My reason behind this post is not to push William Lane Craig's pet argument but to see the many ways this can be dissected and shown to be flawed.
This is the shortest video I could find:
[youtube:2ed3lz6o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBxzk3eJ8Aw[/youtube:2ed3lz6o]
Argument reads:
Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
This is important, Billy goes on to say:
You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy. You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.
I am reserving this post to provide a quick, pin-point rebuttals for any one seeking it.
Alright. Breakdown!
a) we have never observed "nothing", so we have no knowledge of it, so we can't state something like "something cannot come from nothing", because that would require we know something about the properties of nothing.
This completely breaks the argument apart, really.
b) where the hell does the 'personal' part suddenly comes from? He just snuck that in when he thought we weren't watching. Without the personal, it's not the concept of god anymore, but there's nothing to indicate that it had to be personal at all.
This one just shows his dishonest methods, I guess. Or he has a longer explanation to show how he goes from flawed premise A to B, which is obviously meaningless.
Premise 1: What begins to exist has a cause.
What Billy is saying here is work has to be done to bring something into being.
It is a cause and effect relationship:
Quotecause-and-ef·fect [kawz-uhnd-i-fekt, -uhn-]
adjective
noting a relationship between actions or events such that one or more are the result of the other or others.
He argues it was his God that caused the universe to begin.
I am a builder, I build homes. Do I cause a home to come into existence? Well, not really. I take pre-existing material like timber, minerals, clays etc and assemble them into a home. But the material I used are pre-existing. I did not think them into existence.
What Billy is saying is god caused nothing to become the universe. Nothing at all. He did not use some left over material from making heaven and think, with these left overs, I can make something nice for the misses. [-X
What can be provided as evidence to support this idea? What has ever been witnessed being bought into existence from absolutely nothing. I would argue virtual partials don't meet this criteria.
If it can not be demonstrated then this could be flawed logic and garbage is being inserted into the argument.
What do you think?
This is by far not my only objection but I will post more later.
Quote from: "Plu"Alright. Breakdown!
a) we have never observed "nothing", so we have no knowledge of it, so we can't state something like "something cannot come from nothing", because that would require we know something about the properties of nothing.
This completely breaks the argument apart, really.
b) where the hell does the 'personal' part suddenly comes from? He just snuck that in when he thought we weren't watching. Without the personal, it's not the concept of god anymore, but there's nothing to indicate that it had to be personal at all.
This one just shows his dishonest methods, I guess. Or he has a longer explanation to show how he goes from flawed premise A to B, which is obviously meaningless.
Hi Plu
I have seen a 2 hour presentation of his argument and it would be more efficient to view his objects to objections videos or read from his web site. I will post some of his objection to rebuttals later. Some are valid, others are just bat s#!t crazy (IMO).
He is a great debater, but does his arguments hold water when really tested? I am looking forward to testing the hell out of them. :popcorn:
I will play devils advocate for some of this discussion using his objections so we can work out where he may be right and where he is fundamentally wrong.
Can he rebut the part A) I posted? Because I don't really see how he could, and it really just brings the argument down. We don't have any knowledge on "nothing" so we can't make claims like "something cannot come from nothing".
That is an objection he has addressed but I can not remember how sound his rebuttal was.
I don't think he is a fool (like some do). Some of his arguments are valid to a point and that I think is worth talking about.
Understanding these type of arguments form apologists can better educate those who have never tried to talk reason with someone so well armed with sophistry.
Kalam is just an insanely convoluted way of saying: "God is nothing".
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"I don't think he is a fool (like some do).
No, he's a charlatan. There's a difference.
QuoteSome of his arguments are valid to a point and that I think is worth talking about.
The devil mixes truth with lies.
As human beings, we are predisposed to think of everything in terms of our own existence. Birth, life, death, etc., as well as imposing a concept of time based upon our own lifespan, as in, what is a hundred years, as opposed to what is a million, or a billion years. Theese large numbers are basically unfathomable to the average person, hence, some of the issue people have with evolution. The concept of a universe that needs no outside influence to "begin" is not compatible with the human thought process, because, in human "logic" it doesn't make sense. Once one can put aside the perspective that comes automatically with being a human being, it can open the door to understanding how the universe arrived at its current state of being.
Oh, yeah, this guy has the unfortunate position of being a flim flam man who believes his own scam.
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"My reason behind this post is not to push William Lane Craig's pet argument but to see the many ways this can be dissected and shown to be flawed.
