Craig vs. Dawkins?

[variant]

A timeless, spaceless, immaterial personal being of immense power is God. You can call it whatever you want.

Personal being? The uncaused cause argument if entirely true points to an uncaused cause, it doesn't characterize it as anything other than eternal or possibly timeless.

It can not prove a God since it doesn't assert one specifically.

If something can come into being without a cause, than causality is ruined, and along with it about everything we know. Do you question the causal principle in your life, or just when arguments suggest God exists. If two thieves were found in your house would you think maybe they had popped into being right there in your living-room uncaused out of nothing?

You might have a point if universes were created in my living room from time to time. If one popped into my living room this instant I would have ample cause to question my understanding of physics and causation. I also question anything said to be eternal and timeless as I have never experienced any of those things either.

I question our depth of knowledge on the subject of the beginning of the universe and the absolute laws of causality.

Our terms of logic describe the world as we know it, and a single deviation in a single instance could prove them wrong.

What we know about the problem of the creation of the universe is that at least one thing that we generally don't encounter happened.

Why would you think that if God existed he would be caused?

Why would I think anything needed to be caused? The problem of the cosmological argument is that it asserts that some things are caused and some things are not and yet doesn't tell us why.

It denies "magical thinking" of things popping into existence without cause and instead in the theistic mode it proposes a magical being that doesn't need a cause.

What am I to gain from it?

 

[Jeff4life]

But this Kalaam argument is an example that would fall for me into the category of apologetic sophistry.

It is a logically valid argument which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. So which of the premises do you disagree with?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

Is that all you have? I am not convinced. I for instance see scientists post papers on big bounce theory, or cyclic universe theory, and they are not falsified by citing that particular quote afaik, or any observed phenomenon. Theidea is they are models consistent with data, but not yet established more significantly. The idea that the universe is actually proven to have started, I think, is scientifically questionable. Heck, the lightspeed barrier could not be broken 3 months ago, and now we have apparent FTL neutrinos. So science is always provisional, and then the scientists deo not even all agree with Vileiknin at present anyway.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It is a logically valid argument which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. So which of the premises do you disagree with?

Although I do think the premises are iffy, that does not really matter so much, as the conclusion is underwhelming. I can achieve the same ... No, wait. I can achieve more by using a simple modal ontological argument, without being so contrived and without the 'danger' of having the argument shot to pieces by a techically false premise.

But if you want something that I find iffy, then look at the second premise. I think you could get by with saying "the universe had a beginning" quite easily. But "the universe began to exist" sounds curious to me. It seems to place the universe into, well, some sort of temporal dimension, in which the universe can be in a state of not yet existing, of beginning to exist, of having existed for some time etc. I don't think that can be upheld scientifically. And, without further work, it has unpalatable theological implications.

All secondary however. Let all the premises be true, and let the conclusion follow. And let God still not exist. Hmmm. (This is not dissimilar to the fate of a simple modal ontological argument, mind, but at least we'd gain one valuable criterion to define God and one which is invariably true, no matter what.)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Personal being? The uncaused cause argument if entirely true points to an uncaused cause, it doesn't characterize it as anything other than eternal or possibly timeless.

There is a lesser known 'second part' of the argument, which tries to show that the cause has to be personal. Hey, weren't you the poster with whom I had that exchange on another thread around here about whether God has to have libertarian free will?? Now watch carefully.

 

[variant]

There is a lesser known 'second part' of the argument, which tries to show that the cause has to be personal.

From what I've seen so far I am sure the reason it is lesser known is because it is horrible.

Hey, weren't you the poster with whom I had that exchange on another thread around here about whether God has to have libertarian free will?? Now watch carefully.

Yep. It's like bad arguments are breeding and having babies.

 

[Jeff4life]

Personal being? The uncaused cause argument if entirely true points to an uncaused cause, it doesn't characterize it as anything other than eternal or possibly timeless.

He gave an argument for why it needs to be a personal agent. He gives it here at 6:55.

The First Cause is Uncaused, Beginningless, Changeless, Immaterial, Timeless, Powerful, Personal - YouTube

You might have a point if universes were created in my living room from time to time. If one popped into my living room this instant I would have ample cause to question my understanding of physics and causation.

The point is that its inexplicable if things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing why only universes do that. There also could never be an explination because "nothingness" can't have any properties.

I also question anything said to be eternal and timeless as I have never experienced any of those things either.

This is no good reason. I never have experienced Iran therefore there is no such thing. The big bang theory plus the causal principle necessitates there be something timeless whether you find that easy or hard to think about.

