RE: "Time does not exist outside of the universe, so nothing can predate the univ...
February 21, 2015 at 7:03 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2015 at 7:29 pm by ReptilianPeon.)
(February 20, 2015 at 6:15 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Speaking of which I recommend reading this series of blog posts criticizing the KCA.
They are really interesting. http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogsp...ument.html
I have two ways in which I would counter the Kalam argument.
Firstly, I've seen that it's a favorite argument of converts to Muhammad's religion. It's the go-to argument for them. And yet, when I see these personalities talk about why they converted to their new religion they never give Kalam as a reason for them believing that their new religion is "the truth". They always give reasons besides Kalam and yet they talk about Kalam when they give seminars on how to "convince irreligious people". Even amongst people who aren't converts, Kalam never seems to feature amongst the reasons why they believe their religion to be the right one. They Kalam argument only appears when Theists are conversing with irreligious people.
So, with that in mind, if the person I'm talking to admits/concedes that they didn't come to the conclusion that their religion is the right one based on Kalam I would immediately ask them: Why you are trying to convince me with arguments that didn't convince you that your religion is the right one? With the first point of attack you can probably force the believer into talking about their religious text(s) and avoid Kalam entirely. That way, if you're knowledgeable about their religious text(s), you can immediately delve into a more meaningful discussion.
Secondly, the Kalam argument William Lane-Craig is the same Kalam that the coverts I mentioned above use. The Kalam argument can be applied to any deity of any religion. So my second point of attack would be there isn't anything within the Kalam arguiment which alludes to any particular deity. The Kalam argument doesn't have enough meat to it and the believer will force their favorite deity into Kalam even though there is no reason for them to do so. It's amazing how one argument can have so many different conclusions. So I would proceed to tell the believer that the Kalam argument they are using can be applied to any religion and used by anybody regardless of which deity is their favorite.
With those two points of attack, in my opinion, there is really no need to go into a discussion about cosmology.