This is the shortest video I could find:
Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBxzk3eJ8Aw)
Argument reads:
Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
This is important, Billy goes on to say:
You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy. You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.
Umm ... how is this argument different that propounded by Thomas Aquinas in his Quinque Viae (Five Ways)?
His mistake is in assuming that cause and effect always applies to matter. It doesn't. It always applies to time. If matter were to exist without time cause and effect would no longer apply, and a "First Cause" wouldn't be necessary.
All this work to prove the existence of a god that could create a 40 billion light year universe yet be thwarthed by ignorant humans who simply had chariots with iron wheels......yeah... of course it makes sense.
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"Argument reads:
Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
This is important, Billy goes on to say:
You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy. You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.
By its own arguments, it means either God doesn't exist or God had to have a cause, making the whole thing counterproductive in "proving" God. Granting this God a special exemption from the argument's own rules is bogus. If God didn't need a cause, then neither does the universe. If the universe does have a cause, it's not necessary that it's a conscious being rather than one of the possibilities from theoretical physics. That whole last paragraph is baseless speculation stated as fact based solely on his religious beliefs.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"Argument reads:
Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
This is important, Billy goes on to say:
You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy. You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.
By its own arguments, it means either God doesn't exist or God had to have a cause, making the whole thing counterproductive in "proving" God. Granting this God a special exemption from the arguments own rules is bogus. If God didn't need a cause, then neither does the universe. If the universe does have a cause, it's not necessary that it's a conscious being rather than one of the possibilities from theoretical physics. That whole last paragraph is baseless speculation stated as fact based solely on his religious beliefs.
If the universe (for whatever reason) needs a cause, the so does God. If the universe is defined as everything that exists, then, if God exists, it includes God.
Gerard
I honestly don't see any reason why the argument could make any sense given what we know about the natural universe.
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.
Total amount of energy in the universe is 0.
There is no real beginning and ending to anything in existence. What exists today here on Earth was once star stuff, so for me to say I had a beginning is not entirely true. The form my atoms take now had a beginning but the atoms I am made of have been a part of countless other forms. The atoms I was born with are no longer part of my body, so the me that exists today is made of entirely different set of atoms, even though the entity of 'I' still exist, so I am not strictly just the atoms I am made of. And the person of 'I' am not an abstract concept, rather I am a process of matter and energy, operating on borrowed atoms that will one day comprise some other temporary form.
The entire Kalam argument assumes something that can neither be proven nor have we any reason to think ever was: nothing. We live in a universe filled with something... stuff which is balanced energy-wise to equal zero net energy, so the nothing they imagine IS the something that we see. There is no example of nothing, which by definition, does not exist and things which do not exist, well... do not fucking exist, so there is no point in discussing them as if they we're part of reality.
It turns out that the universe not existing is irrational and impossible. There may have been a big bang type event but I see it not as a beginning to existence, rather the start of a different form of existence, just like I was born but am made of stuff that was once something else. Everything else in the entire natural world is cyclical... a Yin Yang... a snake eating it's tail (some of the ancients, I think, understood a bit more than we think about the true nature of the world).
So if it's logical for Theists to believe something like a God could have always existed, then there is no reason something else, like the universe, too can have always existed, even if in a different form than what we see now. Something indeed had to cause the BB and since all things that exist are made of things that were once in a different state or form, the same probably holds true for the Universe. The most obvious truth and inescapable law of the material Universe is that nothing lasts and nothing stays the same. It's all dynamic, cyclical and ever transitioning. Absolute beginnings and endings are completely incomparable with objective reality as nothing we know of has such capability.
To demand that all things must have a cause, then to exclude God from being caused is in itself, both the argument and counter-argument all in one sentence. It's a snake giving birth to itself rather than eating it's own tail. It's a complete misconception of reality... not even remotely logical or intuitive.
Existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed states. One cannot come from the other and only one can be true. Since the Universe does indeed exist, then any conceivable state of non-existence has been ruled out as never having been a factor.
So the universe didn't by necessity come from nothing as nothing was never an option.
Quote from: "Farroc"His mistake is in assuming that cause and effect always applies to matter. It doesn't. It always applies to time. If matter were to exist without time cause and effect would no longer apply, and a "First Cause" wouldn't be necessary.
Can matter exist without a version of time?
If there is any motion then there is event in time. If there is a reoccurring phenomenon like oscillation, vibration, rotation, wave, decay, radiation, an event that can be divided etc then we have a form of time. (To my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong).
