Wiliam Lane Craig Infinite proof for god

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

The OC wrote:

Furthermore, the second premise "The Universe Began to Exist" described on Page 116 is based on both philosophical reasoning and scientific reasoning.

Which should actually be written thusly, "The observable universe appears to have begun to exist". The second premise as written above is nothing but a bold, naked assertion. "The universe began to exist" wrongly has us assume that what we have observed is all that there is; and I don't believe that, from a naturalistic perspective, for a minute.

Science does not require one to have complete knowledge before making predictions and drawing conclusions. Obviously modern particle Physics has precisely defined much while at the same time been unable to answer many fundamental questions. The current best evidence says the universe began to exist. Sure maybe future empirical discoveries will change this, but so far this is not the case.

Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:49 am

The OC wrote:

The current best evidence says the universe began to exist.

The current best evidence suggests the observable universe may have begun to exist. Science can not speak to which it can not observe. Science speaks in probabilities, not absolute certainties, as your claim, and Craig's, suggests. Because this claim is not couched in the probable nature of human understanding, it should be seen as nothing more then the naked assertion that it is. This fact, in my opinion, invalidates the Kalam argument.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

The OC wrote:

The current best evidence says the universe began to exist.

The current best evidence suggests the observable universe may have begun to exist. Science can not speak to which it can not observe. Science speaks in probabilities, not absolute certainties, as your claim, and Craig's, suggests. Because this claim is not couched in the probable nature of human understanding, it should be seen as nothing more then the naked assertion that it is. This fact, in my opinion, invalidates the Kalam argument.

No, the KCA does not require certainty. The premises are inferred from the current scientific evidence. The KCA forms a best explanation. It does not claim to be the only possible explanation.

Well, it is possible Sasquatch exists to. The level of certainty varies greatly between all scientific hypotheses. It is still possible we may find that the conservation laws of physics will be violated somewhere in the universe, but you would be real hard pressed to find someone who believed it to be plausibly so.

Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:40 pm

Quote:

The KCA forms a best explanation.

Because the second premise doesn't invoke uncertainty, it provides no explanation at all. The second premise is an assertion devoid of probability and uncertainty. Not only that, it fails to adequately detail what it means by "universe" and "began to exist". It's a vacuous argument the religious take seriously.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

Quote:

The KCA forms a best explanation.

Because the second premise doesn't invoke uncertainty, it provides no explanation at all.

Well, no there are pages and pages of explanation backing the 2nd premise. Whether you agree with the explanations or not is another story, but the 2nd premise is hardly a bald claim.

Quote:

The second premise is an assertion devoid of probability and uncertainty.

I don't understand what you mean by "devoid" of uncertainty. If I say something is devoid of uncertainty I'm saying I agree with it. No?

Quote:

Not only that, it fails to adequately detail what it means by "universe" and "began to exist".

What the universe is is self explanatory, unless you are trying to bring in hints of multiverse concepts. If so then you should make your case plainly. Furthermore, the notion of "began to exist" is explained in the argument.

Quote:

It's a vacuous argument the religious take seriously.

Your claim is based on what?

Maybe I don't understand your points. If you could clarify further perhaps.

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:55 pm

The OC wrote:

Maybe I don't understand your points. If you could clarify further perhaps.

Let's look at the second premise again...

Quote:

The universe began to exist

This asserts absolutely that the universe began to exist. If you wish to claim that this sentence is a "best fit" with the data, then it should be a scientific sentence. Science does not make absolute assertions concerning anything as highly theoretical as cosmology, in fact, science does not absolutely assert anything. This sentence is more akin to religious dogma and should be considered a non-scientific platitude.

Now, I'll ask you a question. What does the term "universe" mean in the argument? After that, we can discuss what it means to "begin to exist".

Quote:

Your claim is based on what?

Excellent question sir (assuming you're male). Nearly every theistic poster that I encounter finds Craig's version of the Kalam argument compelling, when obviously it's an intentionally vague assertion. It's almost like Craig is becoming the next Jesus legend.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

The OC wrote:

Maybe I don't understand your points. If you could clarify further perhaps.

Let's look at the second premise again...

Quote:

The universe began to exist

This asserts absolutely that the universe began to exist. If you wish to claim that this sentence is a "best fit" with the data, then it should be a scientific sentence. Science does not make absolute assertions concerning anything as highly theoretical as cosmology, in fact, science does not absolutely assert anything. This sentence is more akin to religious dogma and should be considered a non-scientific platitude.

