RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:41 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.
True.
Furthermore, WLC equivocates on the meaning of "begins to exist". Sure, things that we observe to begin to exist ex materia have a cause, but that's not the kind of existence he's talking about when he's referring to first cause, that would be ex nihilo. (Never mind that we observe virtual particles coming into existence without any known cause.)
I can also note that while WLC argues against past infinities ad nauseum, he makes a special case for his pet deity. Special pleading much?
The whole argument is a non-starter, and as WLC uses it, it's stretched far beyond what it's premises would demonstrate even if they were true.