Time is relative and can change but is a difficult thing to truly grasp. (for me) :-k
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"Argument reads:
Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
By its own arguments, it means either God doesn't exist or God had to have a cause, making the whole thing counterproductive in "proving" God. Granting this God a special exemption from the argument's own rules is bogus. If God didn't need a cause, then neither does the universe. If the universe does have a cause, it's not necessary that it's a conscious being rather than one of the possibilities from theoretical physics. That whole last paragraph is baseless speculation stated as fact based solely on his religious beliefs.
The rebuttal reads God did not begin to exist but has always existed and therefore is excluded from premise 1.
It is argued that the universe had a beginning:the Big Bang (this is a flawed concept IMO, we cannot say if matter and energy were "created" then or if it changed states).
Regarding the conscious being he does provide a reason for his assertion but will have to look it up as I cannot remember what it was. I was still wrestling with the first argument and not able to absorb so many points all at once. :x
Zatoichi, very well present post mate. Thank you for contributing and I would like to copy your post as a firm rebuttal to premise 1. =D>
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"Zatoichi, very well present post mate. Thank you for contributing and I would like to copy your post as a firm rebuttal to premise 1. =D>
Thank you for the kind words, and by all means go right ahead. :)
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"Quote from: "Farroc"His mistake is in assuming that cause and effect always applies to matter. It doesn't. It always applies to time. If matter were to exist without time cause and effect would no longer apply, and a "First Cause" wouldn't be necessary.
Can matter exist without a version of time?
If there is any motion then there is event in time. If there is a reoccurring phenomenon like oscillation, vibration, rotation, wave, decay, radiation, an event that can be divided etc then we have a form of time. (To my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong).
I'm not a physicist or anything, and my knowledge of physics is probably no better than yours. This is just my speculation.
But as far as I know, though matter in it's current form might not be able to exist in a timeless state, it's entirely possible for it(as well as antimatter, dark matter, etc) to change form into something which could. As far as I know. For a more through discussion you might wanna come back in about 13 years when I plan to have a PhD in Physics. :lol: Hopefully.
It's laden with assumptions and a double-standard, as pointed out above by several posters.
Also, having read a couple of Craig's books (The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ), I'm not surprised to find him touting flawed reasoning as "proof". His books are chockablock with bullshit, too.
QuoteThe rebuttal reads God did not begin to exist but has always existed and therefore is excluded from premise 1.
But if there's something that can exist without being caused, the argument still breaks down because there's no reason to assume that thing couldn't have been the universe.
Quote from: "Farroc"I'm not a physicist or anything, and my knowledge of physics is probably no better than yours. This is just my speculation.
But as far as I know, though matter in it's current form might not be able to exist in a timeless state, it's entirely possible for it(as well as antimatter, dark matter, etc) to change form into something which could. As far as I know. For a more through discussion you might wanna come back in about 13 years when I plan to have a PhD in Physics. :lol: Hopefully.
:lol: Good stuff mate. I agree.
There is more that I have issues with WLCs argument which I will attend to in the near future when time permits.
I am impressed with information that has been provided on this thread already. All posts have been good and some would be very difficult for a theist to rebut without putting their fingers in their ears and repeat "nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you".
Quote from: "Plu"But if there's something that can exist without being caused, the argument still breaks down because there's no reason to assume that thing couldn't have been the universe.
I agree. I do not know enough about the big bang (nor does anyone else) to declare it was absolutely the creation of all matter, time and energy. But this is the argument presented by Craig. A thoughtful response shot over to Creation Ministries or what ever his site is my aim.
I want to develop a logical argument, being mindful of possible rebuttals (hence the playing devils advocate).
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"Quote from: "Plu"But if there's something that can exist without being caused, the argument still breaks down because there's no reason to assume that thing couldn't have been the universe.
I agree. I do not know enough about the big bang (nor does anyone else) to declare it was absolutely the creation of all matter, time and energy. But this is the argument presented by Craig. A thoughtful response shot over to Creation Ministries or what ever his site is my aim.
I want to develop a logical argument, being mindful of possible rebuttals (hence the playing devils advocate).
It's much easier to argue against a strawman.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"It's much easier to argue against a strawman.
