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

#141  Postby Samuel » Aug 05, 2011 5:20 pm

Teuton wrote:
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.


It looks to me that the Kalam Cosmological Argument has similar "stolen concept" types of mistakes.

Divine simplicity... all kinds of different theories, all of that, to me they only seem to emerge to avoid the painful realization that after we die, that's game over and the black screen.
User avatar
Samuel
 
Posts: 33

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#142  Postby andrewk » Aug 05, 2011 11:25 pm

Samuel wrote: after we die, that's game over and the black screen.

Oh no - the screen of death is Blue, as any Windows user will confirm.
User avatar
andrewk
 
Name: Andrew Kirk
Posts: 728
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#143  Postby murshid » Aug 19, 2011 12:07 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg[/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

#144  Postby campermon » Aug 19, 2011 1:29 pm

:popcorn:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#145  Postby josephchoi » Aug 21, 2011 6:39 am

Since we are talking about Craig's Kalam, I'd just like to know exactly what the BVG is postulating?

I've somehow gotten myself involved on Craig's forum with many people attempting to defend Craig's claim of the BVG theorem as postulating an absolute beginning of the universe.

(here's the thread: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post? ... &trail=105 )

I've pointed out that effectively the BVG speaks of the inflation of the universe as having a beginning and not the universe itself- as in the sense that since i am equating the universe with "something" it existed past the boundary that the BVG speaks of which is what Vilenkin is referring to when Vilenkin says:
[quote]What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.[/img]

Have I got it right with regards to the theorem or am I completely off?
Donuts don't wear alligator shoes!
User avatar
josephchoi
 
Posts: 1094
Age: 28
Male

Country: Ca...na... d- Canada.
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#146  Postby hackenslash » Aug 27, 2011 10:44 am

No, you've got it right. Ultimately, what lies beyond the boundary (if, indeed, there is a boundary (see Hawking/Hartle)) is not known, although we do have some ideas.

It may be that the universe had a beginning, although there are problems with coherence in that suggestion, on which I've written at great length elsewhere on this forum and, indeed, on quite a few others.

That said, I have no problem with the universe having a beginning, if it's shown that it did have. It still doesn't support the rectally extracted blind assertion in P1 and, in fact, if it were shown that the universe did have a beginning in sensu BVG, it would royally screw P1, and would therefore actually constitute evidence against the Kalam Fallacy.
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

#147  Postby josephchoi » Aug 27, 2011 5:39 pm

Care to clarify what you mean in that if the universe did have a beginning via BVG, it would still make KCA invalid? Not quite sure I follow you.
Donuts don't wear alligator shoes!
User avatar
josephchoi
 
Posts: 1094
Age: 28
Male

Country: Ca...na... d- Canada.
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#148  Postby hackenslash » Aug 27, 2011 5:49 pm

Well, if the universe arose from a quantum event, such as the events that give us virtual particles and the Casimir effect, then the universe didn't have a cause, and it provides a case of something that began to exist without a cause, ruining P1 and making the KCA unsound (not invalid, because it's perfectly valid, just not sound).

Incidentally, for the sake of demonstrating its incoherence, if the universe did have a beginning, then that beginning couldn't be caused, because having a causal relationship to anything requires existence. Anything that exists is a subset of the universe, thus the cause's existence requires a universe to exist in. Thus, there can be no cause for the universe's existence.

The universe is the ultimate brute fact, and that's all there is to it.
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

#149  Postby Teuton » Aug 27, 2011 6:04 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Incidentally, for the sake of demonstrating its incoherence, if the universe did have a beginning, then that beginning couldn't be caused, because having a causal relationship to anything requires existence. Anything that exists is a subset of the universe, thus the cause's existence requires a universe to exist in. Thus, there can be no cause for the universe's existence.
The universe is the ultimate brute fact, and that's all there is to it.


What began to exist according to the Kalam argument is the physical, spatiotemporal universe, which is not necessarily identical to the entire universe as the totality of everything that exists.
"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

#150  Postby hackenslash » Aug 27, 2011 7:04 pm

Nonsense. What began to exist according to the Kalam is the universe. Adding additional clauses after the fact counts for nothing more than apologetic hot air. Furthermore, since what existed prior to our cosmic expansion still constitutes the 'physical, spatiotemporal' universe, this doesn't actually provide any escape for the Kalam fallacy.

The point stands unscathed.
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

#151  Postby Teuton » Aug 27, 2011 7:45 pm

hackenslash wrote:Nonsense. What began to exist according to the Kalam is the universe. Adding additional clauses after the fact counts for nothing more than apologetic hot air.


