Eternity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 910 times
Been thanked: 1314 times

Eternity

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 287 times
Been thanked: 443 times

Re: Eternity

Post #111

Post by historia »

Diogenes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:00 pm
historia wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:50 pm
Diogenes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:42 pm
Will this from Craig do?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument
Sure. 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
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.
But this is demonstrably false.

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.
The evidence HAS been marshaled. Craig simply parrots verbosely EXACTLY what Aquinas wrote. If, as you claim, my statement is "demonstrably false," then demonstrate. :)
If you like. Again, you claimed that Craig is making the "ASSUMPTION that there must be a 'First Cause'," but that's clearly false.

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.

User avatar
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 #112

Post by Diogenes »

historia wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 1:41 pm
Diogenes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:00 pm
historia wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:50 pm
Diogenes wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:42 pm
Will this from Craig do?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument
Sure. 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
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.
But this is demonstrably false.

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.
The evidence HAS been marshaled. Craig simply parrots verbosely EXACTLY what Aquinas wrote. If, as you claim, my statement is "demonstrably false," then demonstrate. :)
If you like. Again, you claimed that Craig is making the "ASSUMPTION that there must be a 'First Cause'," but that's clearly false.

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.
You 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:

"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.

User avatar
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 #113

Post by William »

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.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: Eternity

Post #114

Post by TRANSPONDER »

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.
Any 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.

The appeal to human easy answers of magical events for the inexplicable is quite without merit.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: Eternity

Post #115

Post by JoeyKnothead »

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.
I think you sum it up well, but...

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

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 287 times
Been thanked: 443 times

Re: Eternity

Post #116

Post by historia »


User avatar
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 #117

Post by Diogenes »

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.
You 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.
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.

User avatar
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 #118

Post by William »

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.
I think you sum it up well, but...
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)
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...

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: Eternity

Post #119

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:15 pm
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)
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...
Fer sher.

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

User avatar
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 #120

Post by William »


Post Reply