Author Topic: Objections to the Kalam  (Read 450 times)

lucious

  • Posts: 3477
    • View Profile
Re: Objections to the Kalam
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2017, 12:40:01 AM »
It doesn't affect the argument at all--the mathematical and metaphysical arguments remain unaffected.

bruce culver

  • Posts: 4367
    • View Profile
Re: Objections to the Kalam
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2017, 02:59:21 PM »
It doesn't affect the argument at all--the mathematical and metaphysical arguments remain unaffected.

Of course it affects the argument, because all the scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe are evidence for the beginning of the known universe. There is no evidence that the quantum vacuum began to exist. There is no evidence that some larger physical megaverse that this universe may have arose from began to exist.

I agree that any temporal entity must have a temporal beginning, but I do not agree that if that temporal entity was the first cause or ground of being that it must have a cause for its existence, because if there was no time before it existed in which it did not exist, then it did not "pop into being" nor did come from anywhere. It may just have a metaphysically necessary first moment of existence.

In the case of a quantum vacuum it is not clear to me that such might not be timeless, at least in the A-theory (time as we know it)sense.

I suppose then that one might argue that if the quantum vacuum is timeless and persumably spaceless, then it is not material, and I'd probably agree that it is not a material thing, which what I think the physicist mean when they say it is literally nothing, i.e., not a thing. But I'd agree it is not nothing in the classical sense. But does that make it supernatural? I'm not sure there is any answer one can give that isn't just semantical. I'd be  inclined to think of it as the ground state of nature rather than something supernatural, but is that just a naturalistic bias on my part? Maybe. But to say it is something supernatural, especially something like the God of Christian theism, well what is the evidence for that? If it's the KCA...meh! I don't think so.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

lucious

  • Posts: 3477
    • View Profile
Re: Objections to the Kalam
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2017, 10:03:29 AM »
You simply need to study the evidence more carefully.


Craig and Sinclair rigorously explore the multiverse and higher dimensional models in their work.

bruce culver

  • Posts: 4367
    • View Profile
Re: Objections to the Kalam
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2017, 10:34:01 PM »
You simply need to study the evidence more carefully.


Craig and Sinclair rigorously explore the multiverse and higher dimensional models in their work.

Maybe its not fair, but I'm not impressed enough with Dr. Craig's arguments that I've read here and listened to in videos of his debates to bother reading his books. IMO, he starts with his conclusions which are based on Christian theology and then rationalizes the evidence. That is opposed to starting with an open mind and then reasoning from the evidence to best explanation of the evidence.

Dr. Craig is obviously very intelligent and a great rhetorician, but IMO he is an apologist first and philosopher second. An apologist's reasoning is controlled by his agenda, a philosopher should have no agenda but go where the evidence and logic lead.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

lucious

  • Posts: 3477
    • View Profile
Re: Objections to the Kalam
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2017, 11:34:51 PM »
The work I reference is the blackwell companion to natural theology. That has a rigorous and scholarly section on the cosmological evidence.

 

anything