Eternity

[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?

[Bust Nak]

Cause some of that bunch're special?

Joey, are you suggesting they're so special they could be in the Olympics?

Moderator Intervention

Okay, the joke is getting too close to ableism for comfort. Cut it out, you two.

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #140]

Sure - cosmology has its different theories and opinions just like religion does, and is what we would expect, given nobody can see beyond the veil.

[historia]

To assume means "to take as granted or true," so Merriam Webster.

And that's what the accepted premises are within the context of the syllogism, whether there are good reasons (or any reasons at all) for accepting them.

Sure, a premise or proposition in and of itself is a supposition. But, once someone provides a reasoned argument for why they think that premise or proposition is likely true, then that person's argument as a whole is not just or simply making assumptions. An assumption, properly speaking, is a (typically unstated) premise for which no supporting argument or evidence is given.

But, hey, if all we are saying here is that Craig presents the kalam argument in syllogistic form, then cool. I'm not sure what, if any, relevance that has for the broader conversation, but I suppose it's useful to clarify these things.

[historia]

Perhaps you can point out to me where either Craig or Aquinas show any openness to the idea the universe has always been, in one form or another.

I already pointed out above (see post #116) a few things Craig says in the article you cited that shows he is open to the possibility that cosmologists might demonstrate that the universe has no beginning.

In "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2012), pgs. 183-84, he writes:

From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction.

If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived . . . since on tenseless theories of time the universe did not begin to exist in virtue of having a first event anymore than a meter stick begins to exist in virtue of having a first centimeter.

Here then he acknowledges that, if the B-theory of time is true, then the universe just exists eternally.

[Diogenes]

Perhaps you can point out to me where either Craig or Aquinas show any openness to the idea the universe has always been, in one form or another.

I already pointed out above (see post #116) a few things Craig says in the article you cited that shows he is open to the possibility that cosmologists might demonstrate that the universe has no beginning.

In "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2012), pgs. 183-84, he writes:

From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction.

If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived . . . since on tenseless theories of time the universe did not begin to exist in virtue of having a first event anymore than a meter stick begins to exist in virtue of having a first centimeter.

Here then he acknowledges that, if the B-theory of time is true, then the universe just exists eternally.

As usual Craig speaks his own brand of doubletalk and nonsense. His goal is to obfuscate. That IS the Kalam argument, obfuscation. Cutting thru the nonsense, and his redefining of time itself, Craig's argument is exposed as the same old prime mover rubbish in a fancy trash can:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:

The universe has a cause.
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:

"... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."

This argument is based on assumptions (premises if you insist) which he never proves. The most absurd of which he makes up out of a perfect vacuum, that this "uncaused creator of the universe" is a PERSONAL god. Where does that come from? From wishful thinking. Craig insists and assumes because otherwise for him the universe is [HUGE ASSUMPTIONS TO FOLLOW] "beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless...."

Even those who try to defend his view correct him when he relies on what is at best a 'controversial' theory of time.
"Because Craig’s argument relies on a controversial view of time, the argument in my view carries an
unnecessary burden of proof on behalf of the A-theory."
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... ext=thesis

[historia]

From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction.

If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived . . . since on tenseless theories of time the universe did not begin to exist in virtue of having a first event anymore than a meter stick begins to exist in virtue of having a first centimeter.

Here then he acknowledges that, if the B-theory of time is true, then the universe just exists eternally.

As usual Craig speaks his own brand of doubletalk and nonsense. His goal is to obfuscate.

His comment here seems relatively straight-forward to me. What, exactly, do you think counts as "double-talk" or "obfuscation" in that quote?

[historia]

Even those who try to defend his view correct him when he relies on what is at best a 'controversial' theory of time.
"Because Craig’s argument relies on a controversial view of time, the argument in my view carries an
unnecessary burden of proof on behalf of the A-theory."
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... ext=thesis

You're quoting here a Masters Thesis from a student at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, which, frankly, doesn't carry a lot of weight, and can hardly be said to "correct" Craig.

But, look, as we already saw above, Craig acknowledges that various aspects of the kalam argument are "controversial," meaning that some philosophers and cosmologists will disagree with one or another premise, supporting argument, or presupposition in the argument. That's not surprising nor really a problem. This is how academics work.

[Diogenes]

Even those who try to defend his view correct him when he relies on what is at best a 'controversial' theory of time.
"Because Craig’s argument relies on a controversial view of time, the argument in my view carries an
unnecessary burden of proof on behalf of the A-theory."
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... ext=thesis

You're quoting here a Masters Thesis from a student at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, which, frankly, doesn't carry a lot of weight, and can hardly be said to "correct" Craig.

But, look, as we already saw above, Craig acknowledges that various aspects of the kalam argument are "controversial," meaning that some philosophers and cosmologists will disagree with one or another premise, supporting argument, or presupposition in the argument. That's not surprising nor really a problem. This is how academics work.

Now you're arguing from 'authority,' rather than deal with the argument, but...
If you want to compare 'authorities' I'll take a Masters candidate at the U of Missouri over Craig of Talbot any day, and so will the academic world. Craig is an apologist. He starts with his conclusion, "A personal God exists" and reasons backward, changing the definition of time itself to make his special pleading. This is the ultimate in starting with his favorite assumption (actually a hard bound belief), claiming it as a premise, then with an unfounded 'premise' comes to his original conclusion as if the premise were valid.

Craig works back from his conclusions. Craig starts with, “God exists.” And then he ends with any number of “assumptions” — including the idea that everything that starts to exist must have a creator. And this turns Craig into a very silly person, except for those who are as determined to believe Christianity as he is.

https://franklycurious.com/wp/2015/08/0 ... -argument/

Stripped of the cumbersome, obfuscatory language, the 'Kalam' argument is simple (and simply wrong):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Thus arriving at a conclusion from unfounded premises.

The longer version:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
5. This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God (Craig adds that the God must be PERSONAL).
6. Therefore a personal God exists.

Poof! Like magic, a personal 'god' has been imagined out of nothing but words.

[historia]

Now you're arguing from 'authority,' rather than deal with the argument, but...

I'm afraid you have this backwards.

Since you gave us no argument as to why you think Craig is wrong about either the A-theory of time or the compatibility of the kalam argument with the B-theory of time, and instead just cited this Masters Thesis saying it "corrects" him, you are the one making an appeal to authority.

I just pointed out this paper carries very little authority.

I'll take a Masters candidate at the U of Missouri over Craig of Talbot any day, and so will the academic world.

You can do as you please, of course. But let's not pretend that "the academic world" would take a masters-level student over a published scholar with two doctoral degrees. That's silly.

But, listen, if you want to tell me why you think Metcalfe is correct about the kalam argument also working on the B-theory of time, I'm happy to entertain your argument.

Craig is . . . changing the definition of time itself to make his special pleading.

Once again, you are misrepresenting things rather badly here.

There are, broadly speaking, two different philosophical theories of time, the A-theory and the B-theory. Craig prefers the A-theory. That doesn't constitute "changing the definition of time itself."

[Diogenes]

[Replying to historia in post #149]
I believe you have yet to address the central point of this thread, the fact that the proponents of the Cosmological argument (Kalam or otherwise) carve out a single exception to their necessary cause arguments. Tho' they dress them up in different ways and words, and invent new ways of looking at time to support the conclusion they start with, they allow for a single "uncaused cause" and call it a 'personal God.'
Why can't they accept existence itself as an uncaused cause? And why must their uncaused cause have to be a personal God or even a god of any kind. This is the core of the question, this special pleading built on unfounded premises.