Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Wes Morriston is a liberal Christian and philosopher best know for criticizing arguments for the existence of god. He has an online collection of papers here. In " Doubts about the kalam cosmological argument" he criticizes the KCA. Some large sample to give you a taste. It's good stuff.
Quote:I quite agree that a tiger couldn’t spring into existence uncaused. But we have been given no reason to think that what’s true of a tiger applies to physical reality as a whole. Remember that we’re talking about the origin of the whole natural order here. A tiger comes into existence within the natural order, and within that order it is indeed impossible for things like tigers just to pop into existence. But a s far as I can see, there is no comparable context for the origin of physical reality as a whole, and no analogous reason for thinking that it could not have begun to exist uncaused.
Quote: Stripped of all the vivid but confusing talk about “popping into being uncaused out of nothing,” Craig is saying two things: first, that premise 1 is true; and second that it is a metaphysically necessary truth—true, I suppose one might say, in all possible worlds. At this point, I believe that Craig has simply lost the thread of the argument. Recall that he began by arguing that this metaphysical principle must be true on the ground that it is required to explain “why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing.” In response, I have pointed out that the premise of this argument is patently false. Within the natural order, it is quite easy to explain where tigers come from and why they can’t just pop into existence. We don’t need a general metaphysical principle in order to provide the desired explanation. It is not dialectically apt merely to repeat that the metaphysical principle in question is true.
Quote:Is it Craig’s all-embracing metaphysical principle, or is it the comparatively modest claim that within the natural order things don’t begin to exist without (natural) causes? As far as I can see, Craig has given no reason for preferring the first of these answers.
March 23, 2015 at 2:56 pm (This post was last modified: March 23, 2015 at 2:58 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 23, 2015 at 6:09 am)Delicate Wrote:
(March 23, 2015 at 1:16 am)Nestor Wrote: And the dumbest comment of the day goes to:
About time you shared the award with someone else for a change, eh Nestor?
Are you a poe? You say your religious views are "no idea," but you sound suspiciously like a fundie Republican to me. I've never heard of a non-Republitard who would say something like that about a guy who's done so much to popularize science. Oh well, at least you're not William Lame Craig.
(March 19, 2015 at 10:03 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Wes Morriston is a liberal Christian and philosopher best know for criticizing arguments for the existence of god. He has an online collection of papers here. In " Doubts about the kalam cosmological argument" he criticizes the KCA. Some large sample to give you a taste. It's good stuff.
This guy does sound cool. It's refreshing to see a theist be critical of these rationalizations instead of hiding behind them.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(March 19, 2015 at 10:03 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Wes Morriston is a liberal Christian and philosopher best know for criticizing arguments for the existence of god. He has an online collection of papers here. In " Doubts about the kalam cosmological argument" he criticizes the KCA. Some large sample to give you a taste. It's good stuff.
This guy does sound cool. It's refreshing to see a theist be critical of these rationalizations instead of hiding behind them.
I remember on a philosophy and atheism podcast he calls himself a troublemaker, says it's his job to burn away the chaff, and he's not good at arguing for the old time religion. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6423
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
March 23, 2015 at 6:13 pm (This post was last modified: March 23, 2015 at 6:14 pm by robvalue.)
We need more theists capable of keeping their logic circuits engaged while discussing religion. Otherwise they just keep swinging imaginary baseball bats at us and wondering why we don't fall over.
Of course, I find it hard to see how someone capable of doing so is still a theist.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
I know nothing about this philosopher, though he seems like an intriguing thinker, but what on Satan's brown earth could possess him to call himself a Christian if...
(March 23, 2015 at 5:37 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: he's not good at arguing for the old time religion.
?
What would it mean for me to say, "Yes, I'm an Orphic but I'm not good at arguing for the old time religion," or (if this is his POV), "As a philosopher, I want to demonstrate that my commitment to tradition lacks any rational basis"?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza