WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Craig's arguments for God, Pt 2

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#121  Postby hackenslash » Jul 11, 2011 7:39 pm

Mick wrote:No, it does not state that. Nowhere does Craig use the modal idiom 'must'.


No, of course he doesn't. He doesn't say 'must have' he says 'has'. In short, it's argumentum ad rectum, with no evidential support.

The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy: it is correctly applied only in certain circumstances an contexts. It's not always applicable. For instance, when i infer that a table is wooden because all of its parts are wooden, i make no clear fallacy of composition. In fact, it seems quite right, doesn't it?


Informal or not, it's still s fallacy. When applied to the cosmos (note the distinction between what Kraig is actually referring to and 'the universe') we are talking about an entity for which we can point to principles which apply to its constituents yet don't apply to the whole. For example, the limitation of c, which does not apply to cosmic expansion.

In any event, that's just one of the many fallacies your poster-boy is committing. The man's a fuckwit.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21402
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#122  Postby Xaihe » Jul 11, 2011 9:20 pm

Craig likes to define his God as existing and needing no cause. Well, I can define things into existence too.
Kletgebrik is something that exists that precludes the existence of God or gods.
Even though we don't know the specifics of what Kletgebrik is and lack any evidence for it, it exists because it's defined as existing. It's like Anselm's ontological argument, which Craig seems to find nothing wrong with.

Craig pretty much seems to define himself to victory in every one of his arguments, not just the KCA.
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 872
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#123  Postby Mick » Jul 12, 2011 12:52 am

hackenslash wrote:
Mick wrote:No, it does not state that. Nowhere does Craig use the modal idiom 'must'.


No, of course he doesn't. He doesn't say 'must have' he says 'has'. In short, it's argumentum ad rectum, with no evidential support.


You might rightly state that it lacks sufficient evidential support although to claim it has none is too strong of a claim than you have justified. To claim that there is evidence for some x is a very weak claim. it's just to say that x would be more probable given s than ~x, and so we say that s, if it exists or obtains, is evidence for x.


Informal or not, it's still s fallacy. When applied to the cosmos (note the distinction between what Kraig is actually referring to and 'the universe')

What distinction are you making?


for which we can point to principles which apply to its constituents yet don't apply to the whole. For example, the limitation of c, which does not apply to cosmic expansion.


Even if this were true, the causal premise is not proposed as a mere physical law. If it is true, it is not just true of the universe and its constituents; it is a metaphysical truth, and so it has the status of being broadly logically necessary. Thus, even granting that there are some laws of the universe which do not not apply to the universe, Craig's allegation to a metaphysical law remains unscathed.

A better answer to craig would be to show that his causal premise is false, and so it cannot be a metaphysical truth.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#124  Postby murshid » Jul 24, 2011 9:47 pm

The Debunking the Kalam argument for god thread may be merged with this one.

Anyway, here I'm posting the video from that thread (it's funny to see Craig and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (a Muslim apologist) using the same BS about infinity to prove the existence of two different gods, :grin: but not in a debate against each other) :


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE[/youtube]
.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – Douglas Adams
User avatar
murshid
 
Name: Murshid
Posts: 8744
Age: 37
Male

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#125  Postby hackenslash » Jul 25, 2011 8:05 am

Mick wrote: You might rightly state that it lacks sufficient evidential support although to claim it has none is too strong of a claim than you have justified.


Bollocks. There is none.

To claim that there is evidence for some x is a very weak claim. it's just to say that x would be more probable given s than ~x, and so we say that s, if it exists or obtains, is evidence for x.



It's still a claim, and there is no evidential support. WIbble all you like in a fatuous attempt to support your supernaturalist bollocks, but you still have no evidence.

What distinction are you making?


What? It's you that's drawing the distinction, and I am saying that said distinction says fuck all about whether or not it's fallacious reasoning. The charge of fallacy still stands.

Even if this were true,


It is true.

the causal premise is not proposed as a mere physical law. If it is true, it is not just true of the universe and its constituents; it is a metaphysical truth, and so it has the status of being broadly logically necessary.


