RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 9:21 pm
(February 11, 2015 at 8:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(February 11, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 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.Not necessarily. Its a bit ambiguous because of how he presents it, which is why I don't like his version. People start thinking about the big bang and origin of the physical universe, etc.
I don't see how.
If he's using examples of everything we observe in our universe, to point to "things that begin to exist", then he is pointing out things that begin to exist ex materia.
But if he's claiming that the universe begins to exist ex nihilo, that is an equivocation fallacy because he is using "begins to exist" with 2 different definitions.
Every version of Kalam I've heard does this.
It also contains the fallacy of composition. The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.
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.
