Also, I should note because I believe there might be a misunderstanding here, that the cosmological argument is not about HOW we evolved or HOW the world came into existence. We are dealing with something even more basic than that. Lotz wants to talk about origins, and in that he assumes that there is an origin-- a first cause. This is where we are starting. How do we know that there is a first cause? What is wrong with thinking that the world has always existed in some form? One possibility is that we live in a forever expanding and contracting universe. Our universe is expanding but if it's density is high enough then it will eventually collapse. Perhaps this is a cycle and the universe will then expand again and perhaps it as been in this cycle forever. And what do you make of these ideas from quantum mechanics which shows that you can't have nothingness because even in a vacuum we have particles popping in and out of existence? We need an argument that the world did in fact have a beginning. Let's start there.

Jake --- You want me to make a case for myself, but here is the thing: I'm not the one making the claim. In general discourse, the individual who makes a claim is the same individual responsible for supporting the claim. Now here, the cosmological argument is an argument FOR the existence of God. If a theist is trying to argue the existence of God, then the theist is the one that needs to make the argument. That never happened. All I got from Lotz was a statement that he felt the topic of origins was a good case for belief in God. We were trying to work through issues about the compatibility between science and religion when Lotz wanted to change topics and talk about origins. It was a little bit frustrating for me because we had to drop the topic we were on so that Lotz could give his spiel for the cosmological argument. OK but then he never gave his argument. So I tried doing it for him. I presented what I thought was the best argument on his side (Craig's Kalam argument) and I laid it out for him. Then Lotz tells me that maybe he doesn't agree with Craig. So that's were we are now. I'm waiting for an argument from Lotz. He needs to do this because he is the one making the claim. It doesn't even matter at this point that I am an atheist. I could just as well be a theist and object to the cosmological argument. But we haven't even gotten to that point. I have nothing to object to. The argument has not been made!

James- don't talk about scientific progress in your next post. You should post about the cosmological argument because this is what we are discussing right now. We can talk about scientific progress, but that, as it looks to me given your comments, can be a whole discussion by itself. Finish what we have going first. We already have one discussion left open. Let's not leave ourselves another one. We can talk about the different theories of scientific progress later.

I responded to this in my Aug 23 post. Again, I never claimed that science will give us all the answers. James, did you understand what I wrote in that post because you are still saying the same thing? Science is progressive. One have to be very arrogant to claim that we will not have more knowledge about the world. But that is the extent of what I claim. I never said that everything about the world going to be understood. One can be optimistic for some future understanding but that is not faith.

Also please don't talk about Christianity leaving room for science. I was giving the argument for why religion and science are not compatible but you wanted to take a "break" from that. That's fine. But please wait until we get back on that subject before you make these claims.

Yes. Religious beliefs have changed over time and quite significantly. My point is that if the bible is of divine origin, we would expect (or at least I would expect) religion not to change. But it does change. Rather than simply clarifying its position in the light of changing times, the church seems to reinvent itself over and over again. Change is a human attribute.

Thanks for not trying to talk me into believing in demons. But what do you think about demons? Do you agree with Randi and Cardinal Estevez?

We get a different set of comments when we click on the post title than when we click on the comment link on the bottom of the post. I don't get it.

I can't figure out why this comment thing is not working.

Hey Ted, thanks for the response. I was starting to think that no one was actually reading this. A theory of truth is important. I would say that a proposition is true if it corresponds to facts about the world-- the way things are in reality. There are other theories of truth, as you are correct to point out, but I am using this sort of broad correspondence view of truth because I am a metaphysical realist. I think that there is a matter of fact as to how the really is. What theory of truth would you use?

Perhaps you are right about the reading of Genesis. But I am still a bit puzzled as to why so many people seem to get this so wrong? We have had many recent court cases ever the teaching of evolution. I think even in our high school biology class the teacher read a disclaimer about evolution theory. The pope John Paul gave a speech not too long ago saying that the theory of evolution is consistent with the teachings of the Church. That is great but why was it considered "newsworthy" if there was no previous conflict? And doesn't religion always take this approach when it is pushed out of the gaps (by saying that it was never meant to be taken literally in the first place)? How are do you know what is to be taken literally and what is not? It is all in the Bible. It is all the word of God. Right?