It is a premise in a syllogism. You don't have to incorporate the defense of the premise in the premise itself. It is perfectly acceptable in the norms of logic to then defend the premise through additional reasoning. The premise is defended through independent philosophical and scientific arguments. Again, as I have said, the scientific defense of the premise does not require certainty. It only requires that a scientific argument be made. We agree 100% on what scientific arguments are capable of doing.

Quote:

Now, I'll ask you a question. What does the term "universe" mean in the argument? After that, we can discuss what it means to "begin to exist".

Matter, space, time, and the laws of physics that govern them.

Quote:

Your claim is based on what?

Excellent question sir (assuming you're male). Nearly every theistic poster that I encounter finds Craig's version of the Kalam argument compelling, when obviously it's an intentionally vague assertion. It's almost like Craig is becoming the next Jesus legend.

I do find the KCA compelling, but it is hardly vague. This is why attempts to refute it are taken seriously by so many atheist philosophers and physicists.

Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:11 am

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

Ok then. How about this, OC? This is a purely speculative notion, but stick with me please and tell me what you think. As far as we know, there are no proven physical infinities.
When it comes to the infinite divisibility of space, theorists talk about the 'Planck length' or about Virtual Particles, but these units are still infinitely larger than that which is infinitely small. Perhaps the only things in this universe that can be said to be infinitely small are the singularities of black holes, which are theorized to be of zero size. The singularity from which the universe is theorized to have sprung from (according to some cosmologists) would probably have been infinitely small (zero size) too. However, gleaning information about either of these types of singularity may well be impossible. I stand to be corrected here, of course. Future developments in theoretical physics and/or observational astronomy may force me to eat my words. So be it! The universe itself may be of infinite size, but we will never get to see more than a tiny fraction of it due to the limitations impose by the speed of light and the expansion of the space-time continuum. As above, I may well be wrong here and strong lines of evidence may be found for the infinite extent of the universe. Time will tell.
Put simply, there might well be physical infinities lurking at either end of the spectrum of sizes. We seem to occupying the middle ground. Now OC, my question is this...
If evidence for either kind of physical infinity were to be found tomorrow, do you think this would this automatically invalidate the KCA, which deals with the natural, physical universe?
Thanks.
BAA.
p.s.
Umm... that link to Google Books seems to be just a page of reviews when I click on it. Am I missing something?

Both are speculations. I will grant that we can speculate that there may well be physical infinities and infinitesimals. There are no end to speculations from the scientific standpoint about the universe not having a beginning, for example. The point of the arguments [(1), [Page 116, (2), Page 120] is that such entities are not logically possible, and given no counter example can be materially demonstrated they still hold.

Furthermore, the second premise "The Universe Began to Exist" described on Page 116 is based on both philosophical reasoning and scientific reasoning. In other words the premise can be established using multiple independent lines of reasoning. So even if the Philosophical establishment of the second premise were either definitively countered or was not convincing to some individual the premise is still substantiated via our current best science.

Look way over on the far right hand side and you will see a scroll bar. Scroll down through the book.

Hi OC.

Errm... ..I think that I didn't phrase my question properly. Let me try another way.

My question wasn't wether these entities are logically possible or not. I should have said, "Hypothetically speaking, if evidence for some kind of physical infinity were found tomorrow, would this discovery, in your opinion, automatically invalidate the KCA? If Yes, why? If No, why not?"

You see, where I'm coming from is this.
I fully accept that infinite causal regression is disallowed because an actual starting-point for all causes appears to be indicated 13.7 billion years ago. No problem there. Nope. What I'm trying to get a handle on is what would the causal implications of an actual physical infinity be.

Currently, with the singularities of black holes being masked by their event horizons, we cannot see the supposed infinitely-deep gravity well that lurks within them. Also, we can trace the expansion of the universe backwards thru time and see that a singularity is also implied there too. But, we can't actually see the s.o.b.! So, my question could be rephrased to read...
"If either or both of these singularities were revealed tomorrow, would the subsequent confirmation of physical infinities pose any causal problems for the KCA?"
That ok?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talking about the Reasonable Faith link OC, here's what I can see...

Top right, links for, "My Library| Sign in". Below that, "User Ratings" (Not a link). Below that, "Other Editions" Edition 1 (Link) 1994 - no preview available.

Sorry, but that's all I can see on the right of the screen. I've tried this now on three different systems (my home PC and two Internet Cafe's) all with the same result.

