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?

[historia]

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.

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.

[Diogenes]

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.

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.

[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]

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

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)

[historia]

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.

The article itself demonstrates that you are wrong. I would have thought that was obvious, but I'm happy to give further explanation, if you need it.

Perhaps I should first clarify another obvious point: Giving reasons and arguments for ones premises and conclusions is precisely the opposite of making assumptions. So, if we find that Craig is giving reasons and arguments for his premises and conclusions, then you are wrong in claiming that he is just assuming things.

Second you misstate my claim. He does indeed ASSUME his conclusion in that he ASSUMES there must be a cause.

I simply quoted you verbatim for you claim.

But if Craig making the "ASSUMPTION that there must be a 'First Cause'," as you said before, somehow "misstates" your claim, and you want to instead say Craig "ASSUMES there must be a cause," then I'm happy to accept that minor clarification.

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,

Wait, what do you mean by "this would be true?" If you agree with this conditional statement, then your following objection seems misplaced, since, in the next quote, Craig is simply explaining why he also agrees with this conditional statement.

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."

Keep reading. He goes on to make two more points that are connected to this first one, which together constitute an argument from experience.

He's saying that, in our experience, things don't just pop into being from nothing. And that, together with the basic assumptions that undergird science, make it so that "(1') is more plausibly true than false."

In other words: (a) he is making an argument here for why he thinks something cannot come from nothing, not just assuming that, and (b) he says that conclusion is only "more plausibly true than false," rather than saying it "must" be the case.

So your assertion that Craig "ASSUMES there must be a cause" is demonstrably false.

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?

Again, just keep reading a few sentences past the part you just quoted. He says:

The more controversial premise in the argument is premise 2, that the universe began to exist. This is by no means obvious.

Later he notes:

All throughout history men have assumed that the universe as a whole was unchanging. Of course, things in the universe were moving about and changing, but the universe itself was just there, so to speak.

And even later:

Of course, scientific results are always provisional. We can fully expect that new theories will be proposed, attempting to avoid the universe’s beginning. Such proposals are to be welcomed and tested.

These statements clearly show that Craig thinks it's possible the universe "may have simply always have been," but let's spell it out:

First, Craig is acknowledging here that the claim that the universe began to exist is "controversial," and "by no means obvious," meaning other contemporary experts (both philosophers and cosmologists) disagree and think the universe has always existed.

Second, he acknowledges that historically the idea that the universe has always existed has been common, and that a viable theory showing the universe has no beginning could emerge and demonstrate conclusively it did not, which means it's possible he is wrong.

For a fuller treatment of all of this, see Craig's chapter on the kalam argument in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2012). There he lays out a much fuller set of reasons and arguments for his premises and conclusions, while also detailing several objections -- he notes, for example, that, if the B-theory of time is true, then his conclusion that the universe began to exist is wrong -- all of which entails an acknowledgment on his part that the the universe could have always been, he just thinks, on philosophical and scientific grounds, it most likely had a beginning.

Craig's argument like all the others like it over the centuries, is [this is a technical term] phony baloney.

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.

[Diogenes]

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.

[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...

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #119]

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.

viewtopic.php?p=1074202#p1074202

From The Link:

Identify Common Denominators
"Lessons All 'Round"
I would say...
Conceivable
All of life
Context
All spun from the same Yarn
All and sundry
“It's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years”
As busy as a bee
Enough To Make Me Wonder
Mind To Mind

William: Hmmm...I suppose that a Planetary Mind under the same circumstances as a human mind, could conceivably have a hard time accepting their are vaster minds still...such as Galactic Minds...surely though a planetary mind could work that out? If QueenBee is a "Mind" then that which she is part of, must also bee a Mind...

The GM goes further in this vein.

Also note the post beneath the one linked;
@ 15:36