meta-kalam

How many and why?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• william
• lane
• craig
• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• atheism
• theism

[vbfl920]

Well, I think that's because there are a world of facts outside of the Kalam. We can't argue in a vacuum like that.

You are aware that Craig is a Christian.

Do you think Craig would expect us to know what Christianity is solely by way of the Kalam?

Craig argues for 1 God, by way of the Kalam, because he's a Christian.

[urbanelf]

@vbfl920 I'm not claiming he's arguing in a vacuum, but he doesn't use his Christianity anywhere in the argument. In fact, in his defense of the conclusion of Kalam he cites Occams Razor to say we are only justified in believing in one being that created the universe. You can read his presentation of his own argument.

[vbfl920]

I think the case for God's existence is much more cumulative than what you make it out to be, even though you're only presupposing in this video.

You cant just stop at the Kalam.

I'm sure you know, that there's material out there if you're interested in how many God's you should believe in, and which God to believe in.

[urbanelf]

@vbfl920 In debates and essays, his presentation of Kalam ends with "therefore it's rational to believe in God."

[theDracoIX]

You're justified in believing in at least one. If there isn't a necessity for more than one and you have no further reasons to believe there is more than one - then you are not justified in believing there is more than one.

[vbfl920]

Right. I just don't think anyone is claiming that the Kalam is the complete and final description of theism that people hold to. I'm just not sure why you're thinking Craig is really suggesting that.

If you asked Craig why you should believe in the divinity of Christ, or if there was only one God, do you think he'd pull out the Kalam .... or would he go with something more like Ockham's or the New Testament?

[insidetrip101]

@insidetrip101

This one would require a Phenomenal and Noumenal distinction that Kant makes. Since the being that existed before the "first cause" is not necessarily subject to the same intuitions that make up our world (space and time) there is no way of saying that there can be any number of things creating that "first cause" because it is beyond the limits of our reason, but this second critique actually undermines Kalam anyways...

[insidetrip101]

@urbanelf

I don't think he is applying Ockham's Razor, for two reasons.

1) If more than one being exists that were both the first cause and they worked together simultaneously then that makes a first cause impossible because there is no way to differentiate between the two because both happen at the same time. Since distinguishing between two things requires two different relations to each other in space and time it is impossible to say that they are separate, and are actually one.

2) ...

[IloveYOUviruses]

lol this guy is funny

[thePhantomFrank]

@theoisafatso You can't do science without a doubt "arbitrary" what then is the Kirk Cameron of calvinism. And if you think Richard Dawkins is not a creationist is someone that believes in a dialog with someone with an awfully bad argument, he firsts insults the person who believes there is no reason to believe that blind and mindless and dead nature done it." You're too fast for me, theoisafatso. But seriously, the fact that idioticatheists should stop my delusion and trade it for him.