This question seems to pop up every once in a while and it is a puzzling one. But, I have been toying with an idea about it. I would suppose, a safe assumption to make is that knowledge starts with sense experience or in the very least, knowledge of the empirical starts with sense experience. So, if we work off of this assumption, I think that this idea of our senses being unreliable is an incoherent position, for surely you would have to have reliable senses in order to confirm that your senses aren't reliable (obviously, this is a contradiction) or else, how could you ever come to know it? This is a very premature idea, so I am wondering what you all think about it. 

Jimbo28 wrote:

ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:

I have essentially abandoned this argument, simply because it hangs in the balance of scientific discovery

Well, in Craig's view, the Kalam decidedly does not hang upon the scientific evidence. I recall hearing him say on multiple occasions that he believes the primary evidence that the universe began to exist is philosophical. He believes that there is good philosophical justification for the impossibility of an infinite past, and that any confirmatory scientific evidence is just icing on the cake. 

The Kalam is certainly defensible. Or at least, it isn't obviously a failure of an argument. There are a lot of interesting philosophical issues that come up with it. I think the Kalam is a better argument than classical theists tend to give credit for. 


 

I get where your coming from and although he does gives reasons to believe the natural world isn't infinite, I wouldn't go as far as to say its impossible. But it also wouldn't suppose that, outside of our universe (if there is such a place) that time works the way in which we understand it. Certainly, it is defendable, but from a classical theist perspective, the conclusion does not give you a "God" but a "god." A demiurge, of sorts. Perhaps, some of the premises can be adjusted to get to a stronger conclusion.

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Libertarians believe all externalities are irrelevant. Social externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters are laws that defend property. Economic externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is market fundamentalism. National externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is free trade. But they haven't proven that these externalities are irrelevant. They just want you to shut up and support them. Your opinions and personal values are also another externality that doesn't matter.

Libertarians also lie. For instance, they claim that they're "objectivists" but they don't actually believe in objective reality. What they believe is no externalities so their internal model of the world is objective reality. When they say everyone should be objective they mean "other people's worldview is another externality I won't bother with so shut up and accept my externality-free worldview."

I personally, am on the libertarian side of things so I suppose I suffice as a good candidate to respond. Although, I am more of a minarchist then a ancap, so this may not completely pertain to me. I would first, like you to define what you mean by "externality." Mainly, because you are claiming that libertarians believe that "all externalities" are irrelevant and I believe this simply isn't the case. Myself and many others, hold true to a principle known as the non-aggression principle, which essentially states that all action is permitted until said action aggresses some other person or their property. Agression is an externality, so I am a little confused. When you say that sub category X's specific potential externalities are irrelevant to libertarians, I would say that they are not irrelevant to them, they just shouldn't be handled by the state. Or, in the case of economics, they believe aswell as I, that there is a case to be made for freedom within a

…