The two are worlds appart. The assumption that time had a beginning is nowhere near as grandiose as the claim that an invisible, intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient creator existed forever and created the entire universe.Patrick Fowke wrote:But if St Augustine got time-being-finite right, based to an important degree on Platonic philosophy, and with no evidence - right to the degree that time-being-finite has played an invaluable role in the important theories of scientists such as Einstein and Lemaitre (Big Bang) then surely the idea of God warrants some attention. Don't forget that St Augustine was pretty much on his own on this.bipedalhumanoid wrote:
Of course not. What it means is that at that time, you have no reason to take it seriously. And when you consider the multitude of spurious claims that can possibly be made without evidence you can come to understand just how unlikely it is that such a claim is correct.
Time either had a beginning or it did not. There are only two options. he had a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
something nicely rebuked by the current, much more likely, natural explanation that I entered this discussion with. And lets not forget all the people who attribute the same religious experiences to non-christian religious beliefs.Patrick Fowke wrote: Then there is the testament of millions of people throughout history who claim to have had religious experiences (and often following prayer to Christ, for example).
Yes disputed and rejected. And lets not forget the similar evidence supporting other religions. You reject that of course.Patrick Fowke wrote: Then there is the evidence of Christ and his miracles (not disputing that
such "evidence" can't be disputed) and so on.
Those arguments are based on a presupposition that renders their use in this context as question begging.Patrick Fowke wrote: Then there are more general philosophical arguments for the existence of the divine apropos the "metaphysical" quality of music, art, human love, aesthetics, and so on. The claim for the existence of God, as I see it, warrants far more attention (based on the types of testaments / evidence, and to a degree, arguments) than St Augustine's solo claim 1500 or so years ago about the nature of time.
You make it sound like Einstein built his research around the idea that the universe had a beginning. This is not true at all. Einsteins theories had nothing to do with cosmology. Einstein basically said that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe and that the energy, mass and the speed of light are relative.Patrick Fowke wrote: And, let's not forget, fairly-crazy as his idea might have been to his contemporaries 1500 or so years ago, it took the genius and hard-fought work of a scientist such as Estein to given real credence to his claim (and Einstein didn't stint on lauding Augustine for his claim - a claim based on sound Platonic reasoning).