Utter fucking bollocks, and yet another demonstration that the only thing that can be learned from staring at the umbilicus is just how fuckwitted one can be. The causal premise has NO FUCKIN JUSTIFICATION! Deal with it.

Thus, even granting that there are some laws of the universe which do not not apply to the universe, Craig's allegation to a metaphysical law remains unscathed.


Metaphysical law? You know full well into which orifice you can insert that. You can't even demonstrate that metaphysics has any fucking validity, let alone that it is in a position to erect any 'laws'. The simple fact is that he has committed a clear fallacy and it has been identified. His argument is defeated on that basis alone, and that's even without dealing with the rest of the fallacies contained in the Kalam Fallacy.

A better answer to craig would be to show that his causal premise is false, and so it cannot be a metaphysical truth.


No, a better answer to Kraig is that he's a fucking moron, and every word out of his smarmy gob only demonstrates that further.

If you really want to look a complete numpty, by all means try to defend this cretin and his fucking stupid argument. You're supposed to be this great logician (or so you keep telling us, although the evidence clearly tells us otherwise), yet you can understand the clear string of fallacies he's committing with this bollocks.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21402
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#126  Postby THWOTH » Jul 25, 2011 11:22 pm

Xaihe wrote:Craig likes to define his God as existing and needing no cause. Well, I can define things into existence too.
Kletgebrik is something that exists that precludes the existence of God or gods.
Even though we don't know the specifics of what Kletgebrik is and lack any evidence for it, it exists because it's defined as existing. It's like Anselm's ontological argument, which Craig seems to find nothing wrong with.

You Kletgebrikist apologists make me sick! :D

Xaihe wrote:Craig pretty much seems to define himself to victory in every one of his arguments, not just the KCA.

This is a good point. His common tactic is to define the conditions which his opponent must meet in order to defeat his argument. If his opponent challenges his assumptia, or even just doesn't play ball, he simply declares victory. If pushed onto the ropes he'll resort to incredulity and eventually some faux non-comprehenion - his declared failure in understanding of his opponent becomes justification for dismissing the opponent's argument out of hand. Who can blame him though, he has to put bread on the table somehow - sophistry is all he has.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#127  Postby andrewk » Jul 25, 2011 11:37 pm

Mick wrote:You might rightly state that it lacks sufficient evidential support although to claim it has none is too strong of a claim than you have justified. To claim that there is evidence for some x is a very weak claim. it's just to say that x would be more probable given s than ~x, and so we say that s, if it exists or obtains, is evidence for x.

That example you give is actually quite a strong variety of evidence, as the observation s makes x more likely than not.

Did you actually mean to describe the Bayesian version of evidence, which is slightly different, and considerably weaker? This is as follows:

s is evidence for x if Prob(x|s)>Prob(x)

That is, the conditional probability of x being true (given that s is true) is greater than the unconditional probability of x being true. We can think of the strength of the evidence s as being positively related to the ratio Prob(x|s)/Prob(x).

Under this definition, the reports by many individuals of alien sightings at Roswell are evidence of visits by aliens to our planet, just not very strong evidence.
User avatar
andrewk
 
Name: Andrew Kirk
Posts: 728
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#128  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Jul 26, 2011 2:58 am

I'm pretty sure WLC uses that equation against Krauss. Concluding that he has shown the probability of God is more likely with his syllogisms, than the probability of God without his syllogisms.

He could be right there, but it would also mean that we are setting the bar for evidence so low, as you say we may as well believe there are aliens being probed at area51.

Which is probably why Krauss had the outburst. He went there to discuss the evidence but just got shown how 1 anecdote can justify a belief in God.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 26
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#129  Postby THWOTH » Jul 28, 2011 7:16 pm

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm pretty sure WLC uses that equation against Krauss. Concluding that he has shown the probability of God is more likely with his syllogisms, than the probability of God without his syllogisms.

He could be right there, but it would also mean that we are setting the bar for evidence so low, as you say we may as well believe there are aliens being probed at area51.

