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

#2161  Postby Animavore » Jan 02, 2015 7:46 pm

THWOTH wrote:
Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.

I think Hack's refutation is airtight and I think the theist is screwed here.

You're not really getting the hang of this Theology thing are you? The answer is simply, "Because; that's why."

:D

Show your working out.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42960
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2162  Postby THWOTH » Jan 02, 2015 8:21 pm

Thommo wrote:
John Platko wrote:
hackenslash wrote:The argument doesn't actually rule out an infinite regress, it merely declares it by fiat to be impossible.


Well, yes - but that's not how WLC seems to see it.



Holy shit. You have to hope those in the audience aren't paying to be subjected to that.

But the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to metaphysical absurdities. For example what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get self contradictory answers. For example if you had an infinite number of coins numbered one, two, three and so on to infinity and I took away all the odd numbered coins how many coins would you have left? Well you'd still have all the even numbered coins, right? Or an infinity of coins, so infinity minus infinity is infinity. But now suppose instead that I took away all the coins numbered greater than three. Now how many coins would you have left? Well just three. So infinity minus infinity is three. And yet in each case I took away an identical of coins from an identical number of coins and came up with contradictory results. In fact you can get any answer when you subtract infinity from infinity from zero to infinity and for that reason inverse operations like subtraction and division are simply prohibited in transfinite arithmetic. But that convention doesn't apply to the real world, you can give away whatever coins you want! This shows, I think that infinity is just a concept or idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality.


This is so error laden a first year maths undergrad would be embarassed. How this guy can lecture on this topic with a straight face I will never understand. You may as well argue that since a "finity" of coins minus a "finity" of coins can give any finite answer (what Craig calls an "absurdity" and a "contradiction") that finite numbers of things cannot exist, it's equally inane. :lol:

His errors seem deliberate and entirely to type.
"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

#2163  Postby Rumraket » Jan 02, 2015 8:38 pm

Beware the day Bill Craig starts blathering about biochemistry. What other scientific or philosophical subjects are there left for him to abuse?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2164  Postby THWOTH » Jan 02, 2015 9:04 pm

Animavore wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.

I think Hack's refutation is airtight and I think the theist is screwed here.

You're not really getting the hang of this Theology thing are you? The answer is simply, "Because; that's why."

:D

Show your working out.

"Because a (by definition) all-knowing being necessarily knows all things; that's why."

How's that?
:whistle:
"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

#2165  Postby murshid » Jan 03, 2015 6:04 am

Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.

I think Hack's refutation is airtight and I think the theist is screwed here.

Can you elaborate a little? I didn't get that.
.
.
"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

#2166  Postby Nebogipfel » Jan 03, 2015 12:29 pm

Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.


Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?. Maybe God, like Vejur, needs to go and seek the Creator... :mrgreen:
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

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

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2167  Postby Rumraket » Jan 03, 2015 12:38 pm

murshid wrote:
Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.

I think Hack's refutation is airtight and I think the theist is screwed here.

Can you elaborate a little? I didn't get that.
.

It's a fundemental problem in epistemology. How could you know that there are no more things to be known?

The theist would probable just assert that it is god's nature to know all things, as in a declaration true by fiat. A part of the definition of god. But he has no way of showing how this property is logically possible.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2168  Postby hackenslash » Jan 03, 2015 12:47 pm

I'd argue that it isn't logically possible, because this fundamental issue is in the nature of knowledge, and that any such declaration would define said entity out of existence. The only get-out clause is to define god as immune to logic, in which case ALL theist arguments are royally fucked, because if god is immune to logic, there's no logical basis for arguing for his existence, and the apologist has ruled himself out of the argument and, indeed, all qualification to erect any argument of any kind.
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

#2169  Postby Thommo » Jan 03, 2015 12:52 pm

I'm sceptical.

Ordinarily (as far as philosophy is ever ordinary) to declare something logically impossible is to show that if true it results in a contradiction. Does knowing that you know everything lead to a contradiction? I don't see how - the domain of knowledge is not sufficiently well defined to set up Russell's paradox or anything similar.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26258

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2170  Postby hackenslash » Jan 03, 2015 1:06 pm

I'd say the same epistemological limitations apply to all entities, thus all the usual chestnuts apply, so that god couldn't be absolutely certain he wasn't BIV or Matrix, or whatever. It would be possible for such an entity to know everything about his domain of observation, but not whether that was the ultimate domain.
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

#2171  Postby Animavore » Jan 03, 2015 1:10 pm

murshid wrote:
Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.

