RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 7:40 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 7:40 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 11, 2015 at 5:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: The Kalam does mainly deal with first cause. Then we investigate what characteristics must the first cause have. We concludes that whatever it is, it must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. And since a first cause was an intentional act, we can argue that it was a conscious mind.
Nope.
First of all, Kalam (even Craig's version) is fallacious. So, it doesn't even deal with what it is meant to deal with.
But it certainly doesn't get you to anything like what you describe.
All that was necessary was a change of state of whatever form our universe was in before expansion. You need to connect a bunch of steps to get from a state change to "spaceless, bla, bla, bla".
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
