Archived

Craig vs Enqvist

Read 5554 times

geezer

  • **
  • 7 Posts
    • View Profile
Kalam Cosmological Argument
« on: January 30, 2014, 01:47:44 pm »
Has Dr. Craig ever addressed John Norton's attack on premise #1 of Kalam? Norton effectively argues that fundamental causality does not exist as a universal first principle. More particularly, has Craig ever challenged Norton's Mass on the Dome argument against causality?

1

ontologicalme

  • Guest
Re: Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2014, 01:54:22 pm »
Norton effectively argues that fundamental causality does not exist as a universal first principle.



Some cosmologist and theoretical physicists are going to be disappointed ( not all though ), it seems, they have been looking a causal explanation of the universe for some time now.

Some even venture to say that we could potentially be able to create one universe on our own ( Alan Guth comes to mind ).

But they could all be wrong, that is a fact. My point is that some of us would be really surprised.

Forget that, does Norton give any particular reason for that conclusion?

Quote
More particularly, has Craig ever challenged Norton's Mass on the Dome argument against causality?

 if their was no probability that the mass rolled (one way or the other) it would have never rolled (one way or the other), usually these probabilities are given by some kind of minimal fluctuations due to structure or prior conditions, which amounts roughly to a causal explanation.




« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 01:57:26 pm by ontologicalme »