:lol:
I am not an apologist and have little to no experience in doing that. [-(
One of the problems encountered by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the missed Christopher Hitchens had when debating WLC seemed to be WLC insisting to go first and presenting this argument. Though they had a fair rebuttal for traditional Christian rhetoric, they all failed to address his argument satisfactorily. Allowing WLC to speak with a condescending tone almost mocking them for failure to address his argument.
This is a smart debating tactic and to WLC's credit he employs the same method in most of his debates. Some find it convincing, others can see through the word games though it is initially difficult.
QuoteThough they had a fair rebuttal for traditional Christian rhetoric, they all failed to address his argument satisfactorily.
You mean that WLC
thought they did. The only problem with this argument is that it takes some amount of brainpower to understand why it's wrong, which is what makes it so effective. Lots of people can understand the simple argument but not the slightly complexer explanation of why it's wrong.
It's the same reason people flock to creationism and deny evolution; because the former is simple and so are those people.
The way I see it, the argument basicly translates into:
1) I believe that everything is impossible
2) Abraca fuck dabra magic is more plausible to me, than everything I see being possible.
Normally the fact that something happened/exists would lead me to conclude that it's possible, regardless of whether I understand how. Impossible means that it couldn't happen/exist after all, and thus won't. That the thing with impossiblities... you never encounter any. Mr Graig would like me to use the word impossible wherever I'd normally use possible. We're impossible so his bullshit god must've been involved. All that everything-that-had-a-beginning blabla is just smoke mirrors misdirection and slight of hand.
Quote from: "Jutter"The way I see it, the argument basicly translates into:
1) I believe that everything is impossible
2) Abraca fuck dabra magic is more plausible to me, than everything I see being possible.
Really? I translate the argument as
1) Science has discovered the reasons behind things so we can no longer attribute them to god
2) The origin of the universe is one area of uncertainty or at least the common bumblefuck idiot on the street doesn't understand it and their eyes tend to glaze over when the science is explained to them
3) So we'll base the "proof" of god in an area where few people understand and don't really want to learn so we can keep using this bullshit argument even if it's completely refuted because morons will not understand and still give us donations.
And it is bullshit.
QuoteIt is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
The entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Craig assumes that the Big Bang is an event which can be described as "the Universe coming into existence from nothing." But that's just wrong. The BB is the Universe transitioning from a state which cannot be examined, commonly referred to as "the singularity," into a state which is characterized by the space-time continuum, and which can be examined.
It's a convenient gap to try to stuff god into, because it is not only unknown, but quite possibly unknowable. But what it certainly is not is an effect without a cause. Without space-time, "cause and effect" is a meaningless concept. WLC seems to like the KCA primarily because the huge question mark which is metaphorically floating over the Big Bang is so much fun to point at and holler "see!!? Scientists don't know everything! Therefore God!"
It's a juvenile argument dressed up in a lab coat.
Quote from: "Davka"The entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Craig assumes that the Big Bang is an event which can be described as "the Universe coming into existence from nothing." But that's just wrong. The BB is the Universe transitioning from a state which cannot be examined, commonly referred to as "the singularity," into a state which is characterized by the space-time continuum, and which can be examined.
It's a convenient gap to try to stuff god into, because it is not only unknown, but quite possibly unknowable. But what it certainly is not is an effect without a cause. Without space-time, "cause and effect" is a meaningless concept. WLC seems to like the KCA primarily because the huge question mark which is metaphorically floating over the Big Bang is so much fun to point at and holler "see!!? Scientists don't know everything! Therefore God!"
It's a juvenile argument dressed up in a lab coat.
A great point. The laws of physics break down inside a singularity, it seems. Those same laws are what provide analytical and predictive power to our investigations. With that being the case, it seems pretty arrogant for WLC to assert that this or that can or can't have happened.
Quote from: "Davka"The entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Craig assumes that the Big Bang is an event which can be described as "the Universe coming into existence from nothing." But that's just wrong. The BB is the Universe transitioning from a state which cannot be examined, commonly referred to as "the singularity," into a state which is characterized by the space-time continuum, and which can be examined.
It's a convenient gap to try to stuff god into, because it is not only unknown, but quite possibly unknowable. But what it certainly is not is an effect without a cause. Without space-time, "cause and effect" is a meaningless concept. WLC seems to like the KCA primarily because the huge question mark which is metaphorically floating over the Big Bang is so much fun to point at and holler "see!!? Scientists don't know everything! Therefore God!"
It's a juvenile argument dressed up in a lab coat.
Another great post!
