As effectively expressed, something unimportant/non-physical can't make something material/physical

Theist and Christian Apologist William Lane Craig accepts that the utilization of his philosophical and religious rationale to his variant of present day cosmology apparently demonstrates God's presence. IMHO, it does nothing of the sort. God and cosmology simply don't combine. Since the Cosmos is roundabout, not straight, there is no requirement for any maker God.

Section One

Before we start, here are some underlying and fundamental Basic Premises.

Fundamental Premise One: Causality is total. Something, anything, doesn't occur for definitely no reason by any stretch of the imagination.

Fundamental Premise Two: Something can't make itself.

Fundamental Premise Three: You can't make an outright something from a flat out nothing. As it were, from nothing, nothing comes.

Fundamental Premise Four: Something insignificant/non-physical can't make something material/physical. The number four can't make a piece of sod; Thursday can't make a molecule; marvel can't make the Mona Lisa.

Section Two

Here's the place William Lane Craig* as a rule begins his maker God theory. My remarks if any are given in [ ].

Reason One: Anything that has a starting point/a start was made by a causal specialist (causality rules, OK?). Essentially, whatever starts to exist has a reason.

Reason Two: The Universe started to exist. Our Universe had a birthplace/a start. [I need to qualify this as "our" Universe since "our" Universe probably won't be the most important thing in the world of the Cosmos (which is a definitive whole of all that is, ever was or ever will be). William Lane Craig doesn't utilize "our", simply "the". In any occasion, as William Lane Craig is constantly quick to call attention to, there is positively observational proof that "our" Universe had a starting point/a beginning.]

Consequently: The Universe (for example - "our" Universe) had a reason. [Qualifier: There are loads of causal non-heavenly offices, also called clarifications, which have been advanced to in truth clarify this, without depending on God or anything supernatural.]

Obviously that is actually what William Lane Craig does! [Why William Lane Craig quickly jumps to the God Hypothesis rather than the Flying Spaghetti Monster Hypothesis or the Zeus Hypothesis or the Highly Technologically Advanced Extraterrestrial Who Can Manipulate Quantum Fluctuations Hypothesis or even the Simulation Hypothesis is past me when there are loads of different alternatives. I speculate it is his childhood and religious influence that is dependable in spite of the fact that Craig denies this. Or maybe, Craig says, he had some sort of very close involvement of God at age 16.]

Section Three

Here are the Godly Premises of William Lane Craig. Again my remarks if any are given in [ ].

So William Lane Craig quickly bounces to the decision that a maker God did the deed. That is obviously in light of the fact that to cause the, or "our" Universe to appear requires different properties that lone a God can have. In any occasion William Lane Craig can't educate us regarding the idea of God (for example - being for instance non-worldly and non-spatial) without first demonstrating that God exists in any case, else he is having everything out of order. That undeniable point aside, these are the characteristics William Lane Craig ascribes to his maker God.



William Lane Craig's Godly Premise: The reason for the Universe must be in itself uncaused, or at the end of the day God has consistently existed. Thusly an uncaused God has caused the First Cause (the making of our Universe). Craig contends that God must be uncaused since there can't be a vast relapse of causes**. There must be a first uncaused causal operator that can set in train and start causes. [Causality is total. Something, anything, doesn't fly into reality for definitely no reason at all and since something can't make itself, I infer that God Himself more likely than not had a cause.]

William Lane Craig's Godly Premise: The reason for existence must rise above reality and hence the organization (for example - God) behind that reason is non-worldly and non-spatial. God must be ageless so as to have made time since before God made time there was no time; God must rise above space since God made space so God must exist in no space at all since there was no space before God made space. [Time and space are simply mental ideas. Existence have no structure and are made out of no real substance. They are an irrelevant 'something'. Time specifically doesn't exist since time is only our method for saying "change" and all change is simply only movement. Movement is a principal need. Movement should essentially exist.]

https://exed.canvas.harvard.edu/eportfolios/1962/Exam_Dumps/Believing_In_3V0622_Exam_Dumps_Myths_for_Far_better_Result_in_3V0622_Exam
https://exed.canvas.harvard.edu/eportfolios/1944/PDF/Updated_2V0620_Exam_Dumps_Verified_by_VMware_Certified_Professionals
https://exed.canvas.harvard.edu/eportfolios/1960/Exam_/Get_2V0642_Exam_Dumps_for_Simple_Success
https://exed.canvas.harvard.edu/eportfolios/1962/Exam_Dumps/Believing_In_2V0602_Exam_Dumps_Myths_for_Much_better_Result_in_2V0602_Exam
https://exed.canvas.harvard.edu/eportfolios/1944/PDF/Believing_In_2V0751_Exam_Dumps_Myths_for_Much_better_Outcome_in_2V0751_Exam
https://exed.canvas.harvard.edu/eportfolios/1955/Home/How_Benificial_2V0622_Exam_Dumps_to_Pass_2V0622_exam

William Lane Craig's Godly Premise: This non-transient, non-spatial office must be constant since this office is existing outside of reality. [If God is constant or immutable then He can't transform anything since that in itself would cause an adjustment in God and a creation is definitely an adjustment in the current status quo.]

