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.