Quote from: "evolution dismantled"So here we have a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, changeless, uncaused, unimaginably powerful, and personal being that caused the universe. This beautifully fits the traditional definition of God.
http://evolutiondismantled.com/kalam (http://evolutiondismantled.com/kalam)
(Please see down the bottom of the page for answers to objections).
Now were take a huge leap to the next stage, injecting their god into the argument.
Argument goes, he is outside time and space because he created it so he is not bound by his creation.
I agree he is spaceless. Human conjecture occupies not space that I am aware of.
But timeless. Really? Any motion or action would be bound by time. This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender. He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being. If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action? Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)
This massive leap is difficult for me to comprehend.
Thanks for the quality posts guys and girls. (after reading Youtube quotes my brain hurts)
Possible Responses http://evolutiondismantled.com/kalam (http://evolutiondismantled.com/kalam)
1."Premise 1 of the kalam cosmological argument is flawed because particles have been observed, in quantum physics, to pop into existence from nothing."
When quantum physicists perform experiments, they use a vacuum – which is not absolutely nothing. Vacuums are not actually empty, for they contain a sea of energy such as zero-point energy. The main point to take home here is this: experiments that supposedly prove particles coming from nothing actually show particles coming from something.
Always be sceptical of scientists claiming that something can come from nothing. The word 'nothing' almost always means a state with 'a sea of energy'. And that's not nothing.
5. "Both premises of the kalam are true, or most probably true. But the cause wasn't God – the universe caused itself (this was Daniel Dennett's response, until William Lane Craig corrected him)."
This explains precisely nothing because the universe would have to already exist in order to create itself.
8. "Don't just say God did it – one day we might find a naturalistic explanation for the cause of the universe."
The universe is defined as the totality of all space, matter, time, and energy. Thus, the only possible entity that can cause all of this must be non-spatial, immaterial, timeless, and not bound by energy. So the cause must be supernatural and cannot be natural. If something natural caused the universe, then the universe would have had to already exist in order for the natural cause to exist!
I find it oddly amusing that they are so close to the answer yet are blind to it. (IMO)
Rebuttal of response 1. says that in a sea of energy, a vacuum is not nothing.
Rebuttal of 5 and 8 admit that the naturalist answer is energy was pre-existing.
Am I missing something here? Have they not nullified their own rebuttal? If virtual particles can come into existence in a sea of fluctuating energy could a naturalist explanation for the change of state to pre-existing energy / material be conceivable?
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"But timeless. Really? Any motion or action would be bound by time. This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender. He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being. If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action? Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)
The answers I heard to these objections when I was a Christian are as follows:
- God is both inside time and timeless. God is not bound by time, but can act within it if he so chooses. And your tiny mind is too small to comprehend this, so stop trying.
- God is a "he" in the sense of being masculine, not male. God is the active principle, the Yang to the Universe's Yin.
What's interesting to me is that the Bible says no such thing. All this "timeless god" stuff is relatively recent. YHWH was just as much a part of time as any of the other ancient gods back in the OT. The intersection of Greek philosophy and Judaism is the root of the Trinity, Tri-Omni God, and both early Christian writings and Rabbinic Jewish writings.
The Kalam? Hahahaha! Oh Craig, you just had to resurrect an old Muslim argument, which is just further evidence (as if we needed any) that Theologians cannot actually come up for valid and sound arguments supporting the existence of their religion's god-concept.
Also, the premises of the Kalam have always baffled me in syllogisms:
1) That which begins to exist has a cause.
-"Began to exist"? What? When has something ever began its existence? By which I mean, everything that does exist has always existed in some prior state, so it's existence has never been known to have "begun" in any brute, initial sense.
2) The Universe began to exist.
-See 1) for my confusion. And it makes an assertion it cannot hold. The Big Bang theory doesn't really detail the universe's origins, because it theorizes the existence of some prior, potentially unknowable.... thing that expanded. Premise 2) = total shit.
3) Therefore the Univeese has a cause.... which is axiomatically a Spaceless, Timeless, Changeless (because Timeless), Maximally Powerful, Maximally Knowledgeable, Maximally Benevolent, Man-thing (misogynistic much?)... [insert more vacuous terms]
-Even if this argument were coherent, valid AND sound (none of the above), that conclusion (minus the Theologian, obscurantist bullshit at the end), "The Universe has a cause", is as far as the syllogism goes. It wouldn't necessitate that the cause is a "being". It wouldn't tell you anything about it. And that absurd extra-Spatio-Temporal nonsense can be Reductio'ed:
If something is Spaceless, it by definition takes up no space, which is non-existence. Yahweh (in the Bible) has actually appeared and taken up residency in places (Heaven, Garden of Eden, Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies, Jesus (lol)), therefore cannot be "spaceless" given Biblical texts.