William Lane Craig's Godly Premise: And along these lines the organization must be irrelevant as just something that is unimportant is constant. [If God is constant, which by the way is repudiated by the Bible, at that point God is in fact unimportant. However, that quickly conjures another logical inconsistency that something unimportant/non-physical can't make something material/physical.]

William Lane Craig's Godly Premise: And this office must be unbelievably almighty since it made all issue, vitality, reality. [This would be consistent expecting obviously William Lane Craig can really demonstrate there is such an office. I've generally been of the sentiment that one needs to demonstrate God's presence first and after that one can jawline sway over His attributes, such as being all-powerful.]

William Lane Craig's Godly Premise: Finally an otherworldly office that started such a First Cause must be an individual specialist on the grounds that solitary an unembodied personality can start a reason and to start such a reason, that mind must have the unrestrained choice to do as such in any case since the organization uninhibitedly makes. As such this operator must be supplied with opportunity of the will. [There can't be a First Cause if causality is outright. Something, anything, doesn't occur for positively no reason by any means. So if God made the First Cause we have an inconsistency since God caused the First Cause and along these lines the First Cause wasn't generally the First Cause all things considered. Further, God can't have through and through freedom if God is all-knowing. The two are commonly exclusive.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education

Section Four

William Lane Craig isn't right. As effectively expressed, something unimportant/non-physical can't make something material/physical. You can't make a flat out something from an outright nothing, thusly something has consistently existed and hence the Cosmos (of which "our" Universe is nevertheless a little part) must be transiently unending.

Reason: "Our" Universe can't have existed always since as per William Lane Craig you just can't get to "now" beginning from an unending measure of time back. In reality that is refuted by the reason that there are a limitless number of focuses between any two points, for example, where you are presently and where you need to get to. However you can stroll from that one point (where you are) to the following point (where you need to get to). Aside from that, William Lane Craig's essential mix-up here is in expecting the Universe, or a Cosmos without a start (and without a consummation) is transiently straight. It's definitely not. It must be transiently roundabout since in a transiently interminable Cosmos each conceivable design has got t be rehashed at some point or another, and eventually an endless number of times. So we don't have a Craig universe of A-B-C-D-E-F... but instead one that is A-B-C-D-A-B...

Reason: In any occasion, William Lane Craig takes note of that there is observational that "our" Universe had a start/a cause. Qualifier: in spite of the fact that I thoroughly concur with Craig on this, I should take note of that this says literally nothing about the worldly condition of the more extensive Cosmos, accepting a more extensive Cosmos.

Reason: God (expecting a maker God) must be physical which is confirmed by Biblical records and by the reason that something insignificant/non-physical can't make something material/physical.

Reason: God (expecting a maker God) should along these lines be dependent upon the equivalent physical laws, connections and standards in material science that "our" Universe is required to be exposed to. For instance, God must display the normal for entropy.

Reason: God (expecting a maker God) can't be unceasing either and for precisely the same reason as "our" Universe can't be endless. God just can't get to "now" beginning from a boundless measure of time back.

Reason: If God isn't endless, and on the off chance that God is physical, at that point God more likely than not been made and by a physical something or organization. God can't make Himself and you can't make a flat out something from an outright nothing. Sadly, that prompts an interminable relapse - who made the office that made God and who made the office that made the organization that made God, and so forth.

Section Five

Here Are My Conclusions Based On Basic Premises.

Since a flat out something can't be made from an outright nothing; that an outright physical/material something can't be made by a non-physical/insignificant 'something' and since something can't make itself, I subsequently presume that something has consistently of need existed.

Since causality is supreme; since something doesn't occur for definitely no reason by any means, at that point there can't have been any First Cause and accordingly there was no start, or at the end of the day, once more that something has consistently of need existed.

Interpreted, the Cosmos has consistently existed regardless of whether our own Universe had a causal start (similarly as your own start - your origination - doesn't imply that different people haven't went before you preceding your start).

Along these lines the Cosmos is transiently round, not li