Posted: Apr 07, 2011 7:36 pm
by IIzO
Craig's kalam is predicated in denying two things:
An infinite past-temporality because a substance transforming forever isn't necesseraly self consciouss and omnipotent.
Nothing natural can't be timeless or uncaused , because something natural isn't necesseraly self consciouss and omnipotent.
I personaly don't understand the argument against past infinities that Craig uses ,namely that the present can't exist if a past infinity exists.
As for natural can't be timeless there are simply no reasons to reject a timeless no consciouss being wich causal powers ,at least not for someone who argues that such a thing can exists with more features like god.
And there are real exemple of seemingly uncaused natural events like Radioactive decay .
Craig's premises are a long way from being necessary .