Something that is Changeless (because Timeless) could NEVER do anything, because 'doing' necessitates at least 3 stages of distinction, not doing, doing, then not doing again. Biblical/Qur'anical God has done actions (in the text anyway), therefore is not Timeless.
In other words, William Lane Craig is a Gish-Galloping, obscurantist fraud who I am pleased to find fails to impress some Christians with his sleazy debate tactics and arguments. At least Pastor Douglas Wilson doesn't spew that kind of bullshit...
^^^
GurrenLagann Nailed it.
No more need be said on the issue.
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"But timeless. Really? Any motion or action would be bound by time. This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender. He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being. If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action? Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)
The answers I heard to these objections when I was a Christian are as follows:
- God is both inside time and timeless. God is not bound by time, but can act within it if he so chooses. And your tiny mind is too small to comprehend this, so stop trying.
- God is a "he" in the sense of being masculine, not male. God is the active principle, the Yang to the Universe's Yin.
What's interesting to me is that the Bible says no such thing. All this "timeless god" stuff is relatively recent. YHWH was just as much a part of time as any of the other ancient gods back in the OT. The intersection of Greek philosophy and Judaism is the root of the Trinity, Tri-Omni God, and both early Christian writings and Rabbinic Jewish writings.
IOW, the definition of God is so nonsensical and general that he can be used as a placeholder to answer any question we want.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"But timeless. Really? Any motion or action would be bound by time. This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender. He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being. If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action? Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)
The answers I heard to these objections when I was a Christian are as follows:
- God is both inside time and timeless. God is not bound by time, but can act within it if he so chooses. And your tiny mind is too small to comprehend this, so stop trying.
- God is a "he" in the sense of being masculine, not male. God is the active principle, the Yang to the Universe's Yin.
What's interesting to me is that the Bible says no such thing. All this "timeless god" stuff is relatively recent. YHWH was just as much a part of time as any of the other ancient gods back in the OT. The intersection of Greek philosophy and Judaism is the root of the Trinity, Tri-Omni God, and both early Christian writings and Rabbinic Jewish writings.
IOW, the definition of God is so nonsensical and general that he can be used as a placeholder to answer any question we want.
Well, yes, but that's only because God. Therefore God. And besides, quit trying to understand God. Who do you think you are? God?
. . . and so on.
Kalam was originally debunked hundreds of years ago and this windbag Craig tries to resurrect a dead argument for his fairy tale and has people calling him the best Christian defender today. Maybe if you've never considered these big philosophical issues he may sound deep but it's not, it's shallow and falls apart at every premise. Craig is full of logical fallacies and a healthy dose of assumptions about the universe without actually studying cosmology, especially his knowledge.. (ugh) about "nothing" which doesn't even exist.
Somewhat off topic but the fact that Kalam is an argument and not evidence should reveal to us everything we need to know about the base argument/premise it is trying, in some way, to prove.
Teaspoon, I suggest looking at the archive section of the forum (top right) for a myriad of threads relating to Kalam, many of which contain fine debunking by some of our members.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on faulty premises:
QuotePremise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
There are uncaused events such as vacuum fluctuations.
QuotePremise 2: The universe had to began to exist
This needs to be demonstrated.
QuoteConclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
If this is true, what makes this cause a god? It may have been a mindless fluctuation of something as yet unknown to us.
Quote from: "Atheon"QuoteConclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
If this is true, what makes this cause a god? It may have been a mindless fluctuation of something as yet unknown to us.
It's all based on the argument, "I assert that my particular god exists, therefore it exists". That's pretty much the basis for all "arguments" for any god. See http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm) for more examples than you want.
It also reeks of special pleading: "The universe had a start, but GAWD is different... he's eternal, don'tcha know... that makes him special..."
'nothingness' is impossible in every qualitative & quantitative way imaginable or real ... except from random words stringed together.
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"This is important, Billy goes on to say:
You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy. You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.
"conceptual analysis" is just ontological masturbation at its core. Says nothing of what exists. I'm also even doubtful that it even can possibly say about anything that
can exist.
It's basically trying to get the foot of philosophy trying to fit into the shoe of science.