37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + + +
Talk:Arguments for the existence of God (view source)
Revision as of 18:45, July 5, 2008
, 18:45, July 5, 2008→Aristotle: reply
:: Also, your edit that the Big Bang somehow replaces the need for God doesn't, because you then have the question of what caused the Big Bang.
:: Also, your edit that the Big Bang somehow replaces the need for God doesn't, because you then have the question of what caused the Big Bang.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Well, more accurately, science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system. But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space.
::: In re: the Big Bang. Remember that the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which ''begins to exist'' must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object. So as it stands, the Kalam argument is inadequate. You are correct, of course, in saying that if it were changed to admit events as well as objects, the Big Bang would need an explanation, but as it is presented (and as it is presented in the given source, Craig's book), this objection stands. This is why I said "further development is possible". [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)