There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[samtonga43]

That a first cause must be a deity, that it is likely the one he imagines is real from the thousands humans have imagined are real, that this is because the deity he imagines is real is omniscient and impotent and transcendent, and that these are necessary for a universe to exist. Those are all unevidenced assumptions he has added, and since they are about the thing he is arguing for, they are also begging the question fallacies.

Once again, please address the argument I have been quoting, with its 2 premises and conclusion:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

You keep adding to this the question of the nature of this cause. You are not addressing the point I am making.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, please address the argument I have been quoting, with its 2 premises and conclusion:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

You keep adding to this the question of the nature of this cause. You are not addressing the point I am making.

WLC adds an unjustified addition of a deity as the cause in his version of the Kalam. We simply do not know the cause. The math and science that we now have strongly implies a multiverse. The physical laws of that are unknown. It could be eternal and the cause of our universe. The Kalam does not justify a belief in either. It only points to something beyond our universe.

 

[samtonga43]

That a first cause must be a deity, that it is likely the one he imagines is real from the thousands humans have imagined are real, that this is because the deity he imagines is real is omniscient and impotent and transcendent, and that these are necessary for a universe to exist.

Those are all unevidenced assumptions he has added, and since they are about the thing he is arguing for, they are also begging the question fallacies.

Are you sure that Craig added these assumptions? Can you show me where he did this?

 

[an anarchist]

 

[an anarchist]

I’ve been trying to follow this thread since day one, but I have realized that I need a couple of decades to catch up with your guy’s level of knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you sure that Craig added these assumptions? Can you show me where he did this?

Yes, he did.

He goes from "Therefore, the universe has a cause" and leaps to that cause being the specific God he believes in. There are a lot of unevidenced assumptions in that leap.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, he did.

He goes from "Therefore, the universe has a cause" and leaps to that cause being the specific God he believes in. There are a lot of unevidenced assumptions in that leap.

He leaps to the cause being God? Where does he do this?

 

[dybmh]

I’ve been trying to follow this thread since day one, but I have realized that I need a couple of decades to catch up with your guy’s level of knowledge.

nice to hear you're still on the thread. my opinion: just let the information wash over you, the good bits will leave an impression

 

[SkepticThinker]

He leaps to the cause being God? Where does he do this?

In (almost) every debate he's been a part of, on the subject.
Have you watched any of his debates?

 

[samtonga43]

In (almost) every debate he's been a part of, on the subject.
Have you watched any of his debates?

I have. I don't remember the 'leaping'. In fact I thought he said that he would leave the conclusion (the Cause is God) to others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have. I don't remember the 'leaping'. In fact I thought he said that he would leave the conclusion (the Cause is God) to others.

No, he concludes "God did it."

 

[samtonga43]

No, he concludes "God did it."

Can you show me where he concludes "God did it"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you show me where he concludes "God did it"?

"In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both
philosophical argument and scientific confirmation
that it is plausible that the universe began to exist.
Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever
begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we
have been led to conclude that the universe has a
cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument,
this cause would have to be uncaused,
eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.
Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent
who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore,
on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument,
I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists."

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Craig_KalamCosmologicalArgument.pdf
Personal God | Reasonable Faith
Five Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument

 

[Sheldon]

No, he concludes "God did it."

I agree, though I might say WLC "assumes", rather than concludes. Lets not put lipstick on a pig after all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree, though I might say WLC "assumes", rather than concludes. Lets not put lipstick on a pig after all.

Yeppers.

 

[samtonga43]

"In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both
philosophical argument and scientific confirmation
that it is plausible that the universe began to exist.
Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever
begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we
have been led to conclude that the universe has a
cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument,
this cause would have to be uncaused,
eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.
Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent
who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore,
on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument,
I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists."

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Craig_KalamCosmologicalArgument.pdf
Personal God | Reasonable Faith
Five Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument

Exactly.
He concludes that it is rational to believe that 'God did it'.
He does not conclude that 'God did it'.

Can you see the difference?

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly.
He concludes that it is rational to believe that 'God did it'.
He does not conclude that 'God did it'.

Can you see the difference?

Not really, are you saying he thinks it's a rational conclusion, but that he does not conclude it despite it being rational?

 

[MonkeyFire]

As the times have come there are fallen angels who have come to save, and are totally beneficial and moral and only suffers minimally, and is beyond Adam, or is Adam angel. For the most part, instead of good and evil, pleasure, and pain, or life and death He falls. He represents the fallen lover of first times, then it is off into the infinite sunset of endless anniversaries. If one accepts a fall in our reality, with the right wisdom, one can be divine avatar. In descent we all fall.

Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[samtonga43]

Not really, are you saying he thinks it's a rational conclusion, but that he does not conclude it despite it being rational?

He thinks it is a rational conclusion.
Most theists would consider it a rational conclusion.
Atheists would not.

 

[joelr]

He leaps to the cause being God? Where does he do this?

I'll rewatch it when I have time but he says the cause must be God, AND then he says it must be a personal God. Then he lies and says the historical information proves it must be the Christian God. It IS a lie because he has heard at least Ehrman and Carrier both tell him the historical information does not support Christianity over any other deity.
Sean Caroll has also told him his cosmological views are not in line with cosmology and depending on the audience he now leaves that out.