William Lane Craig and the Kalam argument

[shunyadragon]

shuny, your arguments make absofreakinglutely no sense. Your questions are even so far off the mark that it is clear you don't understand WLC's arguments regarding infinities at all, much less the KCA. So I am not surprised in the least that you don't even grasp my simple attempt to explain it to you.

The concept of a singularity itself defines that there was no space or time in which to expand, shuny. If you can't grasp that, then please, continue to repeat yourself until you turn blue.

I thought I would respond to this statement specifically. The bottom line is you have not provided any explanations for your objections, except for an assertion the expansion of the singularity 'should not have happened, and a bizzaro statement the the physics theories concerning the Quantum world and the origins of the Universe are "imaginary." Both Carrikature and Sea of Red responded to your flawed statements with well reasoned arguments, which you did not respond to, which agreed with me.

Still waiting . . .

[Sparko]

You have said nothing of substance so far.

you merely do not have the ability to grasp what I have said. Please keep repeating your mantra though. It pleases me.

[Sparko]

I thought I would respond to this statement specifically. The bottom line is you have not provided any explanations for your objections, except for an assertion the expansion of the singularity 'should not have happened, and a bizzaro statement the the physics theories concerning the Quantum world and the origins of the Universe are "imaginary." Both Carrikature and Sea of Red responded to your flawed statements with well reasoned arguments, which you did not respond to, which agreed with me.

Still waiting . . .

since that is not what I said, I merely repeat myself, you do not grasp my simple statement, so further explanation would be a waste. You are starting to remind me of Magellan2004 arguing about horses legs.

[Carrikature]

You read a sentence from Dr. Craig and find it confounding, and sloppy, and full of assumptions. I read the same sentence and find it coherent, logical, and mostly airtight.

I was thinking about this more and wanted to come back to this point.

I don't find him confounding or sloppy. I think there's a difference between "this is a logical understanding of what we know" and "this is the correct understanding of what we know". I think Craig presents the first. He comes across to me as claiming the latter. That might just be his followers, though, not the man himself.

Regardless, this latter claim is what I take issue with. There are more explanations than just those presented which haven't, in my opinion, been sufficiently eliminated as plausible. A good example is the "this could be aliens" thing you mentioned. If the KCA is presented as an argument for a god (and the Christian one specifically), then it's not sound to claim it as such when it's equally valid for aliens. There's more work to do.

"Full of assumptions" is tricky. Everyone has assumptions. We can't even see our own more often than not. These assumptions aren't necessarily bad or invalid, either, but they color what we view as legitimate. It's worth pointing out, too, that 'valid' and 'sound' are two different things. I'm not convinced Craig's arguments are completely valid, but I can grant them as valid and still not find them sound. Some of my criticisms question the validity and others question the soundness, but I can see how it's not obvious which ones do what. That might be part of our disconnect.

[Sparko]

I was thinking about this more and wanted to come back to this point.

I don't find him confounding or sloppy. I think there's a difference between "this is a logical understanding of what we know" and "this is the correct understanding of what we know". I think Craig presents the first. He comes across to me as claiming the latter. That might just be his followers, though, not the man himself.

Regardless, this latter claim is what I take issue with. There are more explanations than just those presented which haven't, in my opinion, been sufficiently eliminated as plausible. A good example is the "this could be aliens" thing you mentioned. If the KCA is presented as an argument for a god (and the Christian one specifically), then it's not sound to claim it as such when it's equally valid for aliens. There's more work to do.

"Full of assumptions" is tricky. Everyone has assumptions. We can't even see our own more often than not. These assumptions aren't necessarily bad or invalid, either, but they color what we view as legitimate. It's worth pointing out, too, that 'valid' and 'sound' are two different things. I'm not convinced Craig's arguments are completely valid, but I can grant them as valid and still not find them sound. Some of my criticisms question the validity and others question the soundness, but I can see how it's not obvious which ones do what. That might be part of our disconnect.

how would aliens have done it?

[Carrikature]

how would aliens have done it?

We don't have access to that information any more than we have access to how God would have done it. The arguments presented, if granted, give us a personal creator. That doesn't tell us much about the creator except what attributes it needs to be able to effect creation. It could be an uninterested god (deism), some incomprehensible form of life on another level (aliens), or something else entirely. It could conceivably leave room for us actually being part of a simulation. We have no way of knowing.

[Sparko]

We don't have access to that information any more than we have access to how God would have done it. The arguments presented, if granted, give us a personal creator. That doesn't tell us much about the creator except what attributes it needs to be able to effect creation. It could be an uninterested god (deism), some incomprehensible form of life on another level (aliens), or something else entirely. It could conceivably leave room for us actually being part of a simulation. We have no way of knowing.

So how can you claim aliens could do it if you have no theory of how they could? A personal God at least makes sense in a theoretical sense, since he would be all powerful and be able to act without time. An alien would have to actually exist in a place where there is nothing existing, no space or time, in order to create the universe. How would that work? And where did that alien come from?

[Carrikature]

So how can you claim aliens could do it if you have no theory of how they could? A personal God at least makes sense in a theoretical sense, since he would be all powerful and be able to act without time. An alien would have to actually exist in a place where there is nothing existing, no space or time, in order to create the universe. How would that work? And where did that alien come from?

Personal creator, not god. That's an important distinction. Craig wants to call it God with a capital 'G' to link it directly to the Christian God. That leap is completely unwarranted. We have no information on the creator beyond what minimum abilities it must have to create, even if we grant that all of the abilities Craig insists are necessary actually are.

