Well yes Laird, I did say as much myself that his is a scientific argument, or at least this is how he initially presents it. But come on, it isn't really, is it? Besides, how the hell could you prove scientifically a "timeless Being"? Don't you see the problem here? It's a fairly obvious one.guest_of_logic wrote:Robert, you also object that WLC does not define "the universe", whereas it seems to me perfectly obvious, since he includes scientific arguments, that he means the term in the same way that a scientist means the term when proposing a Big Bang. I think he would agree with you that this is "short of the whole story", because, as he argues, something cannot come out of nothing, and the whole point of his argument is to prove the necessity of a timeless Being out of which the "scientific" universe originates. There's no sleight [note the "e"] of hand here. The fact that you see equivocation, I would suggest, is really due to you adopting, and viewing WLC's argument through that lens, this forum's definitions of "finite" (i.e. "less than the Totality") and "infinite" (i.e. "the Totality"), whereas WLC is using the mathematical definitions, and there are no problems when viewing his argument through his own lens.
It would be fine to address Craig on the merits of his arguments minus the inclusion of a necessary timeless Being. But then would he still have an argument? Why would he bother at all since all he'd be doing is offering some previously observed notions on apparent paradoxes when it comes to making measurements.
I'm stumped as to why you think this is compelling. I suspect you're just posting this to get a rise out of people.