Arguments for Christian Theism (Intro)

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/two-dozen.htm

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

What is the Kalam cosmological argument: (or who is William Lane Craig?)

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to both medieval Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most significantly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.[1] It has been revived in recent years most predominantly in the works of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.



William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument >

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.


2. The universe began to exist.


3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

(Note this is actually the simplest form of the argument, Craig has formulated a larger 9 point argument, in which he reasons against the possibility of the space/time consisting of an eternal series of causal events.

The first question that most people ask when presented with this argument is “then what about God.” - but the statement is not, “Whatever exists must have a cause, but rather “Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.” As God is eternal (and not characterized by an infinite series of finite elements” – The argument does not apply.


Criticism of the Argument:


By Austin Cline, About.com Guide to Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/06/21/unsupported-premise-in-the-kalam-cosmological-argument.htm

Unsupported Premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument


Dr. William Lane Craig‘s “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is one of the more sophisticated and (in some circles) popular arguments for the existence of God. Unfortunately, like so many other theistic arguments, it suffers from a fatal flaw that the author prefers to gloss over instead of address directly.

Francois Tremblay addresses the problems at Talk Reason, in particular the faulty premise of "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence":

What evidence does he have to prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? In his opening case, he states: “I really don't think that it's necessary because the premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence I think is so intuitively obvious that scarcely anybody could sincerely deny that it is false.“ He does support it elsewhere by using two arguments: our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole -- the universe -- on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts -- the existents around us - is a fallacy of composition. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter. ... // 

For the rest of Austin's comments
For Francois Tremblay's extended foundational critigue: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Craig.cfm )


The extended Kalam/Craig Cosmological Argument
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html
 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.




2.The universe began to exist.


     2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

     2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

     2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

     2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

     2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:

    2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

    2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.

    2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

    2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.

    2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.



3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.



4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a

personal Creator:

4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.

4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.

4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial,
timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:

4.21 The Creator is uncaused.

4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)

4.22 The Creator is beginningless.

4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1)

4.23 The Creator is changeless.

4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)

4.24 The Creator is immaterial.

4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator
is changeless. (4.23)

4.25 The Creator is timeless.

4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.

4.26 The Creator is spaceless.

4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25)

4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.

4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3)

4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.

4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points
to intelligent design.


5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

Resources (all over the map)

A review of Paul Davies
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_188-193.pdf


Dawkins on those who reject evolution:   (ignorant, wicked, duped, etc.)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html

Pro A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011&playnext=2

Commentos

This is not a post, but rather just a place for you to drop a note or leave any kind of comment not connected to a specific post.   All fond "hello's" welcome.

Climate Change

Ok, so you have the most important mission ever... TO SAVE HUMANKIND... You precipitate to Earth... (well, after waiting couple thousand of years)... and spend 30 years doing nothing waiting for your testicles to drop and for a beard to grow...


What the hell was the point of Jebus being born as a sh***ing pi**ing baby, then grown into a acne ridden teen... then working as an average carpenter (presumably he was nothing special at making furniture as nobody raved about it.) then spend a 10th of the life-time actually doing any work?

Would it not be more logical to be born a 20 year old and "hit the ground running?" All those years he could have been preaching a message of love... he did NOTHING.

P.S. Anybody care to estimate the value of a bench made by Jesus at an auction?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=291928

Where the arguments take us. (Video Roulette)

Satire:  Brilliant when it reiforces what we believe,  dishonest, manipulating, and stupid when it challenges what we believe.

Satire is strange, in that it must as a form, take what is weak in an argument, and make it weaker (or bolder) through exaggeration.   So satire is, in one sense, inherently dishonest.  It thrives in the market of distortion.  On the other hand, it has the unique ability to lshow us the weakness of a certain claim.

Science is Delusional  (strong satire,  wrong end)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89drdl0Ck7U&feature=fvw

The Implications of Naturalism: Notes

No Moral Absolutes:

From a discussion on a largely atheistic forum, in response to a question about relative morals.

http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=14687

Question: If you don't believe it God, then from where do you derive your moral code? If it really is moral relativism, then on what basis do you pass moral judgment on others? How can you reprimand Jenny McCarthy for what she does, if you can't say it's unethical? If you recognize your opinion as relativism and still force it upon others, how is your outlook not self-centered?

Reply 1:  Whether we feel good about it or not, all morals are "reasoned," by which I mean that they are created by intellectual means by and among people. We can pretend that morals come from a magical omnipotent being, but that doesn't make it so. And yes, sometimes morals are invented to serve the interests of their inventors. This is as true of religiously invented morals as of secular morals. As an example, look at the first four of the Ten Commandments (no other gods, no graven images, no taking God's name in vain, keep holy the sabbath), which serve no purpose beyond reinforcing the perpetuation of religious power. Atheists aren't less moral than believers; they're just more honest about where their morals come from.

Note: this seems a most credible critique of Christian morality...I know for example that I selectively choose which of the Christian scriptures I find binding...and it easy enought to dismiss in whole or in part, even thosee I do find binding.

Reply 10:  Relativism is ignorance. Morals are easy. Let me demonstrate morality right here.
me:

Hey, I don't like when people steal my shit. I also wouldn't like it if people killed me or the people I care about.

everyone else:

Hey, we also don't want our shit stolen, and we don't want to be killed.

us:

Lets all live together and agree not to kill each other and steal each others shit! In fact, we'll set up laws to punish people who do that! Ya! Is there anything else we agree on? Um... ya! We all value truth over lies, so lets make it illegal to spread lies! (Oh no Sylvia Brown and McCarthy!) Hey, lets set up some traffic laws in the city so that people can commute easier! omg what's he doing? is he creating a civil society right in front of our eyes, without invoking a god or divine edict? Hey, new idea! Our children might not have the same ideas as to what is right/wrong as we do. We should set up a system where the laws can be changed, so new situations can be reacted to, and the shifting moral zeitgeist can be addressed!

ID: Notes

A comment on Biologos about the real challenge for evolution(ists)   -- the mechanism
http://biologos.org/blog/evidences-for-evolution-part-2a-the-whales-tale/

 

Agreed. Nothing in this article addresses the nitty-gritty about *how the necessary morphological changes were achieved*. It just beats the same old Biologos drum about common genetic features proving common ancestry. The issue isn’t common ancestry; it’s how one form is transformed into another. That’s what we know almost nothing about, and that’s where the scientific research should be focused. Sternberg is pleading for that, but the neo-Darwinians just don’t get it.

 

The problem is that, for the last 50 years or so, the education of engineers and the education of biologists has been radically divergent, and precisely what is needed for a serious theory of macroevolutionary change is the application of engineering insights to biology. I don’t know what it would take to get population geneticists to learn to think like engineers, but I do know that as long as traditional population geneticists are in charge of evolutionary theory, it will never be able to explain how anything occurred in a satisfactory way

Notes: Profiles in ID (Critical)

We have this going for us, however, which the evolutionary naturalists don’t, namely, the evidence and arguments are on our side. It’s therefore to our advantage to discuss intelligent design and naturalistic evolution on their merits. Conversely, the other side needs to delegitimate the debate between intelligent design and naturalistic evolution, casting intelligent design as a pseudoscience and characterizing its significance purely in political and religious terms. As a consequence, critics of intelligent design engage in all forms of character assassination, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and demonization.~ William Dembski