Thanks,

BAA.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

[color=darkblue]

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Both are speculations. I will grant that we can speculate that there may well be physical infinities and infinitesimals. There are no end to speculations from the scientific standpoint about the universe not having a beginning, for example. The point of the arguments [(1), [Page 116, (2), Page 120] is that such entities are not logically possible, and given no counter example can be materially demonstrated they still hold.

Furthermore, the second premise "The Universe Began to Exist" described on Page 116 is based on both philosophical reasoning and scientific reasoning. In other words the premise can be established using multiple independent lines of reasoning. So even if the Philosophical establishment of the second premise were either definitively countered or was not convincing to some individual the premise is still substantiated via our current best science.

Look way over on the far right hand side and you will see a scroll bar. Scroll down through the book.

Hi OC.

Errm... ..I think that I didn't phrase my question properly. Let me try another way.

My question wasn't wether these entities are logically possible or not. I should have said, "Hypothetically speaking, if evidence for some kind of physical infinity were found tomorrow, would this discovery, in your opinion, automatically invalidate the KCA? If Yes, why? If No, why not?"

You see, where I'm coming from is this.
I fully accept that infinite causal regression is disallowed because an actual starting-point for all causes appears to be indicated 13.7 billion years ago. No problem there. Nope. What I'm trying to get a handle on is what would the causal implications of an actual physical infinity be.

Currently, with the singularities of black holes being masked by their event horizons, we cannot see the supposed infinitely-deep gravity well that lurks within them. Also, we can trace the expansion of the universe backwards thru time and see that a singularity is also implied there too. But, we can't actually see the s.o.b.! So, my question could be rephrased to read...
"If either or both of these singularities were revealed tomorrow, would the subsequent confirmation of physical infinities pose any causal problems for the KCA?"
That ok?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talking about the Reasonable Faith link OC, here's what I can see...

Top right, links for, "My Library| Sign in". Below that, "User Ratings" (Not a link). Below that, "Other Editions" Edition 1 (Link) 1994 - no preview available.

Sorry, but that's all I can see on the right of the screen. I've tried this now on three different systems (my home PC and two Internet Cafe's) all with the same result.

Thanks,

BAA.

Part and parcel of the concept of infinity is the concept of convergence vs divergence. In mathematics, for example, I can write an infinite series that exactly equals a specific number. If we found an infinity in nature that "converged", such as we suppose a singularity does now to zero, then I don't know that would mean much. If what you are saying is if we found a divergent infinity in nature, for example, a singularity that opened up into some alternate universe, ad infinitum, then it would depend on the science. We need to look at each case and what it says.

If your real question is, is there any scientific discovery that would defeat the KCA, well of course yes there is, if we found scientific evidence for a steady state infinite universe, then this would defeat the KCA completely.

Have you ever used Google books to scroll through a book preview before? I don't know what to tell you. This link takes me to the third edition of Craig's book, of which there is a preview through which you can scroll using a scroll bar on the far right column of the screen. I've shown this same link to many others and they have been able to scroll through the limited preview also.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DZ8XzHSJpd4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

After clicking this link you should see a large image of the books front cover.

Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:38 pm

The OC wrote:

It is a premise in a syllogism. You don't have to incorporate the defense of the premise in the premise itself. It is perfectly acceptable in the norms of logic to then defend the premise through additional reasoning.

It may be a perfectly acceptable syllogism, but it's not defined well enough for me to give it any truth value. In other words, I find it worthless in its current form.

Quote:

I do find the KCA compelling, but it is hardly vague.

It's ambiguous in my book, so let us continue...

Quote:

Matter, space, time, and the laws of physics that govern them.

Excellent. As you can see we are already slightly less vague then just the "universe". Now, do you believe the "universe" in the second premise accounts for just our observable universe (the mostly red-shifted, light-emitting matter we've observed apparently originating from a centralized region of space), or that it would also include any natural phenomenon that could, and in my opinion does, exist beyond it?

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:37 am

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Part and parcel of the concept of infinity is the concept of convergence vs divergence. In mathematics, for example, I can write an infinite series that exactly equals a specific number. If we found an infinity in nature that "converged", such as we suppose a singularity does now to zero, then I don't know that would mean much.
If what you are saying is if we found a divergent infinity in nature, for example, a singularity that opened up into some alternate universe, ad infinitum, then it would depend on the science. We need to look at each case and what it says.

Yep, I won't argue with that.

If your real question is, is there any scientific discovery that would defeat the KCA, well of course yes there is, if we found scientific evidence for a steady state infinite universe, then this would defeat the KCA completely.

