Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?



12/30/2018 4:28 pm  #11


Re: How do you feel about WLC Kalam Argument?

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. 


 

 

12/30/2018 5:58 pm  #12


Re: How do you feel about WLC Kalam Argument?

There's nothing wrong with hanging in the balance of scientific discovery. Christianity hangs in the balance of historical discovery: excavating Jesus's bones means we'd better become either Jewish or Buddhist.

 

1/03/2019 11:22 am  #13


Re: How do you feel about WLC Kalam Argument?

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.

     Thread Starter
 

1/03/2019 6:23 pm  #14


Re: How do you feel about WLC Kalam Argument?

Ouros wrote:

My problem is that I'm not sure what it would imply for science if it were valid: should we rule out scientific models of eternal universe?

Yes, it would mean that the models of an eternal universe are false.
 

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum