Whose spouting sophistry now, eh?
The thing is, a physical cosmological model that involves 'something' behaving in a particular way 'somehow' in 'someplace' beyond our common-sense world could very well answer ANYTHING.
Inflation is guth's seminal work, fyi.
It makes use of particle physics to bring a fresh perspective to cosmology. While it is arguably the most accepted cosmological model today, it is so by DEFAULT.
It is refreshing for someone to understand the point raised for a change.
I do not think it is a failure on the part of science, merely its inherent limitations.
Science is a materialist, empiricist philosophical conception with a rigorous set of methodology. The basic tenet of this philosophical conception - ALL MATERIAL PHENOMENON HAVE ONLY MATERIAL CAUSES.
And you don't need cosmology to realize the basic frailty of this postulate. There are countless human experiences that are not empirically quantifiable and are not the mechanistic result of some material cause.
You give religion too much credit.
The philosophical basis of christianity does not derive from the gospels - but in hellenistic philosophy of the west.
The notion of the immutability of physical laws are attributable to the platonic and aristotlean schools of thought - not jesus, nor judaism.
Outdated, you say?
No human knowledge can proceed without the benefit of axioms or postulate. Not logic, nor mathematics. Certainly not the natural sciences.
The difference between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry rests on a SINGLE postulate, fyi.
Complexity in a theory is a sure sign of bs, in my opinion.
The scientific precept ockham's razor says as much.
I am flattered that you attribute the cosmological argument to me. Unfortunately, I must decline the honor.
It is, however, couched as a FORMAL ARGUMENT.
While you might consider it mere sophistry, you really need to point out its fallacy for you to dismiss it off-hand.