I think Hack's refutation is airtight and I think the theist is screwed here.

Can you elaborate a little? I didn't get that.
.



Imagine you lived in a world where all scientific answers had apparently been solved. Abiogenesis, consciousness, gravity - and a whole bunch of stuff we haven't dreamed of yet. In this world no new science has been done in centuries. Every time someone thinks they've alighted on something new they Google it to find out they answer is already out there.

Some people might be tempted to think that we know everything there is to know. They might be right, but how will they know they're right? Isn't there always the possibility that there is at least one thing left to know? Won't there always be others who instead of accepting that all that is to be known is known will instead, driven by curiosity, keep searching for one more thing?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42960
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2172  Postby THWOTH » Jan 03, 2015 1:44 pm

In days past someone would probably also jump up at this point and say something like, "Ah, and that's a metaphysical issue, which is completely different, in some necessary and possible sense, and so therefore, and so-on, and I'm right, and so there etc."

But there's just so many nails in God's coffin now it's hard to know where one is going to find the room to hammer the next one in.
"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

#2173  Postby VazScep » Jan 03, 2015 2:39 pm

What if God is a brain in a vat?

I love it!
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2174  Postby hackenslash » Jan 03, 2015 4:00 pm

What if god only thinks he's god..?
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

#2175  Postby Animavore » Jan 03, 2015 4:19 pm

What if God had an existential crisis?!
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42960
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2176  Postby VazScep » Jan 03, 2015 7:33 pm

Joan Osbourne missed a trick.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2177  Postby murshid » Jan 04, 2015 2:10 pm

Animavore wrote:
murshid wrote:
Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.

I think Hack's refutation is airtight and I think the theist is screwed here.

Can you elaborate a little? I didn't get that.
.



Imagine you lived in a world where all scientific answers had apparently been solved. Abiogenesis, consciousness, gravity - and a whole bunch of stuff we haven't dreamed of yet. In this world no new science has been done in centuries. Every time someone thinks they've alighted on something new they Google it to find out they answer is already out there.

Some people might be tempted to think that we know everything there is to know. They might be right, but how will they know they're right? Isn't there always the possibility that there is at least one thing left to know? Won't there always be others who instead of accepting that all that is to be known is known will instead, driven by curiosity, keep searching for one more thing?

Then the theists could "argue" (a.k.a. state by fiat) that true omnipotence would mean that God will be able to know that there's nothing more to know.

I was looking a contradiction or paradox of the kind Thommo mentioned above.
.
"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

#2178  Postby Animavore » Jan 04, 2015 2:48 pm

murshid wrote:
Animavore wrote:
murshid wrote:
Animavore wrote:See here's the thing that's really bugging me - How would even God know he was the only god? Like Hack pointed out in another thread, omniscience is self-refuting. You can't know that everything you know is all that's to be known. God might know himself (I think therefore I am) and he might know His creation and everything there is to know about His creation, but He can't know that that's all there is to know.

I think Hack's refutation is airtight and I think the theist is screwed here.

Can you elaborate a little? I didn't get that.
.



Imagine you lived in a world where all scientific answers had apparently been solved. Abiogenesis, consciousness, gravity - and a whole bunch of stuff we haven't dreamed of yet. In this world no new science has been done in centuries. Every time someone thinks they've alighted on something new they Google it to find out they answer is already out there.

Some people might be tempted to think that we know everything there is to know. They might be right, but how will they know they're right? Isn't there always the possibility that there is at least one thing left to know? Won't there always be others who instead of accepting that all that is to be known is known will instead, driven by curiosity, keep searching for one more thing?

Then the theists could "argue" (a.k.a. state by fiat) that true omnipotence would mean that God will be able to know that there's nothing more to know.

I was looking a contradiction or paradox of the kind Thommo mentioned above.

But how can God know he has "true" omnipotence?
I don't think a contradiction is important to this argument. It's more an unanswerable sort.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42960
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#2179  Postby THWOTH » Jan 04, 2015 3:14 pm

To that the theist might be inclined to declare; "God is so x.y and z that mere humans can never know the full extent of his potency and prowess." (as if that is any kind of argument either).
"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

#2180  Postby Animavore » Jan 04, 2015 3:38 pm

THWOTH wrote:To that the theist might be inclined to declare; "God is so x.y and z that mere humans can never know the full extent of his potency and prowess." (as if that is any kind of argument either).

And to the theist I'd say, "Yet that's exactly what you're claiming to know when you say he's 'truly omnipotent'."

:dance:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42960
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest