〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

Apologist *

The fact that somebody doesn’t know the basic distinction between induction and deduction, frightens me.. though I’m not surprised, since it’s coming from an apologist

I have no idea why people think that the universe having a beginning implies God’s existence.. The Kalam Cosmological argument is awful, though it’s flaws are somewhat subtle but detrimental

Kalam was persuasive to me initially but not at all anymore. The arguments doesn’t even make sense philosophically (which is usually how I address the argument first).

The main and most detrimental flaw is that it equivocates on its usage of the word causality.. its a beautiful counterargument

I think the phrase “begins to exist” is also ill-defined and is often equivocated as well.

I think time is ill-defined at the beginning of the universe tbh

Why?