PaulK writes:
KBertsche writes:
Where/how does the Kalaam argument insist that time is finite?
I am surprised that you have suddenly decided to raise this objection after so much discussion in this thread and others.
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 ?
Please answer my question, if possible, rather than trying to deflect it.
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
™ Version 4.2