(April 26, 2016 at 9:41 am)Time Traveler Wrote:(April 25, 2016 at 8:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why do you think that the Kalam Cosmological argument fails, if the 'A' theory of isn't true?
I think it's because, under the B-theory where all times co-exist as equally real, the universe cannot really be said to have "begun", and thus the premise from the KCA: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is in trouble.
It doesn't seem that anything could begin to exist in that model.... and it appears that you are doing away with causality (which I agree, is harmful to the KCA as well as much of scientific endevour).
I also found this article which describes what Craig means by "Beginning to exist" http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7834
He quotes Craig asking the following question?
Quote:Because the atoms currently composing my body have always existed, have I always existed?And a further explanation:
Quote:[We might say] “In order for something to come into existence, there must be a time t such that the thing exists at t and there is no time t* earlier than t at which the thing exists,” or more simply, “In order for anything to come into existence, there has to be a first moment of its existence.”I don't think it is explicit from what Craig said, but I would also include vector among those properties that require an explanation. So even in the B theory of time, which you described, which has an arrow of time (entropy) and as you say, doesn't impede causal relationship. Then even within the block of time, it can be said that something began to exist, which it did not exist in prior.
