brent arnesen

  • **
  • 953 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2013, 09:43:16 pm »
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px; text-align: left; white-space: nowrap; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); ">cartersmith</span>, In reading your reference to the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy, I noticed that its criticism of Craig`s timeless God prior to the creation are not substantiated.  It asserts that such an idea is confused, but offers no reason why we should reject the concept of a state that is absent of time.<div>
</div><div>Additionally, it attacks the notion of absolute time that Craig also defends, but what is left unsaid is that its attack is predicated on logical positivism.  Prior to Einstein`s work on relativity, the dominant view of time had been Newtonian; which was a view of absolute time.  With the advent of relativity, the only possible reference plane that could have absolute time would be a reference plane at complete rest; but according to relativity it is in principal impossible for an observer to determine if reference plane is moving or at rest (since all observations are relative).  As a result, Einstein and early 20th century Physcists and Philosophers rejected the existence of an absolute reference plane, because according to logical positivism only verifiable things are meaningful knowledge.</div><div>
</div><div>But given the collapse of positivism in philosophy (logical positivism itself cannot be verified by its own standards, thus it self destructs), there remains no reason why we should reject the idea of an absolute time.</div>

If there is debate among scholars, then it seems most sensible not to build a worldview that claims to have truth claims based on it, right?

For example, we don't know if Life exists on Mars, so for me to defend a case that Life originated from Mars seems to be laden with presuppositions.
Likewise, if WLC is confused about Time (and I'm sure we could explore the citations), then it seems premature for anyone, Craig included, to build a case on this presupposition and not have it strongly noted from the outset.