I question our depth of knowledge on the subject of the beginning of the universe and the absolute laws of causality.

I think this statement popped into being uncaused out of nothing so I won't answer it. (if you can do it, so can I... think about it)

The problem of the cosmological argument is that it asserts that some things are caused and some things are not and yet doesn't tell us why.

It never asserts that. It simply says "whatever begins to exist has a cause." It's about as basic as you can get.

Our terms of logic describe the world as we know it, and a single deviation in a single instance could prove them wrong.

I disagree with this statement because it proves God exists. (this is what I can do if you throw out the laws of logic, anything goes. If you have the right to throw them out, so do it)


I thought Christians were supposed to be the irrational ones. However, you deny basic principles of reason to evade rational arguments.

 

[Jeff4life]

Although I do think the premises are iffy, that does not really matter so much, as the conclusion is underwhelming.

The conclusion is that God exists, and it follows logically from the premesis just as from 1+1 it follows "2." I am sorry you find the existence of God underwhelming but the argument doesn't care just as 1+1 doesn't care if you like the number 2.

I can achieve the same ... No, wait. I can achieve more by using a simple modal ontological argument, without being so contrived and without the 'danger' of having the argument shot to pieces by a techically false premise.

Feel free to do so any time your brilliant mind will condescend to us mere mortals.

But if you want something that I find iffy, then look at the second premise. I think you could get by with saying "the universe had a beginning" quite easily. But "the universe began to exist" sounds curious to me. It seems to place the universe into, well, some sort of temporal dimension, in which the universe can be in a state of not yet existing, of beginning to exist, of having existed for some time etc. I don't think that can be upheld scientifically. And, without further work, it has unpalatable theological implications.

Having a beginning and beginning to exist are the same thing, it doesn't matter which you use. And anyone who confesses the big bang theory agrees that the universe is 14.6 billion years old and not eternal and has a beginning.

All secondary however. Let all the premises be true, and let the conclusion follow. And let God still not exist. Hmmm. (This is not dissimilar to the fate of a simple modal ontological argument, mind, but at least we'd gain one valuable criterion to define God and one which is invariably true, no matter what.)

I am not defending the ontological argument, but I think your logic could use some work, or your jokes...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

From what I've seen so far I am sure the reason it is lesser known is because it is horrible.

I guess it is also partly because the big bang, quantum fluctuations and the universe in general makes for a far more interesting topic that God itself. (Not necessarily my opinion.)

Yep. It's like bad arguments are breeding and having babies.

I hope that wasn't directed at me.

Hey, weren't you the poster with whom I had that exchange on another thread around here about whether God has to have libertarian free will?? Now watch carefully.

He gave an argument for why it needs to be a personal agent. He gives it here at 6:55.

The First Cause is Uncaused, Beginningless, Changeless, Immaterial, Timeless, Powerful, Personal - YouTube

"if the cause is a personal agent who is endowed with free will"

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The conclusion is that God exists, and it follows logically from the premesis just as from 1+1 it follows "2." I am sorry you find the existence of God underwhelming but the argument doesn't care just as 1+1 doesn't care if you like the number 2.

The argument as it is generally stated, and as it is also found in post #2, has a cause as its conclusion. And that is what I was referring to as underwhelming. And it is. Cause Schmause.

Showing that that cause would be God. Well, that is another story.

I can achieve the same ... No, wait. I can achieve more by using a simple modal ontological argument, without being so contrived and without the 'danger' of having the argument shot to pieces by a techically false premise.

Feel free to do so any time your brilliant mind will condescend to us mere mortals.

You know what is funny. After I typed that post, I wanted to look something up regarding the Kalaam argument. And of course Wiki is always worth a quick dirty look. And you would hardly believe what I found:

Kant also rejects any cosmological proof on the grounds that it is nothing more than an ontological proof in disguise. He argued that any necessary object’s essence must involve existence, hence reason alone can define such a being, and the argument becomes quite similar to the ontological one in form, devoid of any empirical premises.​

Kalām cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, I guess that should give maybe just a small hint that I am not entirely off track with what I said.

Having a beginning and beginning to exist are the same thing, it doesn't matter which you use.

I am not sure that is true. If I think for instance of a story, then would that story not have a beginning? Sure it does. Every story has a beginning. But that beginning is not the same as when the story begins to exist.

In fact they refer to totally different temporal dimensions (in want for a better word.) You see, the beginning of a story is measured in terms of the storyverse. Whereas the coming into existence of a story is measured in terms our world.

