Questions on the Kalam Cosmological argument
July 19, 2013 at 4:33 am
(This post was last modified: July 19, 2013 at 4:41 am by MindForgedManacle.)
This post is slightly long, so bear with me.
So, ever since I heard the Kalam argument and really thought about it, I've had some problems with how apologists move on from the argument (ignoring the 2nd premises issues with Special Relativity). William Lane Craig and his parrots always (ALWAYS) follow up the argument with something like:
I mean really, that was like verbatim Bill Craig. My questions are: What the heck do most of those even actually mean, how do they get to those concepts and are those concepts (if I understand them correctly) even coherent?
Let me elaborate a bit. What does it even mean to "exist" "spacelessly and timelessly"? Those seem antithetical to any coherent meaning of "to exist" as we use the phrase. If something is 'spaceless', it by definition takes up no space, yes? And given I'm (cautiously) a nominalist, this seems to be describing the opposite of what it means to exist.
Secondly, if something is timeless (and changeless) in what sense does it make sense to speak of it acting?
And what is "immaterial" even mean in the context of an attribute of a thing? And how do people like Craig even get to the cause being a... being in the first place?
Lastly, that analyais can - I think - be shown to be nonsensical. I mean, if the cause of space, time, matter and energy, when analyzed, is therefore known not to be those 4 things, I could just as 'validly' run the following argument:
Help meh understand. ;;_;;
William Lane Craig and his clones Wrote:P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
P2) The universe began its existence.
C) Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existed.
C2) (sometimes this is a hidden conclusion) That cause was the God of classical theism and was a personal cause because he chose to create the universe.
So, ever since I heard the Kalam argument and really thought about it, I've had some problems with how apologists move on from the argument (ignoring the 2nd premises issues with Special Relativity). William Lane Craig and his parrots always (ALWAYS) follow up the argument with something like:
Quote:And when you analyze what it means to be the cause of the universe, that of course is an argument for a transcendant, spaceless, timeless, changeless and immaterial being of immense power.
I mean really, that was like verbatim Bill Craig. My questions are: What the heck do most of those even actually mean, how do they get to those concepts and are those concepts (if I understand them correctly) even coherent?
Let me elaborate a bit. What does it even mean to "exist" "spacelessly and timelessly"? Those seem antithetical to any coherent meaning of "to exist" as we use the phrase. If something is 'spaceless', it by definition takes up no space, yes? And given I'm (cautiously) a nominalist, this seems to be describing the opposite of what it means to exist.
Secondly, if something is timeless (and changeless) in what sense does it make sense to speak of it acting?
And what is "immaterial" even mean in the context of an attribute of a thing? And how do people like Craig even get to the cause being a... being in the first place?
Lastly, that analyais can - I think - be shown to be nonsensical. I mean, if the cause of space, time, matter and energy, when analyzed, is therefore known not to be those 4 things, I could just as 'validly' run the following argument:
Me BSing Wrote:P1) Every human that is born has a cause for its existence.
P2) I - a human - was born.
P3) Therefore I had a cause for my existence.
And when you analyze what it means to be the cause of bringing a human into existence, that would lead to it being an unconscious, faceless, spineless, [Insert other random Non-Human attributes here]...
Help meh understand. ;;_;;