No, I don't use the word 'defeat' because I don't think in terms of winning or losing debates or arguments and such like. Rather, I see dialog in forums like this one as a learning experience and an ongoing pursuit of the truth. My understanding of the KCA is still growing and evolving. So, finding out how it works and what it does by questioning others is part of that process. You'll note OC, that in my earlier message I used the word, 'invalidate' and would still prefer to do so.

Addressing your point about my, 'real question', I won't deny that invalidation of the KCA would please me a great deal - though perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

If you look back to the opening message of this particular thread OC, you'll note that Dampire is thinking in terms of proofs, when talking about WLC and the KCA. In my experience, here at I.G. and in other forums, many people hold to the mistaken idea that the KCA is a proof of the existence of God in general and the Christian God of the Bible in particular. This applies not just to non-Christians but to Christians as well. Many well-meaning, but mistaken Christians who haven't read WLC's arguments properly or who are taking what they've heard second-hand, continue to assert that the KCA is the proof that totally validates their Christian beliefs. Likewise, many non-Christians are unnecessarily perplexed and/or confused to hear the faithful continuing to chant this mantra.

Unpicking complex knots of disinformation, misinformation and here-say about the KCA is a time and effort-consuming activity that I'd rather not have to do and I'm sure you feel the same when it comes to what your fellow Christians think they know about it. I mean no disrespect to you, to Mr.Craig or any other Christians here. It's just that while you and I know that the KCA isn't a proof, many others, from both sides of the debate, continue to mistakenly think that it is. Therefore, if a new scientific discovery was made tomorrow that invalidated the KCA, then this would make our lives a lot simpler.

Finding out that the universe did not have a 'Genesis' would be (for me and other Atheists) the icing on the cake, metaphorically speaking. That fact I won't deny!

In the emboldened section, '... evidence for a steady state infinite universe ...' , I presume that you aren't referring to the Steady State theory proposed by Hoyle, Goldi and Bond in 1948... http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory ?
Finding evidence for that would be, imho, next to impossible. Presumably you're talking about something like Andrei Linde's model of Chaotic Inflation...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_Inflation_theory
...where an eternally-existing Steady State of universes is proposed?

Have you ever used Google books to scroll through a book preview before? I don't know what to tell you. This link takes me to the third edition of Craig's book, of which there is a preview through which you can scroll using a scroll bar on the far right column of the screen. I've shown this same link to many others and they have been able to scroll through the limited preview also.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DZ8XzHSJpd4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

After clicking this link you should see a large image of the books front cover.

Sorry OC, the front cover doesn't come up. The review page is all I can see. No problem. I'm sure we can work around this glitch.

Thanks,

BAA.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Part and parcel of the concept of infinity is the concept of convergence vs divergence. In mathematics, for example, I can write an infinite series that exactly equals a specific number. If we found an infinity in nature that "converged", such as we suppose a singularity does now to zero, then I don't know that would mean much.
If what you are saying is if we found a divergent infinity in nature, for example, a singularity that opened up into some alternate universe, ad infinitum, then it would depend on the science. We need to look at each case and what it says.

Yep, I won't argue with that.

If your real question is, is there any scientific discovery that would defeat the KCA, well of course yes there is, if we found scientific evidence for a steady state infinite universe, then this would defeat the KCA completely.

No, I don't use the word 'defeat' because I don't think in terms of winning or losing debates or arguments and such like. Rather, I see dialog in forums like this one as a learning experience and an ongoing pursuit of the truth. My understanding of the KCA is still growing and evolving. So, finding out how it works and what it does by questioning others is part of that process. You'll note OC, that in my earlier message I used the word, 'invalidate' and would still prefer to do so.

Addressing your point about my, 'real question', I won't deny that invalidation of the KCA would please me a great deal - though perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

If you look back to the opening message of this particular thread OC, you'll note that Dampire is thinking in terms of proofs, when talking about WLC and the KCA. In my experience, here at I.G. and in other forums, many people hold to the mistaken idea that the KCA is a proof of the existence of God in general and the Christian God of the Bible in particular. This applies not just to non-Christians but to Christians as well. Many well-meaning, but mistaken Christians who haven't read WLC's arguments properly or who are taking what they've heard second-hand, continue to assert that the KCA is the proof that totally validates their Christian beliefs. Likewise, many non-Christians are unnecessarily perplexed and/or confused to hear the faithful continuing to chant this mantra.

