Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isn't he that presuppositionalist apologetics guy? Not even sure if I'm spelling that correctly. No disrespect.Nice post. I wonder what you think about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument.
(I don't endorse the argument, but I think that this is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and so any atheist -- who wants to explore the question of God's existence -- must deal with it).
I'm not sure how that get's us to god. I think that would be my biggest issue. The fallacy of composition, A priori, equivocation all these are pretty quickly identified in the reading of the argument. The cosmological argument has been around forever. William lane craig putting a little spin on it is like putting lipstick on a pig.Nice post. I wonder what you think about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument.
(I don't endorse the argument, but I think that this is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and so any atheist -- who wants to explore the question of God's existence -- must deal with it).
In the book "Five Views on Apologetics", Craig argued against presuppositionalism (along with the majority of apologists). He endorses evidentialist apologetics.
Who said the universe had a cause or when it started. Physics breaks down at the singularity. The only honest answer we can give about what happened before and up to the big bang is we don't know. Philosophical conjecture doesn't prove a god did it or that a god or gods is even possible. Again a lot of logical fallacies as listed in my previous post and that's at a glance. Let me crib Dan Barker "The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges." This is in part an explanation for the horrible composition of the argument that makes it fallacious. This really is philosophical conjecture. It doesn't go anywhere as far as I can tell. Do people actually use this argument for the existence of a god or gods? Wild.No.
But that doesn't answer my question.
Here's the argument.
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (he claims this is a metaphysical principle, but it can be argued inductively -- probabilistically -- as well given our experience of cause-and-effect).
P2. The universe began to exist (he uses the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Wall theorem and infinity paradoxes)
C. Therefore, the universe has a cause (follows from premises 1 and 2).
Conceptual analysis: since "universe" is defined by Craig as that which is spatio-temporal and material, and it began to exist, only something non-spatio-temporal and non-material could be the cause of the universe -- this is true by definition if one concedes Craig's argument. Turns out that is how the Christian God was defined by theologians for centuries: as non-material and non-spatial creator of the physical world.
How do you respond?
That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. I can easily explain any of the fallacies I've Identified. Using deductive reasoning the premises and conclusion must be true. Right? So, if we can show even one premise doesn't support the conclusion would that suffice? Even though so much of what you said is obvious conjecture. I'm assuming you're doing that on purpose. Thank you. I'm happy to give specific examples of where I think this argument falls apart. Let me put on my lawyer hat. The wording of the Kalam is a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. The argument makes unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress. Everything must have a cause, but an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Also, it's assumed that all events have causes. I've already detailed the fallacy of composition. Let me know if this would be sufficient to deter people who use an ancient and worn out creatio ex nihilo approach to apologetics.Oh yeah. This is a big one. It is used by virtually every disciple of evidentialist apologists (and is attacked in basically every atheist book that discusses the issue of God's existence).
That it had a cause is a metaphysical principle, Craig would argue, since it is evidently true that nothing can come into existence without a cause. In addition, all (or most) the examples we have of beginnings involve causes and this is strong reason to look for a cause of the beginning of space-time and its matter content.
Craig would happily agree with that since he is proposing a non-physical cause. The alleged fact that physics breaks down there is reason to look for something metaphysical.
That's why I didn't mention the Big Bang at all. I mentioned infinity paradoxes, namely, the impossibility of an actual infinite existing in reality and the impossibility of the traversal of an infinite past. I also mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is entirely independent of Big Bang cosmology. Even if there was a phase prior to the Big Bang, Craig would argue, it must have a beginning as well given these problems discussed above.
You have to prove it is a conjecture or speculation by pointing out problems with the premises or conceptual analysis, otherwise you're begging the question.
Well, I'll ask you to explain to us how the argument commits these fallacies. It is not enough to claim it is fallacious.
The argument is that since we know a subset of things that began to exist and had a cause, we're in our epistemic rights to believe that other members of the set (in this case, space-time, which is a thing) also had a cause.
First things first. Without God being defined, this can not go anywhere
Hi infrabenji and welcome to RF,
Are you looking for objective, as in the public arena, evidence that God exists as opposed to subjective evidence which is inside each person? I believe that if I tried to present objective evidence of God only I would not convince you. I believe in God both on the basis of objective and subjective evidence. If you want only objective evidence I would have to bow out. All of the atheists I have encountered want objective evidence only, as in the public arena.
Hence, in the Bible is declared "I Am, that I am"Nice post. I wonder what you think about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument.
(I don't endorse the argument, but I think that this is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and so any atheist -- who wants to explore the question of God's existence -- must deal with it).
The thing is, that you should (actively) convince yourself
, and not be (passively) lazy, and waiting to have others convince you, IF you are really interested to know the truth about "God"
Personally, I'm not sure there is a significant enough difference between us for an interesting debate. My neighbors told me recently there is such a thing as radical atheists. I don't think I'm one of those. I didn't even know atheists had different labels et al. Definitionally, aren't we both just saying "We don't know". As such I withhold belief until sufficient evidence warrants it? Do you? Maybe I could assume the position of one of these radical atheists ( whatever that means ) as the negative team? Online forums and debates are brand new for me. I look forward to your insight and experience on the forum.
That's exactly the key one needs to solve this