RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:44 pm
(February 11, 2015 at 5:16 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote:(February 11, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Could you be more dishonest? We've been discussing it for YEARS. It's dismissed because it isn't demonstrably sound.Even if sound it doesn't automatically lead to any deity at all. The first cause could be just an impersonal thing.
The problem is most apologists will jump to the conclusion that a first/final cause is identical to the Christian God without arguing for it first. That makes those versions of KCA invalid.
The Kalam does mainly deal with first cause. Then we investigate what characteristics must the first cause have. We concludes that whatever it is, it must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. And since a first cause was an intentional act, we can argue that it was a conscious mind.
The Kalam was not meant to get anyone to the God of Christianity.