Unpicking complex knots of disinformation, misinformation and here-say about the KCA is a time and effort-consuming activity that I'd rather not have to do and I'm sure you feel the same when it comes to what your fellow Christians think they know about it. I mean no disrespect to you, to Mr.Craig or any other Christians here. It's just that while you and I know that the KCA isn't a proof, many others, from both sides of the debate, continue to mistakenly think that it is. Therefore, if a new scientific discovery was made tomorrow that invalidated the KCA, then this would make our lives a lot simpler.

Finding out that the universe did not have a 'Genesis' would be (for me and other Atheists) the icing on the cake, metaphorically speaking. That fact I won't deny!

In the emboldened section, '... evidence for a steady state infinite universe ...' , I presume that you aren't referring to the Steady State theory proposed by Hoyle, Goldi and Bond in 1948... http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory ?
Finding evidence for that would be, imho, next to impossible. Presumably you're talking about something like Andrei Linde's model of Chaotic Inflation...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_Inflation_theory
...where an eternally-existing Steady State of universes is proposed?

Have you ever used Google books to scroll through a book preview before? I don't know what to tell you. This link takes me to the third edition of Craig's book, of which there is a preview through which you can scroll using a scroll bar on the far right column of the screen. I've shown this same link to many others and they have been able to scroll through the limited preview also.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DZ8XzHSJpd4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

After clicking this link you should see a large image of the books front cover.

Sorry OC, the front cover doesn't come up. The review page is all I can see. No problem. I'm sure we can work around this glitch.

Thanks,

BAA.

The KCA is not a proof. No philosopher or theologian who makes the argument claims such. Dr Craig, who is the person who revitalized it after studying Islamic arguments for God, does not claim it to be. It is an argument (using this term in the philosophical sense) for the existence of a sentient personal God. It is very easy to discover the position the KCA holds in natural theology by just studying the writings of the theologians who make it. Your best bet is Dr Craig, again since he is the one who has reinvigorated it. Natural theology, of which the KCA is part, is a collection of arguments that make the case for God independent of special revelation, a.k.a the Bible. The case for the Christian God(God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is a collection of arguments beyond natural theology.

Here is a good book on Natural Thelogy.

I'm referring to any steady state model both eternal into the past and future. None have been able to establish themselves with empirical evidence.

Strange on the google book thing. Have you ever been able to view a book preview in Google Books? If not you are missing out on a valuable source of information.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

The OC wrote:

It is a premise in a syllogism. You don't have to incorporate the defense of the premise in the premise itself. It is perfectly acceptable in the norms of logic to then defend the premise through additional reasoning.

It may be a perfectly acceptable syllogism, but it's not defined well enough for me to give it any truth value. In other words, I find it worthless in its current form.

Quote:

I do find the KCA compelling, but it is hardly vague.

It's ambiguous in my book, so let us continue...

As I said professional Philosophers (atheists included) find its form adequate enough to engage the argument and attempt the construction of defeaters.

Quote:

Matter, space, time, and the laws of physics that govern them.

Excellent. As you can see we are already slightly less vague then just the "universe". Now, do you believe the "universe" in the second premise accounts for just our observable universe (the mostly red-shifted, light-emitting matter we've observed apparently originating from a centralized region of space), or that it would also include any natural phenomenon that could, and in my opinion does, exist beyond it?

The universe would naturally include anything beyond our observable horizon.

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:59 pm

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

If your real question is, is there any scientific discovery that would defeat the KCA, well of course yes there is, if we found scientific evidence for a steady state infinite universe, then this would defeat the KCA completely.

No, I don't use the word 'defeat' because I don't think in terms of winning or losing debates or arguments and such like. Rather, I see dialog in forums like this one as a learning experience and an ongoing pursuit of the truth. My understanding of the KCA is still growing and evolving. So, finding out how it works and what it does by questioning others is part of that process. You'll note OC, that in my earlier message I used the word, 'invalidate' and would still prefer to do so.

Addressing your point about my, 'real question', I won't deny that invalidation of the KCA would please me a great deal - though perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

If you look back to the opening message of this particular thread OC, you'll note that Dampire is thinking in terms of proofs, when talking about WLC and the KCA. In my experience, here at I.G. and in other forums, many people hold to the mistaken idea that the KCA is a proof of the existence of God in general and the Christian God of the Bible in particular. This applies not just to non-Christians but to Christians as well. Many well-meaning, but mistaken Christians who haven't read WLC's arguments properly or who are taking what they've heard second-hand, continue to assert that the KCA is the proof that totally validates their Christian beliefs. Likewise, many non-Christians are unnecessarily perplexed and/or confused to hear the faithful continuing to chant this mantra.