No, the Kalam argument is an argument for the belief that everything but God has a beginning of its existence.
The universe according to theism:

universe = God + nondivine souls (angels/demons/human souls) + natural/physical/spatiotemporal universe/multiverse

hackenslash wrote:
Furthermore, since what existed prior to our cosmic expansion still constitutes the 'physical, spatiotemporal' universe, this doesn't actually provide any escape for the Kalam fallacy.


Our physical universe may be a daughter universe spawned by a pre-existent mother multiverse, but then the Kalam argument simply argues against the eternity and self-existence of that physical mother multiverse.
"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

#152  Postby murshid » Aug 27, 2011 8:46 pm

Teuton wrote:The universe according to theism:

universe = God + nondivine souls (angels/demons/human souls) + natural/physical/spatiotemporal universe/multiverse


If god is part of the universe, then the second premise of the KCA ("the universe began to exist") would mean that god also began to exist. Or did I miss something?
.
.
"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

#153  Postby josephchoi » Aug 27, 2011 8:48 pm

besides- how can god even think as a timeless entity? I often hear "when god thinks and does something that's when time starts" but it seems to me that is denying the temporal precedent while still asserting the transition of time that is in causation and action.
Donuts don't wear alligator shoes!
User avatar
josephchoi
 
Posts: 1094
Age: 28
Male

Country: Ca...na... d- Canada.
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#154  Postby hackenslash » Aug 27, 2011 9:00 pm

Teuton wrote:No, the Kalam argument is an argument for the belief that everything but God has a beginning of its existence.


Bollocks. It's an argument that the universe has a cause. As for your 'no', what is the second premise again?

The universe according to theism:

universe = God + nondivine souls (angels/demons/human souls) + natural/physical/spatiotemporal universe/multiverse


Multiverse? An utterly nonsensical word.

Our physical universe may be a daughter universe spawned by a pre-existent mother multiverse, but then the Kalam argument simply argues against the eternity and self-existence of that physical mother multiverse.


There is one universe, and it is comprised of that which exists. The word 'multiverse' is even less coherent than the kalam.
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

#155  Postby Lion IRC » Aug 27, 2011 9:11 pm

There is one universe.
Thats a brute fact.
Nothing else.
End of discussion.

WOW! That was easy.
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#156  Postby mark1961 » Aug 27, 2011 9:17 pm

Teuton wrote:
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.


Yeah but I'm sure he's hoping most will miss that one and jump to their own conclusions. :wink:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyway wassamatta? Nobody's talking about Imaginary Time and Quantum Mechanics yet. That's the real fun stuff. :popcorn:
User avatar
mark1961
 
Posts: 957
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#157  Postby Lion IRC » Aug 27, 2011 9:31 pm

Lion IRC wrote:There is one universe.
Thats a brute fact.
Nothing else.
End of discussion.

WOW! That was easy.



Wait!
My mistake, apparently there ARE
"...other cosmic expanses outside our own..."

How embarrasing. To blindly accept something you read on an internet forum which was stated as a brute fact only to find someone else contradicting that brute "fact"

"...other cosmic expanses outside our own..."

Of COURSE!
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#158  Postby hackenslash » Aug 27, 2011 9:38 pm

Lion IRC wrote:Wait!
My mistake, apparently there ARE
"...other cosmic expanses outside our own..."


Except, of course, that if you had been following not just this discussion but every other discussion along these lines, you'd be aware that those other cosmic expanses, if they exist, are still merely subsets of the one universe.

How embarrasing. To blindly accept something you read on an internet forum which was stated as a brute fact only to find someone else contradicting that brute "fact"

"...other cosmic expanses outside our own..."

Of COURSE!


It is a brute fact. There is only one universe, which may or may not consist of many cosmic expanses. It's what the word means, and no amount of trolling behaviour will alter that fact. :wink:
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

#159  Postby Teuton » Aug 27, 2011 10:10 pm

hackenslash wrote:
There is one universe, and it is comprised of that which exists.


It is clear that in the Kalam argument "universe" means "everything that exists minus God".

hackenslash wrote:
The word 'multiverse' is even less coherent than the kalam.


It is used by distinguished physicists such as Brian Greene.

"There was a time when 'universe' meant 'all there is.' Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of 'universe.' The word's meaning now depends on context. Sometimes 'universe' still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it's applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large collection."

(Greene, Brian. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. p. 4)
"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

#160  Postby hackenslash » Aug 27, 2011 10:33 pm

Teuton wrote:It is clear that in the Kalam argument "universe" means "everything that exists minus God".


Can you point to this clarity? The language employed is unambiguous, and it doesn't support your contention.

hackenslash wrote:
The word 'multiverse' is even less coherent than the kalam.


It is used by distinguished physicists such as Brian Greene.

Snip...


Well, you can't be expected to read every thread, so I'll forgive your having missed my dealing with this in another thread. That distinguished physicists use the word doesn't actually lend it any coherence, especially when I can present a coherent argument against it.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21402
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest