strong> Well, relatively speaking, yes.

<strong> Considering the alternatives, supernatural explanations, which have no positive evidence in support, rely exclusively on the absence of a corresponding natural explanation, I'd say the presence of a natural explanation does them irreperable harm.

<strong> Simple. We have a plausible naturalistic method. We have no supernatural method, plausible or otherwise.

<strong> Now there's a question. I don't have anything other than idle guesswork, really.

<strong> I think you are unable to make such a determination until you take into account at least matter-energy equivalence.

luvluv

This is my point. There isn't a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. There is only the unrelated observation that, within the limits of our ability to observe them, quantum-sized objects APPEAR to disobey the law of causality. You are making a gigantic leap in saying that this observation solves the mystery of the origin of the universe. It solves the mystery of the origin of an electron.

Also, what is your opinion about quantum fluctuations creating space? Don't they need a pre-existant space to fluctuate into? Do we know that quantum fluctuations are capable of creating dimensions of space-time?

Philosoft

We don't have to justify why something appears to violate the law of causality because the law of causality is not immutable. We don't say, "the law of causality holds universally, therefore anything that violates causality must be completely explained and justified." We say, "these things behave according to the law of causality and these other things don't." And you are still completely ignoring relativity.

<strong> As these are purely mathematical constructs, I have neither the talent nor the wisdom to hope to understand them at this point. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that there are mathematical justifications for the above questions. Physical theories tend to dead-end when the maths don't work.

Vanderzyden

And yet matter does exist. What explains that?

(Hint: there is no naturalistic explanation)

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

It's not simply "according to Craig", but rather intuitive common sense. You once did not exist, but now you are here. You make choices everyday, and they begin to exist in your mind.

In short, you are the cause of your thoughts. You can think, or not. You can think some thoughts, and choose to avoid others. Upon exposure to particular external stimuli, you choose to entertain some thoughts, and reject others. Your actions, which result directly from your thoughts, are your responsibility.

Vanderzyden

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Hint: You're wrong.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Then, where, pray tell, did the thoughts originate? What caused them perchance? They had to start at some point? Were they self-starting? Or was there an outside influence?

We can play trace back all day long. And guess what? I get to ask "Where did that come from" again and again and again no matter your response. If you state that everything has a cause, then I win. If you state that not everything has a cause, I also win. It's rather easy, actually, to use the first cause argument to exclude God entirely. If God doesn't need a cause, then neither does the start of a naturalistic explanation, and if God does have a cause, well, you get the point there. I love stuff like this.

Steven Carr

So what caused my choices to begin to exist?

What is the difference between your position and the deterministic one that my actions are caused by the state of the universe? (assuming that I am part of the Universe)

Steven Carr

Is there any such thing as contra-causal freedom when all my choices are caused by something? (My choices begin to exist, and so, according to Craig, need a cause).

rainbow walking

Rw: Could you provide chapter and verse where loaves an fishes pop into existence? Being multiplied from an original source is hardly comparable to popping into existence. Multiplication from an original source is more consistant with virtual particle theory.