Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Isn't that also known in some circles as the "big bang theory"? at first there was nothing, and then BOOM we had a universe?
The "big bang theory" is merely "creationism" without a "Creator", is it not?
So, you're William Lane Craig. It all makes sense now!
To move from the ridiculous to the sublime, I never quite wrapped my head around the Cosmological Argument's obvious flaw. If the idea is that the Universe must have God as a creator because nothing can create itself, and God has no creator, then nothing can exist since something must have created God. But we exist, therefore, obviously there is something wrong with the idea that "nothing can create itself." Either it's just wrong, or it's right and it masks another truth about existence, such as the universe has no beginning, or time is a feature of the existing universe and it's meaningless to talk about "before" time, or time wraps around upon itself, or whatever.
That's the thing about religious arguments. Insofar as they purport to be about reality, they aren't, since they are all at the end of the day just ways of rationalizing an ever-less-likely assumption of a divine being. But insofar as they deal with fundamental questions like existence, causality, time, etc, they are amazingly useful since, though themselves false, they open up interesting directions for the exploration of truth. They are like Dr. Watson in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."
"Really, Watson, you excel yourself. I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light."