Where did this creator come from? Craig's argument entails a creator that is necessary and sufficient for its own existence. This would be true no matter the form of the creator. You wouldn't argue that the Christian God came from somewhere; you would say he simply is. Virtually every mythos involves things which simply exist on their own without any origin.

There's another split here between 'valid' and 'sound', though. It's valid to use the Razor to limit expectations to a single cause. It's not sound to say that a single cause is all there can be.

[Sparko]

Personal creator, not god. That's an important distinction. Craig wants to call it God with a capital 'G' to link it directly to the Christian God. That leap is completely unwarranted. We have no information on the creator beyond what minimum abilities it must have to create, even if we grant that all of the abilities Craig insists are necessary actually are.

Where did this creator come from? Craig's argument entails a creator that is necessary and sufficient for its own existence. This would be true no matter the form of the creator. You wouldn't argue that the Christian God came from somewhere; you would say he simply is. Virtually every mythos involves things which simply exist on their own without any origin.

There's another split here between 'valid' and 'sound', though. It's valid to use the Razor to limit expectations to a single cause. It's not sound to say that a single cause is all there can be.

you did not answer any of my questions.

[Adrift]

I was thinking about this more and wanted to come back to this point.

I don't find him confounding or sloppy. I think there's a difference between "this is a logical understanding of what we know" and "this is the correct understanding of what we know". I think Craig presents the first. He comes across to me as claiming the latter. That might just be his followers, though, not the man himself.

Regardless, this latter claim is what I take issue with. There are more explanations than just those presented which haven't, in my opinion, been sufficiently eliminated as plausible. A good example is the "this could be aliens" thing you mentioned. If the KCA is presented as an argument for a god (and the Christian one specifically), then it's not sound to claim it as such when it's equally valid for aliens. There's more work to do.

But...he does do more work than that. Perhaps not in that paper that I linked alone, but he does argue in other places why this thing that brought the universe into being requires certain properties. Through his arguments he eliminates the deistic god, abstract objects, and non-eternal beings as sufficient answers for this creator thing.

[Carrikature]

you did not answer any of my questions.

I did, actually. The personal creator always has the same properties no matter what you call it. Craig actually acknowledges this with his reference to Aquinas. So say it's actually the Christian God or say it's some alien, the basic properties needed to be the personal creator are the same. However God does it, a hypothetical alien could also do it. "Where did God come from" is treated as a nonsensical question by most, but it's the same question you asked. The KCA can't tell us any of that, but it's not actually relevant to the KCA.

[Sparko]

I did, actually. The personal creator always has the same properties no matter what you call it. Craig actually acknowledges this with his reference to Aquinas. So say it's actually the Christian God or say it's some alien, the basic properties needed to be the personal creator are the same. However God does it, a hypothetical alien could also do it. "Where did God come from" is treated as a nonsensical question by most, but it's the same question you asked. The KCA can't tell us any of that, but it's not actually relevant to the KCA.

So the alien would have to be eternal and all powerful?

[Carrikature]

So the alien would have to be eternal and all powerful?

From our perspective, yes. The trick, of course, is that 'eternal' doesn't mean much in a context devoid of time. It's also not a given that an alien capable of creating this universe is actually the First Cause that WLC refers to.

[Carrikature]

But...he does do more work than that. Perhaps not in that paper that I linked alone, but he does argue in other places why this thing that brought the universe into being requires certain properties. Through his arguments he eliminates the deistic god, abstract objects, and non-eternal beings as sufficient answers for this creator thing.

He tried to eliminate some of those things in the article you linked. It more or less works out this way:

1) Must be a cause.
2) Can't claim there is a chain of causes.
3) Cause must be able to create change somehow.

His use of Ockham's is the defense of #2, which is valid but may not be sound. We don't know what the cause of this universe is, only that it must exist outside of the one we know. There may be a series of causes. There may be several causes working in parallel, none of which would be necessary or sufficient on their own. We don't have reason to think there's more than one; neither do we have reason to think there's not except for parsimony.

He tries to establish that #3 can only be done by a volitional agent. I don't think he does so successfully. Even if granted, the agent still doesn't move directly to the Christian God. Frankly, the fact that he can allow contenders to refer to it as 'aliens' while pointing out that it's what most people think of as a god kinda proves my point on this one. That leaves the door open to deistic creators as much as it does to aliens.

[Adrift]

He tried to eliminate some of those things in the article you linked. It more or less works out this way:

1) Must be a cause.
2) Can't claim there is a chain of causes.
3) Cause must be able to create change somehow.

His use of Ockham's is the defense of #2, which is valid but may not be sound. We don't know what the cause of this universe is, only that it must exist outside of the one we know. There may be a series of causes. There may be several causes working in parallel, none of which would be necessary or sufficient on their own. We don't have reason to think there's more than one; neither do we have reason to think there's not except for parsimony.

He tries to establish that #3 can only be done by a volitional agent. I don't think he does so successfully. Even if granted, the agent still doesn't move directly to the Christian God. Frankly, the fact that he can allow contenders to refer to it as 'aliens' while pointing out that it's what most people think of as a god kinda proves my point on this one. That leaves the door open to deistic creators as much as it does to aliens.

Ok. Good. So you do agree that he does do more work.

Also, just a note, he doesn't leave the door open to a deistic creator. He does offer arguments for why the thing that brought the universe into being cannot be deistic.