Quotation: "If the view that the past universe is temporally infinite is necessarily a priori false, how can there be evidence which differentially supports the claim that the past universe is temporally finite? Won't anything count equally in favour of the claim, and nothing against it? There seems to be a general strategic problem in mixing necessary a priori argument and contingent a posteriori evidence when supporting a particular claim, at least ignoring secondary sources of evidence such as testimony. Craig appears to think that his arguments mutually support the premise that the universe began to exist (57); but on current theories of evidential support with which I am acquainted--e.g. Bayesian theories--that would not be the case. Perhaps there is a fix involving some kind of relevant entailment, but the matter is clearly not straightforward." Graham Oppy, "Book Review: THEISM, ATHEISM, AND BIG BANG COSMOLOGY" Faith and Philosophy (1996)
NOTICE: No material on this site is offensive. Offense is a complex emotion requiring a well-developed brain. Words and pictures do not have brains
and so cannot be offensive. Any offense you feel is therefore your own fault. Think about this before misplacing blame.
If you really want to be offended, go ahead, just don't blame anyone else for it.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
I have never called a person stupid.
Sorry, there is no pornography here.
Many of the pictures here allow you to see a larger version by clicking on them.