We haven't shown religion to be true, so that is a logical leap in itself.

No, the best we can do is to not presume something we don't know to be true.

As for pointing out flaws in the wall of text... Just no. If you can't see any, I'm sorry. If you interpret this as 'He doesn't know what he's talking about', so be it - I just won't go into that.

Oh, I see, so not everything that exists needs to have a beginning.

I'd go even further and argue that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is not so. But that would require a greater exposition of Hawking's cosmology than the thread deserves.

WLC argues logically for his premises and his conclusions flow logically from his premises, so you're welcome to disagree with his premises, but to say it makes a logical leap is simply incorrect.

Sorry about hitting you with the wall of text, I was just trying to show you that he was being thorough in his reasoning rather than simply assuming those things to be true.

Correct.
There are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, a quantum vacuum is not nothing, and Hawking's cosmology does not eliminate the possibility of an intelligent immaterial being from being the cause, so using it against an argument for one is begging the question.

I did read it, I just find some statements... Questionable. But I really don't want to get into it, because we can start fliging quotes at each other to no end without any good purpose or outcome.

So um... If not everything that exists needs to have a beginning, what does prevent us from applying the same logic to universe? I mean, nobody mentions what existed before big bang, and before that, and before that, or if universe doesn't work in a way that defies our understanding of space and time entirely. What I'm saying is that if God doesn't need a beginning, neither does universe. And I don't mean our universe in particular. But I digress, I did say I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion and here I am...

No; the mere fact that a theory does not explicitly state that an "intelligent immaterial being" is not a cause of something is no support whatsoever. No theory can be used as a prediction of anything or a foundation of anything that is by definition untestable.

Your observation that a quantum vacuum is not actually nothing is sound and to the point, though.

If a argument has true premises and a valid form, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily. For instance:

1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore, Socrates was a mortal

If the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, such as therefore Socrates liked porridge, then that would be a leap in logic, even if were true that he did. Conversely, someone who thinks the conclusion that Socrates was a mortal is true because they think the premises are true and the form is valid is not making a leap in logic even if one of the premises happened to be false.

Simple, did it a few times already. Now that we are out of the dark ages, we know that infinity does not mean there must be a first cause. There is no need for an "unmoved mover".


oh my gods, we have addressed the Aquinas dark age crap so much, how about you respond to that instead of bringing him up all over again.

Yeah, although I was a bit bothered that Picard immediately said something like "you are not god". Sounded like Picard thinks there is another god, and only one.

What leap? I was simply describing reality, if you get a severe injury to the head, your personality can completely change. That means our minds are part of our bodies. If the brain is gone, so is our "soul".
Because if not, then what personality goes to this magical second life? And if it is the previous one, does that mean that it could be any personality from the past? Because I was quite different with 8 years old.

Exactly. But with only Dark Ages knowledge of Aquinas and Crag Hack that is incomprehensable.


Exactly, it is just that your premises are baseless assumptions or false, see above.

You are correct again that if the universe is eternal, then it doesn't have a beginning and doesn't need a cause. This is precisely why WLC seeks to establish that the universe had a beginning through scientific and philosophical arguments. I personally don't like his version of the cosmological argument because people tend to get caught up on debating whether the universe has a beginning and lose track of the implications that are true if the universe does have a beginning. I prefer Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways because they don't depend on whether or not the universe has a beginning.

You misunderstand me, I was not in any way, shape, or form saying that because it does not rule out an intelligent immaterial being, therefore one exists. It's that in order to say that something doesn't have a cause, you need to eliminate all possible causes. Quantum mechanics is not a settled field, but granting for the sake of argument that it does show the particles have no physical cause, it does not show show that they have no non-physical cause, so it can't be used to argue against the existence of one.

The dark ages are a modern myth that is perpetuated by people who have no clue about the history. I have not been paying much attention to what you say because your level of ignorance is almost physically painful. I very much doubt you've taken even an intro to philosophy class or read any books on philosophy, yet you want to consider yourself an expert on something you know practically nothing about. I bring up Aquinas because I've read things that he's written and I've read scholarly books about him. You seem to have no interest in learning about what you're criticizing before you criticize it and you would rather blindly dismiss him because he was born hundreds of years before you. I hope you'll pardon me if I don't take you seriously.

Of I am so ignorant, why don;t you just refute what I say. Oh yeah here is why, because that Aquinas philosophy was outdated by modern mathematics and general relativity.

It hasn't been, but thanks for proving my point.