And anyone who confesses the big bang theory agrees that the universe is 14.6 billion years old and not eternal and has a beginning.

I am not defending the ontological argument, but I think your logic could use some work, or your jokes...

I brought up a simple modal ontological argument. But I also said it is better than this Kalaam argument.

 

[Cabal]

I don't mind Craig so much as I used to, although the UK Reasonable Faith tour was just shamelessly trying to ride on Dawkins' coat-tails.

As for the KCA - eh, can't say I buy the claim that the cause must be personal, which seems pretty much inserted in there without justification (edit - ah, I see another Craig source has been posted where he does the same thing!). Generally speaking, Craig's tactic is to apply an intuitive argument to an area of science that involves two very counter-intuitive theories - quantum mechanics and general relativity.

 

[Jeff4life]

The argument as it is generally stated, and as it is also found in post #2, has a cause as its conclusion. And that is what I was referring to as underwhelming. And it is. Cause Schmause.

Showing that that cause would be God. Well, that is another story.

By definition it has to be space-less timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful. And I think the argument that he gives for it being personal is pretty good as well.

Kant also rejects any cosmological proof on the grounds that it is nothing more than an ontological proof in disguise. He argued that any necessary object’s essence must involve existence, hence reason alone can define such a being, and the argument becomes quite similar to the ontological one in form, devoid of any empirical premises.

There has been development of the cosmological argument since Kant. And it is not true that there are no empirical premesis. "The universe began to exist" has been empirically verified.

I am not sure that is true. If I think for instance of a story, then would that story not have a beginning? Sure it does. Every story has a beginning. But that beginning is not the same as when the story begins to exist.

So you are questioning "everything which begins to exist has a cause," and from the rest of the post I am getting that it is because the universe's coming into being is really strange. However, the alternative is even stranger... that something began to exist uncaused.

 

[Beechwell]

The First Cause is Uncaused, Beginningless, Changeless, Immaterial, Timeless, Powerful, Personal - YouTube

Wait a second: in his second argument for a personal first cause, Craig argues that the first cause has existed for an infinite time before the universe. But isn't that in direct contradiction with his assertion in the first video that there cannot be an infinite past (because there supposedly cannot be an infinite regression).
So what is it now? Has God existed before the universe (and has thus time also existed before the universe?), or has time only come into existence with the beginning of the universe (removing the necessity of a free-willed agent).[/quote]

 

[Jeff4life]

Wait a second: in his second argument for a personal first cause, Craig argues that the first cause has existed for an infinite time before the universe. But isn't that in direct contradiction with his assertion in the first video that there cannot be an infinite past (because there supposedly cannot be an infinite regression).
So what is it now? Has God existed before the universe (and has thus time also existed before the universe?), or has time only come into existence with the beginning of the universe (removing the necessity of a free-willed agent).

[/quote]

What I think he means is that God existed timelessly prior to the universe. (as opposed to "for an infinite time")

 

[Beechwell]

What I think he means is that God existed timelessly prior to the universe. (as opposed to "for an infinite time")

If time only starts with the beginning of the universe, then there is no "prior" to that beginning.
I don't even think it makes sense to talk about cause and effect in a timeless state. Don't cause and effect require time to occur?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

By definition it has to be space-less timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful.

By definition of what? The word "God"? Sure.

And I think the argument that he gives for it being personal is pretty good as well.

There has been development of the cosmological argument since Kant.

And there may well be further "development". It is irrelevant.

And it is not true that there are no empirical premesis.

He was referring to the ontological argument as devoid of empirical premises. And it is, by definition.

"The universe began to exist" has been empirically verified.

As I already posted. I don't know if that is true. And to make things easier I'll just quote what I posted earlier:

"I think you could get by with saying "the universe had a beginning" quite easily. But "the universe began to exist" sounds curious to me. It seems to place the universe into, well, some sort of temporal dimension, in which the universe can be in a state of not yet existing, of beginning to exist, of having existed for some time etc. I don't think that can be upheld scientifically. And, without further work, it has unpalatable theological implications."

So you are questioning "everything which begins to exist has a cause," and from the rest of the post I am getting that it is because the universe's coming into being is really strange. However, the alternative is even stranger... that something began to exist uncaused.

I really do have a dislike for the phrases like "so you are questioning", "so you are saying", "so you are whatevering". And it hasn't so much to do with such a phrase itself, but rather with what generally follows it. And this is a perfect example. It is almost as if you had never read the post that you are replying to, and instead just make something up.

