Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:59 am
VVilliam wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:51 am
Here is how we can expose the fallacy:
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the
[scientific] universe began to exist, then the
[scientific] universe has a
[scientific] cause of its
[scientific] beginning.
2. The [scientific] universe began to exist [scientifically] .
3. Therefore, the [
scientific] universe has a cause of its
[scientific] beginning
....................................................................
....................................................................
4. which is an Uncaused First Cause
[unscientific] as
5. A Personal Being
[unscientific] with
[unscientific]Freedom of the Will -a
[unscientific]Personal Creator
the .............. line represent that deceptive big leap from the scientific FSK into the theological FSK of la la land.
Referring to the universe as "the scientific universe" allows one to infer that there is at least one other universe which is not scientific. Generally that is identified as "supernatural".
So the first premise is unnecessary worded.
The idea appears to be that there has to be agreement of what is meant by "The Universe"
I had argued elsewhere,
And, as I have said and pointed out elsewhere, if what you so-call 'argue' is not 'sound and valid', then 'it' is not even worth mentioning again.
Also, and by the way, if what you 'argued' previously was 'sound and valid', then everyone could just be agreeing and accepting 'it' anyway.
So, again, you would not have to be, continually, mentioning that you had 'argued' for something somewhere else. Again, because 'it' could and so would just already be accepted.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:59 am
What is real, true, knowledge and objective must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most real, objective and credible at present.
Claiming that some 'thing' is the 'most' real, 'most' objective, and 'most' credible, at any 'present moment' in no way at all means that what is being presented is, as you Falsely claim here, once more, 'What is real, true, knowledge, and objective', at all.
Also, here claiming that conditioning 'What is real, true, knowledge, or so-called 'objective' on 'that', which is not actually 'real', 'objective', nor 'credible' is just another piece of absolute lunacy that you are providing 'us' with.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:59 am
There are no other FSKs which are more credible than the present scientific FSK.
So what?
Why base, or condition, absolutely any thing on what is not, always, actually 'credible'.
Of which there is only One thing, only.
And, that being the actual and irrefutable Truth, alone.
Yes.
And, if I did not already know how 'you' work, exactly, I would be somewhat surprised that 'you' could not think of anything otherwise as well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:59 am
If there is a least one other universe, then there must be an infinite number of universes.
But where are they, they can only be a speculation within some speculative-supernatural-FSKs which cannot be more real than the existing human-based scientific FSK.
This one actually believes that 'it', and human beings, are the highest form of intelligence, and could only ever be, that 'it' actually also believes that there could not be, in the whole Universe, anything more so-called 'real' than the 'existing human being based scientific framework of systems and knowledge'.
It is like this one actually believes that human beings are the most and/or only intelligent species/thing in the whole Universe, Itself.
This one here could not provide a better example of just how narrowed and closed adult human beings had become and could be, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:59 am
Relative such supernatural FSK would be at the other extreme of realness and objective in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.
The Universe as generally accepted;
- The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
Because the universe is defined as ALL there is, there cannot be another 'all there is'.
So the scientific universe is the only universe which can be accepted without question and is evident.
So, there is no use at all, and thus completely redundant, to call the One and only Universe, 'the scientific universe', right?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:59 am
I believe Craig agreed P1 implied the scientific universe [got to double check].
Yet, one sentence later this one calls the One and only Universe the 'scientific universe', once again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:59 am
Thus P1 above has to be
1.. If the
[scientific] universe began to exist, then the
[scientific] universe has a
[scientific] cause of its
[scientific] beginning.
If anyone insist there are other universes which are supernatural and are not scientific then they will have to prove it is possible for them to exists at least scientifically for them to be real [FSK-based].
Besides calling 'the Universe', Itself, 'the scientific universe', being beyond absolute stupidity, but then to say and claim the rest that this one has here is getting beyond a joke now.
If you want to keep insisting that 'the Universe' is a so-called 'scientific universe', then how about insisting others prove things, you begin proving how 'the Universe', Itself, is a so-called 'scientific universe'?