Unpicking complex knots of disinformation, misinformation and here-say about the KCA is a time and effort-consuming activity that I'd rather not have to do and I'm sure you feel the same when it comes to what your fellow Christians think they know about it. I mean no disrespect to you, to Mr.Craig or any other Christians here. It's just that while you and I know that the KCA isn't a proof , many others, from both sides of the debate, continue to mistakenly think that it is. Therefore, if a new scientific discovery was made tomorrow that invalidated the KCA, then this would make our lives a lot simpler.

Finding out that the universe did not have a 'Genesis' would be (for me and other Atheists) the icing on the cake, metaphorically speaking. That fact I won't deny!

In the emboldened section, '... evidence for a steady state infinite universe ...' , I presume that you aren't referring to the Steady State theory proposed by Hoyle, Goldi and Bond in 1948... http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory ?
Finding evidence for that would be, imho, next to impossible. Presumably you're talking about something like Andrei Linde's model of Chaotic Inflation...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_Inflation_theory
...where an eternally-existing Steady State of universes is proposed?

Have you ever used Google books to scroll through a book preview before? I don't know what to tell you. This link takes me to the third edition of Craig's book, of which there is a preview through which you can scroll using a scroll bar on the far right column of the screen. I've shown this same link to many others and they have been able to scroll through the limited preview also.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DZ8XzHSJpd4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

After clicking this link you should see a large image of the books front cover.

Sorry OC, the front cover doesn't come up. The review page is all I can see. No problem. I'm sure we can work around this glitch.

Thanks,

BAA.

The KCA is not a proof.
Yes, I know that. I said that above and have now highlighted it in red so that you can see that I know it isn't a proof.

No philosopher or theologian who makes the argument claims such.
I know this too.

Dr Craig, who is the person who revitalized it after studying Islamic arguments for God, does not claim it to be.
Yes, I'm also aware of this and would point out that I never said that he claims it to be.

Now OC, please go back and re-read what I did say about the KCA - especially how it is often misrepresented by both Christians and non-Christians, who think mistakenly think of it as a proof, not an argument.

Let me restate the point.
I do understand that the KCA is an argument and not a proof.
The thrust of my earlier message, stated in simple terms, was that if evidence came to light that invalidated the KCA, I would be pleased on two counts. Firstly, because I'm an Atheist and secondly because I could then point those mistaken Christians and non-Christians (who wrongly think of it as a proof) to this new evidence saying, "There! The KCA is not a proof and it never was! Deal with it!"

It is an argument (using this term in the philosophical sense) for the existence of a sentient personal God. It is very easy to discover the position the KCA holds in natural theology by just studying the writings of the theologians who make it. Your best bet is Dr Craig, again since he is the one who has reinvigorated it. Natural theology, of which the KCA is part, is a collection of arguments that make the case for God independent of special revelation, a.k.a the Bible. The case for the Christian God(God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is a collection of arguments beyond natural theology.
Here is a good book on Natural Thelogy.

Thank you for this recommendation. I shall certainly follow it up.

I'm referring to any steady state model both eternal into the past and future. None have been able to establish themselves with empirical evidence.

Thank you for that clarification.

Strange on the google book thing. Have you ever been able to view a book preview in Google Books? If not you are missing out on a valuable source of information.

Yes, that is odd and I can't account for it. Up until you initially provided that link, I'd never tried the preview facility at Google Books. Dayyum! Sad

BAA.

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:38 pm

The OC wrote:

As I said professional Philosophers (atheists included) find its form adequate enough to engage the argument and attempt the construction of defeaters.

I'd imagine any "professional philosopher" worth his or her salt would want to define its terms thoroughly before attempting to defeat it's conclusion, would they not? That's precisely what I'm attempting to do because of its nebulous nature. Of course, I'm getting your impression and not the authors, but that will have to do.

Quote:

The universe would naturally include anything beyond our observable horizon.

Excellently done! I now believe I have an understanding of what you believe "universe" means in the argument; let me summarize before we continue. The universe would include all matter, space and time including what we've observed and potentially what we haven't. It would not include any supernatural phenomenon if such exists. Is that agreeable?

I'd like to say for the record that I believe space and time to be a function of matter just like energy, that it is basically redundant to separate matter into these constituents when discussing the universe as we've outlined


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile