|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
You're right; I don't see a contradiction in my position. I only see a contradiction for one who denies the possibility of a transcendent God. Under the assumptions and definitions that we are dealing with the Universe has always existed and God "began to exist"... I am sorry that you can't let yourself see the contradiction. ...You are blatantly contradicting yourself and you can't let yourself see it. You can't just assume that past time is both finite and infinite depending on whether it is convenient to you - not if you are hoping to make anything like a rational argument. But you still do it, and you can't even see it, staring you in the face. The universe began at a point in the past. It has a beginning and a finite age. The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age. He created the universe and time itself. He is not bound by the time of the universe which He created. I don't see a contradiction in this."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Where/how does the Kalaam argument insist that time is finite? And the contradiction is really obvious. The age of a thing - any thing - is the amount of time it has existed for. Infinite age is only possible if time is infinite. But the Kalam argument insists that time is finite - in fact it includes a sub-argument that (if it works at all) rules out the possibility of infinite age.
As I understand it, the Kalaam argument only insists that anything which began to exist (e.g. the universe) cannot be infinitely old. The conclusion that time is finite comes from modern cosmology. As such, the claim is restricted to the universe itself. It says nothing about the possibility of transcendent beings or truths, and says nothing about what "time" would mean for them."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
The concept of something "transcending the universe" is "mumbo-jumbo and word salad" to you? Are you so wedded to a naturalistic worldview that you can't even conceive of such a thing? But this means nothing. It is mumbo-jumbo and word salad. The words all have meaning but how you have put them together means nothing?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Please answer my question, if possible, rather than trying to deflect it. KBertsche writes:
I am surprised that you have suddenly decided to raise this objection after so much discussion in this thread and others.
Where/how does the Kalaam argument insist that time is finite? And I am even more surprised that you are unaware of this staple of Craig's version of the argument which is the main basis for insisting on a timeless cause of the universe. So are you now prepared to say whether you insist on a finite or infinite past instead of choosing whichever is convenient to you at the time ? Where/how does the Kalaam argument insist that time is finite? Please provide a reference. Thank you. (Note: as I've already said, we both agree that modern cosmology concludes time is finite. But this refers to time in the physical universe. This cosmological argument cannot be applied to time in a more general, philosophical sense without further justification.) Second note: though WLC seems to lean toward the view that time began with the universe, he also claims that his formulation of the Kalaam argument does NOT depend on a "beginning to time itself":
William Lane Craig, The Kalaam Cosmological Argument (MacMillan 1979), p. 106 writes:
There is one additional issue that I would like to comment on at this point, however, and that is whether our argument necessitates a beginning to time itself. ... The answer to this problem is: it all depends. If a person believes that time exists apart from events such that if there were no events there still would be time, then our argument does not entail prima facie a beginning to time. On the other hand, if one accepts that time cannot exist apart from events, then a beginning of events would entail a beginning of time as well. Edited by kbertsche, : added note Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : Added second note and WLC quote. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: If you answered it, I missed it. I have not yet seen you post a reference that we can check. For the third time, here is my question from message 145:
KBertsche writes:
Where/how does the Kalaam argument insist that time is finite? Please provide a reference. Thank you. My quote from Craig in message 145 is a counter-reference, clearly showing that he does NOT insist that time is finite in his KCA. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024