I wasn't aware further argument was necessary. After all, no one has yet provided a logical fallacy for the cosmological argument.
Correction. You haven't provided a logical refutation for an elegantly simple argument.
Won what? ***** of the year?
Or are you suggesting that his posts are somehow attempts at argument?
So, some material phenomena have causes and some don't? Is that what you are saying?
Neither has anyone seen gravity, electrostatic forces, black holes, nor a host of other physical quantities. What's the point?
What sort of evidence were you expecting? Or are you suggesting that the whole of creation is not evidence enough?
The cosmological argument proceeds from the premise of causality, as does science.
Now, if you say that that is not a valid premise, then the conclusions made by science are not valid as well.
Understand?
So, what you are asserting is that everything we know is a mountain of implausible nothing all built precauriously on top of one another. If you are peddling such a view as agnosticism, then I suggest you check your definitions again.
Sigh.
That is the conclusion. It is not the premise. Nor is it a hypothesis. So you see, talking to dawki merely serves to lower one's iq.