Which is probably why Krauss had the outburst. He went there to discuss the evidence but just got shown how 1 anecdote can justify a belief in God.

The work Craig has done to diminish or negate an evidential approach to the assessment of epistemic claims is perhaps his greatest contribution to Christian apologetics.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#130  Postby Allemann » Jul 29, 2011 3:50 pm

THWOTH wrote:And yet is it not the personage for which Dr Craig is arguing - unless he, and other religious sophists, are to argue for that which they acknowledged they do not or cannot know?


They claim they do know. And they're giving arguments for this claim.

So the Kalam program is only really half an argument, at best, and running it, and even accepting it for the sake of argument, still leaves us no closer to demonstrating the veracity of the claim that God exists such that He necessarily fulfils the ascribed role of all-knowing, regression terminating, personal creator of all that is etc,.


How can you not be God and yet be a regression terminator, personal creator of the universe? You're not making any sense.

If theistic philosophers must know what God is such that He/it can fit the deitific role ascribed to him then surely they cannot argue for His apparent logical necessity without first demonstrating that He has to be exactly the kind of entity that He is claimed to be - unless, that is, God is just to be 'all things to all men' as the saying goes?


God is by definition such an entity. It's the same way bachelor is by definition an unmarried man.

When Dr Craig is pressed on this matter of demonstrating his knowledge of God he relies on the tabernacular syllogism that fundamentally he just knows that God exists and that Christianity if therefore true by the witness of the holy spirit in his heart. And so all his declarations amount to a plea that 'you simply must believe me because I am totally sincere about the veracity of my declarations,' or more broadly to his religious inclined constituency the plea that 'Faith is justified even if it is not justifiable, so stick with it guys.'


If true, a peculiar trivia at best; however, this isn't a topic about Craig's personality.
User avatar
Allemann
 
Posts: 9
Age: 31
Male

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#131  Postby THWOTH » Jul 29, 2011 5:03 pm

Allemann wrote:
THWOTH wrote:And yet is it not the personage for which Dr Craig is arguing - unless he, and other religious sophists, are to argue for that which they acknowledged they do not or cannot know?

They claim they do know. And they're giving arguments for this claim.

Yes I know, the arguments are that the claims are valid of course, though the negation of evidence is necessary to support the justification. I feel this invalidates any claim that God is a thing.

Allemann wrote:
THWOTH wrote:So the Kalam program is only really half an argument, at best, and running it, and even accepting it for the sake of argument, still leaves us no closer to demonstrating the veracity of the claim that God exists such that He necessarily fulfils the ascribed role of all-knowing, regression terminating, personal creator of all that is etc,.


How can you not be God and yet be a regression terminator, personal creator of the universe? You're not making any sense.

Which God? I hear the declaration, "if <nominated deity> exists it is/must be x, y and/or z," but such declarations are indistinguishable from wishful thoughts, fictions or lies.

The notion of God being a regression terminator is deemed necessary if God is to act as the originator of all things. However, is it not pure sophistry to claim that God is the originator of all things including himself, for how can he bring himself into existence and not first exist? "Because he is a special type of thing," is generally the answer, "And furthermore, any special type of thing like this is God!" Hmm. if God has to exist in order to create all thing then He has inhabited a state he did not create prior to the moment he created all that is - and this paradox means He is can be neither a regression terminator nor a creator of all that is. The only way out then is to peddle the wish that God is the only example of a special type of thing which is exempt from the necessity of having to first exist before acting. So you may indeed be incredulous and confused, its a very confusing situation - this is why one needs faith I think.

Allemann wrote:
THWOTH wrote:If theistic philosophers must know what God is such that He/it can fit the deitific role ascribed to him then surely they cannot argue for His apparent logical necessity without first demonstrating that He has to be exactly the kind of entity that He is claimed to be - unless, that is, God is just to be 'all things to all men' as the saying goes?

God is by definition such an entity. It's the same way bachelor is by definition an unmarried man.

Whose definition is that then? God is that which is called God? God is that which can do all the things a God can do? One can define many things which do not exist, but why is God not among these things?

Allemann wrote:
THWOTH wrote:When Dr Craig is pressed on this matter of demonstrating his knowledge of God he relies on the tabernacular syllogism that fundamentally he just knows that God exists and that Christianity if therefore true by the witness of the holy spirit in his heart. And so all his declarations amount to a plea that 'you simply must believe me because I am totally sincere about the veracity of my declarations,' or more broadly to his religious inclined constituency the plea that 'Faith is justified even if it is not justifiable, so stick with it guys.'

If true, a peculiar trivia at best; however, this isn't a topic about Craig's personality.
[/quote]
If true? So not untrue then (I'll take a begrudging acknowledgement where I can these days :D)? Of course this is not a topic about Craig's personality which is why I merely described his action by summarising one of his common declarations. What is Dr Craig's Kalam argument for after all if not to support the broader claim that God exists and Christianity is true? However, I'm sure that Dr Craig would not maintain that the existence of God or the truth of Christianity is dependant on the Kalam argument - surely he would maintain that these things were true regardless. This renders the Kalam a fallacious bolster to a presupposition, at best. The fallacious nature of the argument has been outlined here and elsewhere, and the only way Dr Craig has maintained his argument for long enough to make a career out of it has been by wilfully miss-characterising the nature and context of the objections to it.
Last edited by THWOTH on Jul 30, 2011 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#132  Postby murshid » Jul 29, 2011 8:14 pm

.
Did anyone ever ask Craig why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for the existence of Allah?
.
.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – Douglas Adams
User avatar
murshid
 
Name: Murshid
Posts: 8744
Age: 37
Male

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#133  Postby andrewk » Jul 30, 2011 12:24 am

murshid wrote:.
Did anyone ever ask Craig why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for the existence of Allah?
.

It is.
If I understand Craig's apologetic strategy correctly, it is as follows:

1. argue for the existence of a supreme being, transcendent to spacetime, who created the universe (Kalam)
2. argue that the being in 1 is probably a mind (Craig's tack-on argument to the Kalam)
3. use the design argument and the moral argument to bolster 1 and also to argue that god must be (a) interested in us (because he designed the cosmos for us) and (b) likes making rules for us (the moral bit)
4. now turn to the scriptures regarding Jesus and argue for the resurrection. He knows these arguments are weak because of the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' factor. However he then argues that - if you already believe in an all-powerful, interested, interventionist god, then the resurrection is not so extraordinary at all. In fact, it is just the sort of thing such a god might do, and hence doesn't require extraordinary evidence at all. Hence he uses 1, 2 and 3 to help get his argument for Christianity across the line.

Stages 1-3 of this strategy are entirely compatible with Islam, in fact supportive of it. I don't think Craig would deny that. It's only argument 4 that argues for Christianity and against Islam.
User avatar
andrewk
 
Name: Andrew Kirk
Posts: 728
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#134  Postby quixotecoyote » Jul 30, 2011 12:58 am

andrewk wrote:
Stages 1-3 of this strategy are entirely compatible with Islam, in fact supportive of it. I don't think Craig would deny that. It's only argument 4 that argues for Christianity and against Islam.


That's why I don't bother with "Kalam" or "first causes" arguments at all. In addition to being pointless, they're insincere. They're just a means to get to the point of arguing '4'. Any other argument would do as well.

I usually just grant it and ask that given that some prime mover exists, why should I believe it's their particular god. I usually find that discussion more interesting than chasing a dozen insincere logical fallacies around. Even if the reasoning here is fallacious, it's at least the meat of the issue and not just the flimsy philosophical construct built post-hoc to provide an intellectual smokescreen for the real beliefs.
User avatar
quixotecoyote
 
Posts: 1497
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#135  Postby murshid » Jul 30, 2011 4:43 am

andrewk wrote:...

4. now turn to the scriptures regarding Jesus and argue for the resurrection. He knows these arguments are weak because of the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' factor. However he then argues that - if you already believe in an all-powerful, interested, interventionist god, then the resurrection is not so extraordinary at all. In fact, it is just the sort of thing such a god might do, and hence doesn't require extraordinary evidence at all. Hence he uses 1, 2 and 3 to help get his argument for Christianity across the line.

