Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / How do you feel about WLC Kalam Argument?

**Posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist** 12/20/2018 11:04 pm

WLC and his Kalam Argument are, if I must admit, what spiked my curiosity to delve deeper into philosophy. Since then, I have essentially abadoned this argument, simply because it hangs in the balance of scientific discovery, I feel. It is also doesn't appear to me that an accidentally ordered chain of causes, that regresses infintely, is impossible. Thoughts and opinions on the Kalam? Is it defendable?

Last edited by ClassicalLiberal.Theist (12/22/2018 9:52 pm)

**Posted by Due_Kindheartedness** 12/21/2018 1:13 am

The most shocking discovery in mathematics is that any statement about all numbers (famous for being infinite) can be proven or disproven by testing only a finite number of number. The Busy Beaver function allows you to take a proposition P, evaluate the maximum number of states possible, and then spit out a number N such that if P is true for all the numbers from zero to N, then it is true for all numbers period. My point is that it isn't logically possible for the universe to be infinite in the past because mathematics isn't infinite. Nothing is infinite. Because nothing is infinite, time isn't infinite either. The burden of proof is on anybody who says that anything can be infinite especially in light of the fact that numbers (the most obviously infinite thing) aren't.

**Posted by 119** 12/21/2018 1:54 am

A difficulty for Craig's Kalam argument?

Yeah, but is it actually infinite?

**Posted by DanielCC** 12/21/2018 7:50 am

Ironically contra Craig I think the argument may even gain increased plausibility on a B-theory of time, as that helps the spatial analogy with Hilbert's Hotel.

**Posted by Calhoun** 12/21/2018 11:38 am

DanielCC wrote:
Ironically contra Craig I think the argument may even gain increased plausibility on a B-theory of time, as that helps the spatial analogy with Hilbert's Hotel.

True, I once read one such argument utilizing spatial analogy.

https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=thesis

I don't know how plausible it is though and do all B-theorists think of time this way, it appears not.

**Posted by Noble_monkey** 12/22/2018 7:17 pm

>It is also doesn't appear to me that an essentially ordered chain of causes, that regresses infintely, is impossible.

Has nothing to do with Craig's argument.

But yes, the argument is defensible.

Last edited by Noble_monkey (12/22/2018 7:18 pm)

**Posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist** 12/22/2018 9:52 pm

Noble_monkey wrote:
>It is also doesn't appear to me that an essentially ordered chain of causes, that regresses infintely, is impossible.

Has nothing to do with Craig's argument.

But yes, the argument is defensible.

Accidentally* And it may be defensible to the average but I think the skeptic could take it farther then the argument can handle.

Last edited by ClassicalLiberal.Theist (12/22/2018 9:54 pm)

**Posted by Noble_monkey** 12/24/2018 1:09 am

ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:
Noble_monkey wrote:
>It is also doesn't appear to me that an essentially ordered chain of causes, that regresses infintely, is impossible.

Has nothing to do with Craig's argument.

But yes, the argument is defensible.
Accidentally* And it may be defensible to the average but I think the skeptic could take it farther then the argument can handle.

What objections cant the argument handle? You have to explictly show how the objection refutes the argument.

**Posted by Ouros** 12/25/2018 3:45 pm

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?

**Posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist** 12/27/2018 1:28 am

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?

Fair enough man. I would say that the evidence for a beginning, to our universe at least, seems strong, however.