Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?
Eternity
Moderator: Moderators
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2880
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 287 times
- Been thanked: 443 times
Re: Eternity
Post #111If you like. Again, you claimed that Craig is making the "ASSUMPTION that there must be a 'First Cause'," but that's clearly false.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:00 pmThe evidence HAS been marshaled. Craig simply parrots verbosely EXACTLY what Aquinas wrote. If, as you claim, my statement is "demonstrably false," then demonstrate.historia wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:50 pmSure. You are the one making the claim here, so I leave it to you to marshal your evidence.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:42 pm
Will this from Craig do?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument
But this is demonstrably false.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:42 pm
For example, WLC offers, "Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will."
This is just another, less ingenuous way of stating what Aquinas wrote. This is typical of Craig's sophistry.
The problem remains. The ASSUMPTION, that there must be a 'First Cause' is just that, an unjustified assumption.
As even a cursory reading of that article makes clear, Craig does not simply "assume" there must be a first cause. Rather, he lays out several philosophical and scientific arguments for concluding the universe has a beginning, and thus a cause.
Just read the article you cited: In the section on "Premise 2" of the kalam cosmological argument, Craig lays out several philosophical and scientific arguments -- in total about 50 paragraphs -- to support his conclusion that the universe has a cause for its beginning.
You can certainly disagree with his arguments, but it is simply false to say he is assuming his conclusion, as you did.
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1314 times
Re: Eternity
Post #112You are again WRONG. First you claim I am "demonstrably" wrong, yet you fail to demonstrate, even when challenged. Second you misstate my claim. He does indeed ASSUME his conclusion in that he ASSUMES there must be a cause. Again from his website as he claims to state his argument as "modestly" as possible:historia wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 1:41 pmIf you like. Again, you claimed that Craig is making the "ASSUMPTION that there must be a 'First Cause'," but that's clearly false.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:00 pmThe evidence HAS been marshaled. Craig simply parrots verbosely EXACTLY what Aquinas wrote. If, as you claim, my statement is "demonstrably false," then demonstrate.historia wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:50 pmSure. You are the one making the claim here, so I leave it to you to marshal your evidence.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:42 pm
Will this from Craig do?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument
But this is demonstrably false.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:42 pm
For example, WLC offers, "Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will."
This is just another, less ingenuous way of stating what Aquinas wrote. This is typical of Craig's sophistry.
The problem remains. The ASSUMPTION, that there must be a 'First Cause' is just that, an unjustified assumption.
As even a cursory reading of that article makes clear, Craig does not simply "assume" there must be a first cause. Rather, he lays out several philosophical and scientific arguments for concluding the universe has a beginning, and thus a cause.
Just read the article you cited: In the section on "Premise 2" of the kalam cosmological argument, Craig lays out several philosophical and scientific arguments -- in total about 50 paragraphs -- to support his conclusion that the universe has a cause for its beginning.
You can certainly disagree with his arguments, but it is simply false to say he is assuming his conclusion, as you did.
"1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning." This would be true, but Craig does not stop there because he ASSUMES and argues:
"1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic."
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument
But perhaps I miss the part where he argues alternatively, that the universe could not have always existed and you can point out my error. Where does he say that instead of having been caused, it may have simply always have been? Because this is the argument he makes for God.
YOU are 'demonstrably' wrong in your claims.
Craig indulges in paragraph after paragraph of mind numbingly odious and obtuse double talk while missing the essential point:
What ever "uncaused cause" or "first mover" or "ground of being" or "has always existed before time" argument that can be generated about one's favorite 'god,' can be equally made about the universe or existence itself. Craig's argument like all the others like it over the centuries, is [this is a technical term] phony baloney.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 15331
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 981 times
- Been thanked: 1813 times
- Contact:
Re: Eternity
Post #113Until cosmologists can agree to any particular model, any arguments to do with cause and creator are only to do with those models.
Not all models have a beginning either, so the idea that 'if creation had a beginning, then it has to be fair to include a creator in that' as a means of avoiding some perceived 'double standard' is in appearance - unestablished gibberish.
"Let there be light" is the most succinct way of explaining something which only a theist mind is able to understand and accept, because a theist mind does not understand itself to be just an accident of a mindless process.
Not all models have a beginning either, so the idea that 'if creation had a beginning, then it has to be fair to include a creator in that' as a means of avoiding some perceived 'double standard' is in appearance - unestablished gibberish.
"Let there be light" is the most succinct way of explaining something which only a theist mind is able to understand and accept, because a theist mind does not understand itself to be just an accident of a mindless process.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 9237
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 1080 times
- Been thanked: 3981 times
Re: Eternity
Post #114Any Cosmic origin - model either has to appeal to human logic (the basis of valid science, after all) or nothing can be known, claimed or believed and, contrary to Theist reasoning, this does not leave Goddunnit as the default theory, but 'Nobody knows'. And the theist who protests that 'nothing can come from nothing' (some do) has reverted to human reasoning based on (limited) human experience.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:44 pm Until cosmologists can agree to any particular model, any arguments to do with cause and creator are only to do with those models.
Not all models have a beginning either, so the idea that 'if creation had a beginning, then it has to be fair to include a creator in that' as a means of avoiding some perceived 'double standard' is in appearance - unestablished gibberish.
"Let there be light" is the most succinct way of explaining something which only a theist mind is able to understand and accept, because a theist mind does not understand itself to be just an accident of a mindless process.
The appeal to human easy answers of magical events for the inexplicable is quite without merit.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Re: Eternity
Post #115I think you sum it up well, but...William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:44 pm Until cosmologists can agree to any particular model, any arguments to do with cause and creator are only to do with those models.
Not all models have a beginning either, so the idea that 'if creation had a beginning, then it has to be fair to include a creator in that' as a means of avoiding some perceived 'double standard' is in appearance - unestablished gibberish.
"Let there be light" is the most succinct way of explaining something which only a theist mind is able to understand and accept, because a theist mind does not understand itself to be just an accident of a mindless process.
Where it's claimed to be a mindful process just raises the question of where from comes that mind. (As I so enjoy your arguments here, I'm not convinced of their actuality)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1314 times
Re: Eternity
Post #117You write as if making assumptions and giving reasons for those assumptions are mutually exclusive. Do you really believe that? Craig, in his own words, assumes the universe must have had a beginning. Then he gives his reasons for his assumption. This is not hard to understand. It may be hard for some to accept, but not to understand.historia wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:07 pm
These kind of comments just make your position look desperate, Diogenes. You can disagree with Craig all you like or call him names until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't support your claim that he is just making "ASSUMPTIONS" or he is being intellectually dishonest.
At any rate, I have quoted him previously announcing this assumption. If you read him differently, that is your affair.
I don't disagree with your phrase about Craig being intellectually dishonest, but I don't believe I wrote it.

My understanding of the rules here tells me calling someone "intellectually dishonest" would be a violation of those rules. Whether I like all the DCR rules or not, I try to follow them. I think Craig is a clever sophist who, like the Pharisees, thinks he will be heard for his many words. My judgement is that he uses words to obfuscate rather than clarify.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 15331
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 981 times
- Been thanked: 1813 times
- Contact:
Re: Eternity
Post #118Until cosmologists can agree to any particular model, any arguments to do with cause and creator are only to do with those models.
Not all models have a beginning either, so the idea that 'if creation had a beginning, then it has to be fair to include a creator in that' as a means of avoiding some perceived 'double standard' is in appearance - unestablished gibberish.
"Let there be light" is the most succinct way of explaining something which only a theist mind is able to understand and accept, because a theist mind does not understand itself to be just an accident of a mindless process.
I think you sum it up well, but...
The same as wherefore the universe "came from" depending upon which model is being referenced - even if that model was an eternal one and didn't have a beginning...Where it's claimed to be a mindful process just raises the question of where from comes that mind. (As I so enjoy your arguments here, I'm not convinced of their actuality)
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Re: Eternity
Post #119Fer sher.William wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:15 pmThe same as wherefore the universe "came from" depending upon which model is being referenced - even if that model was an eternal one and didn't have a beginning...Where it's claimed to be a mindful process just raises the question of where from comes that mind. (As I so enjoy your arguments here, I'm not convinced of their actuality)
You've really stumped me with your unique ideas here. I think about your position far more'n my posting record'd show. Pretty thing likens you to a 'mad genius' - in a good way. We try to argue your position against one another, and smart as she is, she can't crack it.
The best I can do is to note if there is this 'cosmic mind', how come we can't all just think our thoughts to one another, or how come our opinions can differ so differently.
That said, I contend the most reasonable conclusion, at this time, is that we may never know.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 15331
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 981 times
- Been thanked: 1813 times
- Contact: