Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
I've been reading about the kalam cosmological argument. It's based on these three statements:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2) The universe had a beginning 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory. Philosophy and math were used to reason that the universe must have had a beginning. For instance, they used math and logic to prove that an infinite number of past events lead to logical absurdities. And that's just one example... different ideas were examined, the least likely ones were shaved away (occam's razor) and the last one standing was "The universe had a beginning".
This argument is mostly supported by theists... in other words, it's "arguable". *<(:op
(Cacher) Vous en avez marre d'avoir à cliquer sur 2 ou 3 liens pour pouvoir atteindre une même page? Les abonnés peuvent ajouter cette page à leur Menu Contextuel. (pauloaguia) (Montrer toutes les astuces)