Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 4:46 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 4:52 pm by robvalue.)
The Kalam is one of the worst arguments on record.
Doesn't even indicate a sentient being.
Even if it did, doesn't indicate a god.
Even if it did, doesn't indicate any particular god.
Also, its premises are bullshit.
So all in all, 0/10.
That took me all of 30 seconds, what the fuck was he talking about for 2 hours and why was anyone listening?
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 4:58 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 5:00 pm by Pizza.)
(February 11, 2015 at 4:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: The Kalam is one of the worst arguments on record.
Doesn't even indicate a sentient being.
Even if it did, doesn't indicate a god.
Even if it did, doesn't indicate any particular god.
Also, its premises are bullshit.
So all in all, 0/10. The only charitable way to interpret it is as a first step in a bigger chain of argument.
Part one being to prove the existence of a first/final cause (sometimes defined as an explanation) then part two is to prove the first/final cause is identical to a God. Part three would be to prove that God is identical to the Christian God. This is all one tall order and hard to pull off.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 4:58 pm
(February 11, 2015 at 4:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: I went to see WLC at Rutgers last week.
I'd rather soak my dick in lye.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:00 pm
What a shame it doesn't even complete the first step before tripping over its own stupidity.
And that step is infinitely easier than either of the other two. Haha. It's an argument made just for WLC, it suits him down to the ground.
Posts: 30982
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:06 pm
(February 11, 2015 at 4:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: While you dismiss out of hand the Kalam argument
Could you be more dishonest? We've been discussing it for YEARS. It's dismissed because it isn't demonstrably sound.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:16 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm by Pizza.)
(February 11, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (February 11, 2015 at 4:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: While you dismiss out of hand the Kalam argument
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.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:34 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.
Oh no! I'm sure WLC makes a compelling case that the great magical collector of foreskins (and former Canaanite deity), Yahweh, is precisely the cause the argument postulates. And I'm sure WLC's water boy, SteveII, will be supplying that case any moment now.
But just in case I'm wrong, I won't hold my breath.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:40 pm
(February 11, 2015 at 4:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: The Kalam is one of the worst arguments on record.
Doesn't even indicate a sentient being.
Even if it did, doesn't indicate a god.
Even if it did, doesn't indicate any particular god.
Also, its premises are bullshit.
So all in all, 0/10.
That took me all of 30 seconds, what the fuck was he talking about for 2 hours and why was anyone listening?
It goes beyond that. There are so many things wrong with the argument that they're almost too numerous to list. It's one of those arguments that does nothing but make believers feel better about themselves.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 30982
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
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.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 5:44 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.
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.
The Kalam was not meant to get anyone to the God of Christianity.
|
