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

#81  Postby Allemann » Apr 24, 2011 10:20 pm

Teuton wrote:Even if God is absolutely ontologically independent in the sense that there is a possible world in which he is the only existent, he doesn't exist in all possible worlds.


What does this have to do with what I wrote?

If there's a possible world where a maximally great being exists, then that maximally great beings exists in all possible worlds. But we're not discussing here the modal ontological argument.

THWOTH wrote:Hmm. Isn't that just a way of saying if God exists then he must exists >> if he must exist then he does exist?


None of this is in my post. What I've meant is that a being whose existence is accountable in something external of it and not in its nature can't hold the honorific title of God.

as Mr Almond asks, why does something such as a supposed necessary terminator have to be a personal entity or God or any particular god?


This is a legitimate question, and all theistic philosophers I know give reasons for why God fits that role the best.
User avatar
Allemann
 
Posts: 9
Age: 31
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#82  Postby THWOTH » Apr 25, 2011 1:01 am

But would that not presume that theistic philosopher know what God is such that he/it can fit that role?
"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

#83  Postby Allemann » Apr 25, 2011 8:33 am

Yes it does.

I don't see the relevance of it for a discussion. Let us concentrate more on the arguments and less on persons.
User avatar
Allemann
 
Posts: 9
Age: 31
Male

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#84  Postby hackenslash » Apr 25, 2011 8:41 am

Which god? Allah?

BTW, theology is not philosophy.
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

#85  Postby Allemann » Apr 25, 2011 8:50 am

hackenslash wrote:Which god? Allah?


The God of classical theism.
User avatar
Allemann
 
Posts: 9
Age: 31
Male

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#86  Postby hackenslash » Apr 25, 2011 8:55 am

Again, which one?
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

#87  Postby Allemann » Apr 25, 2011 9:03 am

hackenslash wrote:Again, which one?


I said it.
User avatar
Allemann
 
Posts: 9
Age: 31
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#88  Postby surreptitious57 » Apr 25, 2011 9:12 am

hackenslash wrote:Again, which one?


This one ? Yahweh - Jehovah - God - Allah [ The Almighty can be referenced variously ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#89  Postby hackenslash » Apr 25, 2011 9:50 am

Allemann wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Again, which one?


I said it.


No, you wibbled an oblique generalisation. The 'god of classical theism' comes in as many flavours as there are or were classical theists.
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

#90  Postby THWOTH » Apr 25, 2011 11:47 am

Allemann wrote:
THWOTH wrote:But would that not presume that theistic philosopher know what God is such that he/it can fit that role?

Yes it does.

I don't see the relevance of it for a discussion. Let us concentrate more on the arguments and less on persons.

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?

One might say, as indeed you do, that this is not really relevant, that we all know what we mean when we are talking about the entity that is being argued for, the one ascribed to the role of deity in classical theism, and so lets just get on with the important business of demonstrating the logical necessity of his/its existence. But the arguments for God in this respect can be applied to all gods and/or any declared or conceivable all-powerful metaphysical entity, can it not? 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,.

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?

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.'
"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

#91  Postby Teuton » Apr 25, 2011 12:23 pm

hackenslash wrote:
No, you wibbled an oblique generalisation. The 'god of classical theism' comes in as many flavours as there are or were classical theists.


Craig on Defining "God": http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8779

I think it is fair to say that the phrase "the god of classical theism" has a sufficiently clear meaning, so that the "Define 'God' first!" song and dance is hot air.
"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

#92  Postby THWOTH » Apr 25, 2011 12:30 pm

That told me then. :D
"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

#93  Postby hackenslash » Apr 25, 2011 12:32 pm

Frankly, Kalamity Kraig's definition is hot air, and moreover, contains contradictory and self-refuting attributes. The question then becomes 'what do these attributes actually mean?' and subjectivity enters the discussion, rendering the definition open to exactly the charge I levelled at 'the god of classical theism', namely that it has as many definitions as there are wibblers who wibble about it. I know for a fact that this fuckwit doesn't employ the same definition of omnipotence that I do.

And that's before we get into the self-refuting nonsense of 'the creator of all things'.

These things demonstrate that this entity is not well-defined, and my question stands.
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

#94  Postby Teuton » Apr 25, 2011 1:05 pm

hackenslash wrote:Frankly, Kalamity Kraig's definition is hot air, and moreover, contains contradictory and self-refuting attributes.


I simply wanted to say that the classical, traditional definition of "God" is well known. This is not to say that all the concepts used in it are unproblematic, comprehensible, and self-consistent.
"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

#95  Postby Paul Almond » Apr 25, 2011 1:16 pm

My wheelie bin is omnipotent: it can do anything it wants. It just has low aspirations.
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
User avatar
Paul Almond
 
Name: Paul Almond
Posts: 1541
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#96  Postby John P. M. » Apr 25, 2011 1:19 pm

In deeper discussions, it usually turns out that the 'omni' characteristics aren't so 'omni' anyway.

In that sense, I'm omnipotent and omniscient as well; I am able to do everything that I am able to do, and able to know everything I'm able to know.
User avatar
John P. M.
RS Donator
 
Posts: 2913
Male

Country: Norway
Norway (no)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#97  Postby hackenslash » Apr 25, 2011 1:25 pm

Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Frankly, Kalamity Kraig's definition is hot air, and moreover, contains contradictory and self-refuting attributes.


I simply wanted to say that the classical, traditional definition of "God" is well known. This is not to say that all the concepts used in it are unproblematic, comprehensible, and self-consistent.


Fair enough. My point was that it isn't well-defined, because those contradictory and self-refuting attributes provide definitional inconsistency, so the 'define god' argument is still useful. More importantly, the 'define god' approach is a necessary step, because it a) gives substance to the discussion where previously there was none and, given this definition, b) demonstrates that this entity doesn't exist.
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

#98  Postby Scar » May 31, 2011 5:58 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60[/youtube]
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 33
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

#99  Postby hackenslash » May 31, 2011 7:35 pm

He's very good, and the original video 'I Kalam Like I See 'Em' is excellent. I remember posting that at RDF when he first published 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

#100  Postby THWOTH » Jun 01, 2011 12:11 am

Nice vid, and a nice outline of WLCs disingenuous inclinations towards his detractors. I wonder if Craig will deplore or ignore?
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests