tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4491000431154227219..comments2024-02-26T03:25:06.471+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Cosmological argument - some notesStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-92063753176721315292014-06-17T06:15:02.158+00:002014-06-17T06:15:02.158+00:00Hi Stephen, I'm going to ask Newsnight whether...Hi Stephen, I'm going to ask Newsnight whether they'd be keen to interview in succession to last night's interview with David Abramovitz. Should this happen you could have an interesting chat with Jeremy Paxman before & after at the same time.mimpromptuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07104865185750219444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51209096383574739492014-06-17T06:14:00.926+00:002014-06-17T06:14:00.926+00:00Hi Stephen, I'm going to ask Newsnight whether...Hi Stephen, I'm going to ask Newsnight whether they'd be keen to interview in succession to last night's interview with David Abramovitz. Should this happen you could have an interesting chat with Jeremy Paxman before & after at the same time.mimpromptuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07104865185750219444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90721117792030653832014-04-01T16:39:48.981+00:002014-04-01T16:39:48.981+00:00Please professor law, can you respond to my commen...Please professor law, can you respond to my comment:<br />Isn't that question essentially asking,Why is there existence rather than non-existence?" if so, then how can non-existence (meaning that which cannot possibly be existent) be expected to be existent? <br /><br />Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask why is this kind of existence real instead of some other kind of existence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-59629110941668321502014-04-01T16:35:32.084+00:002014-04-01T16:35:32.084+00:00Isn't that question essentially asking,Why is ...Isn't that question essentially asking,Why is there existence rather than non-existence?" if so, then how can non-existence (meaning that which cannot possibly be existent) be expected to be existent? <br /><br />Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask why is this kind of existence real instead of some other kind of existence?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6724430063224330662014-03-17T01:36:30.999+00:002014-03-17T01:36:30.999+00:00What about the agv theorem that apologists like Cr...What about the agv theorem that apologists like Craig cite? I agree with the big bang possibly being a transformative cause (via quantum fluctuations) but I know very little concerning these things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87494929616950218302014-03-12T06:09:12.586+00:002014-03-12T06:09:12.586+00:00Just a quick note; a lot hinges also on that the u...Just a quick note; a lot hinges also on that the universe had a beginning, however there's a great misunderstanding to think the Big Bang *is* the beginning of the universe; the Big Bang is a great unknown cataclysmic event that certainly involves our universe, however we don't know if it's a beginning, or an event (the Big Bang could just be one of an endless stream of Big Bangs, or part of a pulsating universe, or ... many options). Truth is, we don't know what happens back to what many calls time 0; we can observe back to year 300.000 or so, and we postulate/project backwards, but not quite all the way to 0. And beyond that? We know nothing. And as long as we know nothing, it can't be a premise for an argument.<br /><br />If nothing else, we need to get better at calling this the observable universe, and not simply the universe, which might be much bigger, weirder and stranger than we think.<br /><br />Cheers!Alexander Johannesenhttp://shelter.nu/noreply@blogger.com