I have not been questioning "everything which begins to exist has a cause." It may well be false, but I have not been questioning it. I have no idea where you got that from. I was replying to your assertion that "having a beginning" and "beginning to exist" are the same thing by showing what to me seems like a counter example, namely a fictional story. It has both a beginning and it begins to exist. But they are not the same things.

Here, maybe you want to try to formulate a response to that again:

Having a beginning and beginning to exist are the same thing, it doesn't matter which you use.

I am not sure that is true. If I think for instance of a story, then would that story not have a beginning? Sure it does. Every story has a beginning. But that beginning is not the same as when the story begins to exist.

In fact they refer to totally different temporal dimensions (in want for a better word.) You see, the beginning of a story is measured in terms of the storyverse. Whereas the coming into existence of a story is measured in terms our world.​

 

[variant]

As I already posted. I don't know if that is true. And to make things easier I'll just quote what I posted earlier:

"I think you could get by with saying "the universe had a beginning" quite easily. But "the universe began to exist" sounds curious to me. It seems to place the universe into, well, some sort of temporal dimension, in which the universe can be in a state of not yet existing, of beginning to exist, of having existed for some time etc. I don't think that can be upheld scientifically. And, without further work, it has unpalatable theological implications."

This is very astute. It got me thinking on the proper definition of the universe in this argument. I think it goes to Craig's fenangleing of the terms "god" and "the universe" into what he feels are proper positions for them.

If we say define the universe as "everything that has ever existed" then "god" is at least a distinct part of it part of it and we can't say it "began to exist" and also "it is eternal and timeless" as this leads to a contradiction (at least according to Craig). And, it also gives us the unwanted conclusion that one part of the universe started the universe which means the universe started itself (which Craig also rejects for some reason).

To alleviate this Craig must define the universe and god to be separate entities with different rules. One that "began to exist" for semantic reasons and the other that is eternal and timeless.

This means that Craig's hidden premise that "God is separate and distinct from the universe", needs to be justified.

And.

Hidden premise #2 The universe is not properly defined as all that exists or has ever existed, unless you wish to A. Include god in it. or B. Admit god doesn't exist (wrecking the argument).

So in essence Craig's rewording of the argument to avoid special pleading fails miserably, because it simply defines the universe and god as separate entities without cause (), and proceeds to apply different rules to each.

 

[Jeff4life]

Guys, I don't want to get into another debate about this. I have enough of these going on already at Dr. Craig's site, and it is really not worth it especially with the bickering aspect that this one seems to have. I am pretty sure Dr. Craig has responded to all of your objections and I am sure you can find answers on his website if you want them. I wish you all the best,

- Jeff

 

[variant]

Guys, I don't want to get into another debate about this. I have enough of these going on already at Dr. Craig's site, and it is really not worth it especially with the bickering aspect that this one seems to have. I am pretty sure Dr. Craig has responded to all of your objections and I am sure you can find answers on his website if you want them. I wish you all the best,

- Jeff

It should be rather easy if the arguments are so easily answered, and you understand these answers well enough to present and defend them, to simply present them.

I will take that as a sign that you concede the discussion, and since you bothered to show up here I can not be accused of debating an empty chair.

Take your argument from absent authority elsewhere.

 

[Davian]

First, I love philosophy and enjoy reading through this board, but I find that I haven't got enough time to post here very frequently (every post needs to be read, understood, and considered, and when it's updating faster than you can check, the arguments become difficult to follow).

Nonetheless, I wanted to ask if any of you had seen the "debate" between Dr. William Craig and Dr. Richard Dawkins (debate is in quotations because Dawkins failed to show up and so it's actually Craig dissecting The God Delusion), and if so, what you thought of it. I know The God Delusion isn't exactly considered to be the paramount of atheist philosophy in the first place, but it certainly seems to have grabbed the attention of the people.
...

I only watched far enough for Craig to drag out the Kalamity argument, which always gets off on the wrong foot, starting with the presumption that we can know whether the universe had a beginning or not.

I did want to note that Craig himself does not put weight into the argument, as a reason for his own beliefs:

William Lane Craig explains how he gave up on reason to become a Christian

"William Lane Craig is a well-known theologian, author, and Christian apologist. People I associate with tend not to like him very much, because he ignores the substance of his opponents’ arguments during debates, he’s a pompous windbag, and he thinks genocide and infanticide are a-okay if God says so."

William Lane Craig explains how he gave up on reason to become a Christian | The Floating Lantern