the transcendent cause may be something other than a god.
It is possible, I argue, for objective moral values and duties to exist even in the absence of a God. There just are things which, randomly, happen to be moral, and there just are things which, randomly, happen to be immoral. The moral/immoral status of a given thing is absolute and objective, though independent of the existence of a god.
Craig tries to present a historical/secular proof that Jesus rose from the dead. He fails to persuade me, simple as that. Perhaps Christianity is false, but since Judaism allows for resurrection ONLY during the end of the world we now live in the end of the world.Ultimately, Craig presents an inductive argument and nothing more, and inductive arguments can be easily dismissed. Craig might be right, but he needs more than just an inductive argument to prove his point. Perhaps the Bible is just wrong.
ArgonGruber wrote: 1. The Kalam Comsological Argument is an insufficient argument for the existence of God because it fails to take into account the idea that we have no evidence to suppose that the Universe ever not-existed.
Furthermore, you ask, "What other than a God could it be?"It could be anything! There is no reason to suppose that this Thing has to be intelligent. Perhaps this godlike entity is a godlike blob of metaphysical gunk which spits out Universes at random. This godlike entity is utterly transcendental, so may have any properties whatsoever. It may be spatial despite having created space because it is a godlike entity and godlike entities are not bound by space. The same is true for timelessness. Perhaps this godlike entity is temporally finite despite having created time because godlike entities are not bound by physical laws. That's what it means to be transcendental. Anything less, and this godlike entity because finite and disposable.
2. The foundation for morality need not be objective. We can have true distinctions of right/wrong without objective moral standards and duties.
Free will has little to do with what is right and what is wrong.
Intrinsic human worth has little to do with what is right and what is wrong.
Suppose, for now, that the Universe is atheist and randomly came into existence from nothing. (I know, but bear with me for a few sentences) In coming to existence from nothing, the act of Rape just so happened to randomly become immoral. And the same is true for murder and so forth. It's unlikely, I know, but surely it COULD have happened. It is logically possible that morality is random AND objective.
Please note what Craig says at 0:23:50 - 0:23:60"Thus we have a good INDUCTIVE argument for the existence of God based on the existence of Jesus." THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM CRAIG HIMSELF.
Craig tries to present a historical/secular proof that Jesus rose from the dead. ...Ultimately, Craig presents an inductive argument and nothing more, and inductive arguments can be easily dismissed. Craig might be right, but he needs more than just an inductive argument to prove his point. Perhaps the Bible is just wrong.
ArgonGruber wrote: 1. Kalam Argument.Actually, Damoksta, all we can prove is that the Big Bang happened. We cannot prove that the universe did or did not exist prior to the Big Bang. All we know is that it happened.
any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a space-time boundary.”
2. Moral ObjectivityMoral Objectivity does not prove the existence of God. Moral Objectivity could be true in God's absence. God's presence could be true in the absence of Moral Objectivity.3. Resurrection ArgumentThis argument is inductive, and Dr. Craig admits it.
ArgonGruber wrote: There are some pretty stable alternatives to a finite universe. Well, at least I've seen some pretty acceptable alternatives to a finite universe. Cyclical Universes and stuff.
ArgonGruber wrote: Um, okay. That's cool. What turns on the universe and stuff? Like, what point are you making again?
ArgonGruber wrote: Ah, yes! We do not have evidence that the universe did ever not-exist.
Also, your 3a and 3b are not part of the actual KCA. The cause of the universe is just something outside of the universe. Maybe aliens did it. Maybe 7 did it. We're talking about pre-universe causality, after all.
Damoksta wrote: Then those "aliens" are God by nature,, since they are a maximally conceivable being that share the properties of a Theistic God.
ArgonGruber wrote: Quote from: DamokstaThen those "aliens" are God by nature,, since they are a maximally conceivable being that share the properties of a Theistic God.What if the universe was caused by extra-universe entities that do not share the maximal properties of a theistic god? What if the aliens are not maximally great, powerful, omniscience, and benevolent, yet still created the universe?
Then those "aliens" are God by nature,, since they are a maximally conceivable being that share the properties of a Theistic God.