RE: The Kalam Cosmological argument.
January 7, 2024 at 10:20 am
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2024 at 10:22 am by JJoseph.)
Nope, that was just a bit of HEARTFELT PASSION. It's like someone soon going to face an Examination, but not preparing properly for it. That's what I was trying to do there, to wake you up so that you'll be ready for Eternity, into which you may pass at any moment. You want Pure Logic, let's get back to the OP.
Since Angrboda quoted Hume:
No, I will not argue that, Mr. Hume. But the very purpose of an analogy is that not everything is identical between the analogy and the actuality. In many ways, the Universe demonstrates or displays signs of Intelligent Design - of which, updated for Modern Science, we would use DNA - see Dr. Meyer and Signature in the Cell on that, and Fine-Tuning, see Roger Penrose, and Sir Martin Rees on that - hence it is reasonable to infer our Universe is the product of Intelligent Design, i.e. of an Intelligent Designer who loves us and who, humanly speaking, went through great difficulties to ensure our existence/survival.
It's very likely Scientific Advances including Fine Tuning and the possibility of theorizing about different possible worlds with different configurations of the physical constants has either rendered Hume's objection obsolete, or to say it differently, it's now possible to do what Hume said wasn't possible in his time.
Not at all. All it needs to prove is that the Conclusion that there was a Cause or Creator of the Universe is at least more probable than the idea that there wasn't. In other words, if the Kalam was successful in showing it is at least 60% more probable there was a Creator than 40% that there wasn't, it has succeeded. That's why Dr. Craig's Five Pronged approach, adapting and modifying St. Thomas a bit, is so sound. Five Independent Arguments making the conclusion more and more certain, thus taking care of one of Hume's objections above too, just like 5 ways of proving Pythagoras Theorem would strengthen our certainty in that conclusion. Would it not?
That should take care of all the objections, else if I see any others, I will address them in the next post.
Since Angrboda quoted Hume:
Quote:If we see a house,… we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II).
No, I will not argue that, Mr. Hume. But the very purpose of an analogy is that not everything is identical between the analogy and the actuality. In many ways, the Universe demonstrates or displays signs of Intelligent Design - of which, updated for Modern Science, we would use DNA - see Dr. Meyer and Signature in the Cell on that, and Fine-Tuning, see Roger Penrose, and Sir Martin Rees on that - hence it is reasonable to infer our Universe is the product of Intelligent Design, i.e. of an Intelligent Designer who loves us and who, humanly speaking, went through great difficulties to ensure our existence/survival.
Quote:Since the analogy fails, Hume argues that we would need to have experience with the creation of material worlds in order to justify any a posteriori claims about the causes of any particular material world; since we obviously lack such experience, we lack adequate justification for the claim that the material universe has an intelligent cause.
It's very likely Scientific Advances including Fine Tuning and the possibility of theorizing about different possible worlds with different configurations of the physical constants has either rendered Hume's objection obsolete, or to say it differently, it's now possible to do what Hume said wasn't possible in his time.
Quote:As for the Kalam, it has many problems which have been noted by many. Only those with a predetermined conclusion in mind take it all that seriously. And as noted, it only would prove that the universe had a cause, even if it were sound. That the cause necessarily was God requires a leap of faith which none of us are under any obligation to take.
Not at all. All it needs to prove is that the Conclusion that there was a Cause or Creator of the Universe is at least more probable than the idea that there wasn't. In other words, if the Kalam was successful in showing it is at least 60% more probable there was a Creator than 40% that there wasn't, it has succeeded. That's why Dr. Craig's Five Pronged approach, adapting and modifying St. Thomas a bit, is so sound. Five Independent Arguments making the conclusion more and more certain, thus taking care of one of Hume's objections above too, just like 5 ways of proving Pythagoras Theorem would strengthen our certainty in that conclusion. Would it not?
That should take care of all the objections, else if I see any others, I will address them in the next post.