Stages 1-3 of this strategy are entirely compatible with Islam, in fact supportive of it. I don't think Craig would deny that. It's only argument 4 that argues for Christianity and against Islam.

The same thing could be done by quoting the quran in stage 4 and then saying that if you already believe in an all-powerful, interested, interventionist god, then the miracles stated in the quran aren't extraordinary at all and so don't require extraordinary evidence.
.
.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – Douglas Adams
User avatar
murshid
 
Name: Murshid
Posts: 8744
Age: 37
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#136  Postby andrewk » Jul 30, 2011 7:18 am

murshid wrote:The same thing could be done by quoting the quran in stage 4 and then saying that if you already believe in an all-powerful, interested, interventionist god, then the miracles stated in the quran aren't extraordinary at all and so don't require extraordinary evidence.
.
Yes. If there were a Moslem equivalent of WL Craig then I expect they'd do something like that. Are there any skilled evidentialist apologists in the Moslem camp? I think it would be really interesting to hear them. The only Moslem debate I've heard is Shabir Ally (Moslem) vs Mike Licona (Christian) debating the resurrection. But Ally's intro was so incompetent - all mysticism and just quoting the Quran as if that were evidence - that I was too squeamish to listen to Licona (presumably) ripping his arguments to shreds.
User avatar
andrewk
 
Name: Andrew Kirk
Posts: 728
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#137  Postby murshid » Jul 30, 2011 8:05 am

andrewk wrote:
murshid wrote:The same thing could be done by quoting the quran in stage 4 and then saying that if you already believe in an all-powerful, interested, interventionist god, then the miracles stated in the quran aren't extraordinary at all and so don't require extraordinary evidence.

Yes. If there were a Moslem equivalent of WL Craig then I expect they'd do something like that. Are there any skilled evidentialist apologists in the Moslem camp? I think it would be really interesting to hear them. The only Moslem debate I've heard is Shabir Ally (Moslem) vs Mike Licona (Christian) debating the resurrection. But Ally's intro was so incompetent - all mysticism and just quoting the Quran as if that were evidence - that I was too squeamish to listen to Licona (presumably) ripping his arguments to shreds.


I am not sure about Muslim evidentialist apologists, but in this video, you can see Hamza Andreas Tzortzis using similar arguments (that Craig uses) about infinity as arguments for the existence of allah.
.
.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – Douglas Adams
User avatar
murshid
 
Name: Murshid
Posts: 8744
Age: 37
Male

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#138  Postby Samuel » Aug 05, 2011 12:44 pm

WLC agrees that "[God is] a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things."

But the philosophical discipline that he borrows the cosmological argument from, Kalām, says that God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him..

Whoaaa...

Logic also tells us that nothing can exist in two places at the same time, or that events not happening in the exact same time happen in a sequence. Some quantum level observations seem to counter these claims. So it would seem that the reality defies our logic sometimes.

We don't even know what time is., we don't know what light is, we don't know what causes gravity.... There is so much that we don't know, so why make these silly assertions about what we don't know? I've never understood that. We go by observing what ever we can, trying to come up with theories that explain our observations and so on. This should be "common sense 101". The unknown is just that, unknown.
User avatar
Samuel
 
Posts: 33

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#139  Postby Teuton » Aug 05, 2011 3:46 pm

murshid wrote:.
Did anyone ever ask Craig why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for the existence of Allah?
.


It is at most an argument for the existence of a transcendent spiritual creator of the spatiotemporal universe. Craig doesn't claim that this argument alone shows that the divine spirit is the Christian god.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#140  Postby Teuton » Aug 05, 2011 3:50 pm

Samuel wrote:WLC agrees that "[God is] a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things."
But the philosophical discipline that he borrows the cosmological argument from, Kalām, says that God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him..


To say that God is an absolute unity is to ascribe an attribute to him: absolute unity.

By the way, the doctrine of divine simplicity is contentious among the theologians; some accept it, others reject it.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest