Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

[quote pid='1269212' dateline='1462708954']
Regarding explanatory power, I think you are forgetting we are talking metaphysics and not lab experiments. The KCA is an inductive argument, and as such the premises are providing strong evidence for the conclusion in a probabilistic sense. In contrast, a deductive argument would be certain.  In addition, when discussing explanatory power, you are usually comparing two or more theories. When you compare God creating the universe to "I don't know", I would say that the God hypothesis is superior--especially since there are no logical errors in the argument.

Logical arguments and logical explanations are two different things.  You're conflating one with the other.  The fact that there are metaphysical arguments which may point toward God being a necessary assumption does nothing to enhance the quality of that explanation in terms of explanatory power.  If all you mean to say is, "It's magic, so it doesn't have to explain anything" then I think you've lost before you've started.  Metaphysical concepts have to explain, too.  And when they don't, it is regarded as a failure.  Regardless, this is just an attempt to exclude God from the same consideration that other hypotheses have to face.  And it fails.
[/quote]
Logical arguments are used to examine what the possible explanations might be. This is an inductive argument with a probabilistic conclusion about a metaphysical question. If you want to offer defeaters of the premises to undercut them and therefore reduce the probability that they are true, that is fine. 

When you say "Metaphysical concepts have to explain, too" are you talking about Deutsch's  "hard to vary" concept? If that is the case, what details could be easily changed around in KCA argument? If you change any of the premises, you don't get the conclusion. The inferred properties of an uncaused cause are timeless, immaterial, powerful, and personal -- none of which can be left out and still be a coherent hypothesis.

Regarding the constant objection to excluding God from having a cause, you are missing the whole point of this particular inductive argument which is to investigate if the universe has a cause and what properties must that cause have. Since the universe and its cause are not the same thing and they obviously have different properties, there is nothing illogical about inferring those properties.

[Mister Agenda]

I would just like to take a moment to appreciate Steve II. Barring any horrible posts of his I may have missed, he is a good sport. He stays composed, and is not easily offended, He's a good speller. And I think he is an all-around nice guy, and an interesting contributor. And by his example, he is living proof that how we treat theists here has a lot to do with how they treat us.

Thanks, Steve II.

[LadyForCamus]

Okay, I'm gonna practice my (barely) rudimentary logic skills for a moment.

1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

(I reject this premise until someone can demonstrate with evidence that it's likely to be true, but for the sake of argument, let's continue.)

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

(Number 4 doesn't follow. Even if I accept premise 1., how do you get to stick "God" in there as a cause with no evidence?)

Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Arguments are not evidence (thanks Rob!). What I see here are massive assumptions about the nature of the universe which fall within the realm of cosmology and physics. Does this argument have any science behind its premises?

It would be like me declaring, "there is NO WAY the twin towers would have collapsed considering their internal structure!" when I have absolutely zero formal education in engineering. No rational person should take me seriously on that assertion with out robust supporting evidence.

I honestly don't understand how the KCA is supposed to prove anything...

[Angrboda]

Regarding explanatory power, I think you are forgetting we are talking metaphysics and not lab experiments. The KCA is an inductive argument, and as such the premises are providing strong evidence for the conclusion in a probabilistic sense. In contrast, a deductive argument would be certain.  In addition, when discussing explanatory power, you are usually comparing two or more theories. When you compare God creating the universe to "I don't know", I would say that the God hypothesis is superior--especially since there are no logical errors in the argument.

Logical arguments and logical explanations are two different things.  You're conflating one with the other.  The fact that there are metaphysical arguments which may point toward God being a necessary assumption does nothing to enhance the quality of that explanation in terms of explanatory power.  If all you mean to say is, "It's magic, so it doesn't have to explain anything" then I think you've lost before you've started.  Metaphysical concepts have to explain, too.  And when they don't, it is regarded as a failure.  Regardless, this is just an attempt to exclude God from the same consideration that other hypotheses have to face.  And it fails.

{snip}
... Regarding the constant objection to excluding God from having a cause, you are missing the whole point of this particular inductive argument which is to investigate if the universe has a cause and what properties must that cause have. Since the universe and its cause are not the same thing and they obviously have different properties, there is nothing illogical about inferring those properties.

I wasn't saying that you were excluding God from having a cause, but rather that you are trying to make exception to how well the God explanation illuminates the phenomenon (explanatory power) by pointing out that this isn't a lab experiment, yada yada.  Regardless of the context of the phenomena, either your chosen explanation makes it greatly more understandable and coherent or it does not.  Claiming metaphysics does nothing to get you out from under that burden.

[LadyForCamus]

P.S.: I know veterans here are probably sick to death of debating the arguments for God. Bear with me; I'm still a newbie in so many ways! [emoji39]

[SteveII]

I'm fairly certain that the KCA is not a logically sound argument.  Anyone with more experience in that arena care to weight in?  I'll have to go take another look at it myself.  

Steve, how does a being exist timelessly?  And secondly, how can a being have a conscious, temporal thought while in a timeless state?  Can you please be more specific in regards to your proposed mechanism?  And, as always, don't forget to provide supporting evidence for your assumptions.  

God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts. He knew all truths intrinsically. Really, what would an entity that knew all truths think about? 

Depending on your preference between A and B theories of time, you can view God's temporality and the creation of the universe in one of two ways: On the A theory, once God created space-time, God underwent an extrinsic change with the new relationship to his creation and in doing so became temporal. On the B theory, you could conclude that God did not undergo any temporal change (either intrinsic nor extrinsic) and exists outside the block of time.

[SteveII]

Okay, I'm gonna practice my (barely) rudimentary logic skills for a moment.

1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

(I reject this premise until someone can demonstrate with evidence that it's likely to be true, but for the sake of argument, let's continue.)

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

(Number 4 doesn't follow.  Even if I accept premise 1., how do you get to stick "God" in there as a cause with no evidence?)

Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Arguments are not evidence (thanks Rob!).  What I see here are massive assumptions about the nature of the universe which fall within the realm of cosmology and physics.  Does this argument have any science behind its premises?  

It would be like me declaring, "there is NO WAY the twin towers would have collapsed considering their internal structure!" when I have absolutely zero formal education in engineering.   No rational person should take me seriously on that assertion with out robust supporting evidence.

I honestly don't understand how the KCA is supposed to prove anything...

If you really want to understand the argument, you should go to the source. Read: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...l-argument.

WLC is by far the most familiar with the argument--having written a dozen books/parts or books on it as well as hundreds of articles and dozens of debates. Once you read it, refer to this link to get past the "popular" atheist objections.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...de-them-up

[GUBU]

I'm fairly certain that the KCA is not a logically sound argument.  Anyone with more experience in that arena care to weight in?  I'll have to go take another look at it myself.  

Steve, how does a being exist timelessly?  And secondly, how can a being have a conscious, temporal thought while in a timeless state?  Can you please be more specific in regards to your proposed mechanism?  And, as always, don't forget to provide supporting evidence for your assumptions.  

The KCA is simply a restatement of the first three arguments of the Quinque Viae (First Mover, First or Uncaused Cause and Necessary Being) of Aquinas to try and get around the fact that Aquinas in none of these arguments was able to show how god was both real, and be able to simultaneously evade the necessary requirements set by Aquinas to qualify for reality (namely everything that initiates change must itself have had something initiate its original change and everything that exists must have a pre-existing cause). As the KCA is simply a word-salady restatement of Aquinas (who took a lot of his arguments from Aristotle, which also influence the original Kalam school (which is actually where Aquinas got the original Aristotlean philosophising from), and has failed to address, never mind defeat, the problems in Aquinas' formations, it can be debunked in exactly the same fashion as Aquinas has been debunked. There are plenty of sites which tear the Aquinas argument apart, such as here, or here. They're not all that hard to find.

[GUBU]

I would just like to take a moment to appreciate Steve II. Barring any horrible posts of his I may have missed, he is a good sport. He stays composed, and is not easily offended, He's a good speller. And I think he is an all-around nice guy, and an interesting contributor. And by his example, he is living proof that how we treat theists here has a lot to do with how they treat us.

Thanks, Steve II.

He's ignoring me, not because I was rude, not because I was nasty, but simply because I posted refutations of his arguments for which he has no answer. He's no different than the likes of Drich or godsChild. He's just better at pretending to be reasonable.

[GUBU]

Okay, I'm gonna practice my (barely) rudimentary logic skills for a moment.

1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

I wouldn't reject premise one, because frankly under the formulation that Steve takes from WLC, this means that for god to exist he also needs a cause. It is the fundamental stumbling block to the argument, that there is no way for god to be given as causeless without independent evidence of his nature, and, well, if we had that, there'd be no need for the KCA because we'd have sufficient evidence to accept god's existence.