Craig's arguments for God, Pt 2
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
hackenslash wrote:Ultimately, the entire thing commits a fallacy of composition anyway, in asserting that whatever is the case in the universe must apply to the universe itself.
Scar wrote:O look, Craig responds by straw-manning his way out of it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZabnReL224[/youtube]
Anyone surprised?
Will S wrote:Yes. Didn't Bertrand Russell expose this one by saying that, although every human being has a father, it doesn't follow that the species H. sapiens has a father?
hackenslash wrote:Will S wrote:Yes. Didn't Bertrand Russell expose this one by saying that, although every human being has a father, it doesn't follow that the species H. sapiens has a father?
Indeed. Frankly, the argument is so riddled with fallacies that it's only the fallacies holding it together. I struggle to understand why even some ostensibly intelligent people find this horseshit convincing.
Will S wrote:Am I missing something here? (Open question - because it's quite possible that I am)
Leaving aside for the moment, the 'begins to exist' issue, a not overly bright theist might field an argument of this kind:
He begins by asserting: 'Everything that exists has a cause'
He then introduces other facts and deductions, and, finally, arrives at the conclusion:
'Therefore, there exists a God, and he has no cause'
Clearly, there must be something wrong with this argument, because the conclusion flatly contradicts one of the assumptions on which the argument is based. You can't make the assumption 'X is always the case' and use it to deliver the conclusion 'But sometimes X isn't the case'!
So it's easy to see why some theists use a weaker, alternative starting point and say:
'Everything that begins to exist has a cause.'
If you say that, you're admitting the possibility that there might exist things which always existed, and never, ever began to exist. By allowing for the possibility of a God who never began to exist, it may look as if you're removing the objection to the first version of the argument.
But, if the theist does this, he saws off the branch he's sitting on. For he immediately lets in the possibility that the universe (or some multiverse or megaverse which includes what we call the universe) is one of these possible things which have always existed and never began to exist. So the theist's argument ploughs into the sand because it's no longer necessary to invoke God as the cause of the universe /multiverse / megaverse.
(Obvious aside: if the theist tries to tighten up the statement he starts with, and says 'Everything, except God, has a cause', then he's begged the entire question: he's begun by assuming that there's a God. And the moment he admits that there might be other uncaused things, then it becomes possible that the universe/multiverse/megaverse is one of them.)
In sum: the first version of the argument is self-contradictory, and the second version is incapable of delivering the conclusion which the theist wants.
Seriously, theists, is your argument open to such an clear-cut, and damning, objection?
Jireh wrote: your problem is to explain, how the universe could be eternal , without beginning. Craig explains why it is not possible.
1. Because of the second laws of thermodynamics
2. you cannot get infinity by a succession of addition of time.
Jireh wrote:your problem is to explain, how the universe could be eternal , without beginning. Craig explains why it is not possible.
1. Because of the second laws of thermodynamics
2. you cannot get infinity by a succession of addition of time.
hackenslash wrote: Who's doing the adding here? Do you even know what infinity is? It is simply an unquantifiable amount. A number that we have no means of dealing with. Certainly we can't reach infinity by the successive addition of integers, but that doesn't mean that infinity can never be reached by accumulation, because that would render infinity absurd.
Shrunk wrote:hackenslash wrote: Who's doing the adding here? Do you even know what infinity is? It is simply an unquantifiable amount. A number that we have no means of dealing with. Certainly we can't reach infinity by the successive addition of integers, but that doesn't mean that infinity can never be reached by accumulation, because that would render infinity absurd.
Exactly. Craig's childish little mind games are no different than Zeno's paradoxes of motion. In theory, of course, the parodoxes are difficult to resolve. But we know as an empricial fact that the faster runner catches the slower runner, a passenger always gets to a stationary bus, and an arrow always reaches its destination. According to Craig's line of thinking, none of those things happen.
THWOTH wrote:Well I think Craig's line of thinking is that none of these things can logically happen, but they do by the grace of God. As we know, God is absolved of the responsibility of being a logically coherent entity; He just is.
Shrunk wrote:THWOTH wrote:Well I think Craig's line of thinking is that none of these things can logically happen, but they do by the grace of God. As we know, God is absolved of the responsibility of being a logically coherent entity; He just is.
To clarify: Craig doesn't really think it is a miracle that someone can catch a bus that is sitting there waiting, does he?
THWOTH wrote:Well no, he's a sophist, Zeno's paradox suits his discursive purpose only in as much as it shores his argument.
Will S wrote:
So it's easy to see why some theists use a weaker, alternative starting point and say:
'Everything that begins to exist has a cause.'
If you say that, you're admitting the possibility that there might exist things which always existed, and never, ever began to exist.
But, if the theist does this, he saws off the branch he's sitting on. For he immediately lets in the possibility that the universe (or some multiverse or megaverse which includes what we call the universe) is one of these possible things which have always existed and never began to exist. So the theist's argument ploughs into the sand because it's no longer necessary to invoke God as the cause of the universe /multiverse / megaverse.
(Obvious aside: if the theist tries to tighten up the statement he starts with, and says 'Everything, except God, has a cause', then he's begged the entire question: he's begun by assuming that there's a God. And the moment he admits that there might be other uncaused things, then it becomes possible that the universe/multiverse/megaverse is one of them.)
Seriously, theists, is your argument open to such an clear-cut, and damning, objection?
THWOTH wrote:Shrunk wrote:hackenslash wrote: Who's doing the adding here? Do you even know what infinity is? It is simply an unquantifiable amount. A number that we have no means of dealing with. Certainly we can't reach infinity by the successive addition of integers, but that doesn't mean that infinity can never be reached by accumulation, because that would render infinity absurd.
Exactly. Craig's childish little mind games are no different than Zeno's paradoxes of motion. In theory, of course, the parodoxes are difficult to resolve. But we know as an empricial fact that the faster runner catches the slower runner, a passenger always gets to a stationary bus, and an arrow always reaches its destination. According to Craig's line of thinking, none of those things happen.
Well I think Craig's line of thinking is that none of these things can logically happen, but they do by the grace of God. As we know, God is absolved of the responsibility of being a logically coherent entity; He just is.
BTW: If anyone is interested in 'causes' but has not read Mr Almond's excellent exposition 'On Double Standards About Causes In Religious Apologetics (2008)' I can heartily recommend it. You can read it here or on his website in either MS Word .doc or .PDF format.
The theistic arguments being considered here are ones which claim that there is a first thing or event in the universe, and then try to show that God is the direct cause of that thing or event. For example, William Lane Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument, is supposed to prove that the universe was caused by a non-contingent, personal entity. Such things are clearly outside the realm of our everyday or scientific experience. You do not observe things being caused by non-contingent, personal entities that exist outside space-time (or whatever is being claimed) while waiting to pay for your shopping, nor do you observe such things in scientific experiments.
Will S wrote:hackenslash wrote:Ultimately, the entire thing commits a fallacy of composition anyway, in asserting that whatever is the case in the universe must apply to the universe itself.
Yes. Didn't Bertrand Russell expose this one by saying that, although every human being has a father, it doesn't follow that the species H. sapiens has a father?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest