Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What do you think of this version of the KCA?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:13:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

I like it.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:15:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:13:25 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

I like it.

Not necessarily in the sense of effectiveness and soundness. But, rather in the sense of utility and convenience.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:04:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:13:25 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

I like it.

Thank you. I just conjured it up because I believe it is a simpler argument to reach God than the argument that needs four premises (I obviously don't believe it is sound either, but it is logically valid).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:22:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.

At least as far as WLC's is concerned...
Tsar of DDO
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.

Why is it stupid exactly, or are you happy with making bare-assertions?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:28:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:23:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.

Why is it stupid exactly, or are you happy with making bare-assertions?

Because even if the universe could not have come from nothing, that does not mean that God exists.
Tsar of DDO
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:29:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:28:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:23:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.

Why is it stupid exactly, or are you happy with making bare-assertions?

Because even if the universe could not have come from nothing, that does not mean that God exists.

I agree. I am not saying the premises are true, I am just reformulating his argument to reach his conclusion in 2 less steps. I think it is more efficient.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:31:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:29:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:28:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:23:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.

Why is it stupid exactly, or are you happy with making bare-assertions?

Because even if the universe could not have come from nothing, that does not mean that God exists.

I agree. I am not saying the premises are true, I am just reformulating his argument to reach his conclusion in 2 less steps. I think it is more efficient.

I agree that WLC is a bit longwinded... but I'll maintain that to the extent that he believes his own bile, he's a nutter.
Tsar of DDO
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:22:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.

It's not. How did you get the impression that WLC thinks the only ways for the universe to exist without god is that it's eternal or uncaused?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:46:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:22:22 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.

It's not.

Bare-assertion.

How did you get the impression that WLC thinks the only ways for the universe to exist without god is that it's eternal or uncaused?

I just explained it. I'll try to make it easier though, because there are a few steps involved.

.If the universe began to exist, It either:

(i) Is the case that it has a cause (X)

(ii) Is not the case that it has a cause (-X)

The above is self-evident because of the law of excluded middle (there is no third option between "X or -X"). Craig argues that only God can be the cause of the universe if it began to exist, and that the universe cannot exist begin to exist uncaused. Caused, or uncaused are the only two options if the universe began to exist (Craig wouldn't deny "X or -X" as a true dichotomy). That means the universe cannot begin to exist under an Atheistic worldview if his argument holds. However, if God does not exist, and the universe did not begin to exist, then the universe is eternal in the past. However, it either:

(i) Is the case that the universe began to exist (Y)

(ii) It is not the case that the universe began to exist (-Y)

Therefore, all of his assumptions lead to the conclusion that "if God does not exist, then the universe is uncaused (assuming the universe began to exist, because any cause of the beginning of the universe must be God according to him), or the universe is past eternal (assuming the universe did not begin to exist). Either the universe began to exist or it didn't, there is no other option. He then would use his support for P1 and P2 of his argument to support P2 of my argument, and God follows.

What's the problem?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:03:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, Craig would argue that if the universe began to exist and was caused, God exists (as the beginning of existence has to be caused, and God has to be the cause). Thus, if God does not exist, (and if the universe began to exist), the universe is uncaused, or the universe is eternal (if the the universe did not begin to exist). Since the universe beginning to exist, or not beginning to exist are the only two options; he would certainly agree with P1 of my argument.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:15:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:29:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:28:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:23:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.

Why is it stupid exactly, or are you happy with making bare-assertions?

Because even if the universe could not have come from nothing, that does not mean that God exists.

I agree. I am not saying the premises are true, I am just reformulating his argument to reach his conclusion in 2 less steps. I think it is more efficient.

Perhaps and vise versa, even if the universes have come from something, that thing is not necessarily god i.e. it could come from something without consciousness.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:17:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 1:15:47 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:29:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:28:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:23:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:22:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:51:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past

P2: The universe could not have come from nothing, and the universe cannot have an infinite past

C: Therefore, God exists

I think it is simpler than Craig's, because his argument involves 4 premises to get to the conclusion that God exists, while mine only needs 2:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
P3: The universe has a cause
P4: If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C: Therefore, God exists

My thoughts:

Stupid.

That is all.

Why is it stupid exactly, or are you happy with making bare-assertions?

Because even if the universe could not have come from nothing, that does not mean that God exists.

I agree. I am not saying the premises are true, I am just reformulating his argument to reach his conclusion in 2 less steps. I think it is more efficient.

Perhaps and vise versa, even if the universes have come from something, that thing is not necessarily god i.e. it could come from something without consciousness.

I agree. However, as I was saying, I am just reformulating Craig's argument, I am not saying the premises are true. He argues that if the universe has a cause (comes from something), it must be God.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:25:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because even if the universe could not have come from nothing, that does not mean that God exists.

I agree. I am not saying the premises are true, I am just reformulating his argument to reach his conclusion in 2 less steps. I think it is more efficient.

Perhaps and vise versa, even if the universes have come from something, that thing is not necessarily god i.e. it could come from something without consciousness.

I agree. However, as I was saying, I am just reformulating Craig's argument, I am not saying the premises are true. He argues that if the universe has a cause (comes from something), it must be God.

Understood, perhaps Craig himself is not clear in this sense.

What is the nature of god anyway? Is it need to be something like a protector of human race, something that is aware of our existence and have our best interest at hearth? A living thing that consume something (like our believe) to survive? Or just anything , if we're born from a piece of rock, is Craig considered that rock we're born from the god?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:23:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:22:22 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.

It's not. How did you get the impression that WLC thinks the only ways for the universe to exist without god is that it's eternal or uncaused?

Actually, here is a direct quote from Craig!

"Now there is no doubt that creatio ex nihilo is deeply baffling. I well recall thinking, as I began to study the kalam cosmological argument, that all of the alternatives with respect to the universe's existence (the infinitude of the past, creation ex nihilo, spontaneous origination ex nihilo) were so bizarre that the most reasonable option seemed to be that nothing exists! Since our existence is, however, undeniable, we must settle, however uncomfortably, on one of the above three." - William Lane Craig [http://www.leaderu.com...]

The "three" he talks about is God creating the universe ex nihilo, the universe beginning to exist from nothing, or the universe having an infinite past. He believes those are the only options. Thus, it is clear that Craig believes that if God does not exist, the universe must either have a infinite past or begin to exist out of nothing. I quoted the man himself...
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 4:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:22:22 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.

It's not. How did you get the impression that WLC thinks the only ways for the universe to exist without god is that it's eternal or uncaused?

Actually, here is a direct quote from Craig!

"Now there is no doubt that creatio ex nihilo is deeply baffling. I well recall thinking, as I began to study the kalam cosmological argument, that all of the alternatives with respect to the universe's existence (the infinitude of the past, creation ex nihilo, spontaneous origination ex nihilo) were so bizarre that the most reasonable option seemed to be that nothing exists! Since our existence is, however, undeniable, we must settle, however uncomfortably, on one of the above three." - William Lane Craig [http://www.leaderu.com...]

The "three" he talks about is God creating the universe ex nihilo, the universe beginning to exist from nothing, or the universe having an infinite past. He believes those are the only options. Thus, it is clear that Craig believes that if God does not exist, the universe must either have a infinite past or begin to exist out of nothing. I quoted the man himself...

Abstract objects.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:13:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 5:07:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:22:22 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.

It's not. How did you get the impression that WLC thinks the only ways for the universe to exist without god is that it's eternal or uncaused?

Actually, here is a direct quote from Craig!

"Now there is no doubt that creatio ex nihilo is deeply baffling. I well recall thinking, as I began to study the kalam cosmological argument, that all of the alternatives with respect to the universe's existence (the infinitude of the past, creation ex nihilo, spontaneous origination ex nihilo) were so bizarre that the most reasonable option seemed to be that nothing exists! Since our existence is, however, undeniable, we must settle, however uncomfortably, on one of the above three." - William Lane Craig [http://www.leaderu.com...]

The "three" he talks about is God creating the universe ex nihilo, the universe beginning to exist from nothing, or the universe having an infinite past. He believes those are the only options. Thus, it is clear that Craig believes that if God does not exist, the universe must either have a infinite past or begin to exist out of nothing. I quoted the man himself...

Abstract objects.

What about them?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:25:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 5:13:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 5:07:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:22:22 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.

It's not. How did you get the impression that WLC thinks the only ways for the universe to exist without god is that it's eternal or uncaused?

Actually, here is a direct quote from Craig!

"Now there is no doubt that creatio ex nihilo is deeply baffling. I well recall thinking, as I began to study the kalam cosmological argument, that all of the alternatives with respect to the universe's existence (the infinitude of the past, creation ex nihilo, spontaneous origination ex nihilo) were so bizarre that the most reasonable option seemed to be that nothing exists! Since our existence is, however, undeniable, we must settle, however uncomfortably, on one of the above three." - William Lane Craig [http://www.leaderu.com...]

The "three" he talks about is God creating the universe ex nihilo, the universe beginning to exist from nothing, or the universe having an infinite past. He believes those are the only options. Thus, it is clear that Craig believes that if God does not exist, the universe must either have a infinite past or begin to exist out of nothing. I quoted the man himself...

Abstract objects.

What about them?

WLC thinks that some of the ways proposed for the universe to exist without god are 1) it is eternal, 2) it is uncaused, or 3) it was caused by abstract objects. Thus:

" it is clear that Craig believes that if God does not exist, the universe must either have a infinite past or begin to exist out of nothing."

as well as your first premise:

"P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past"

are false.

QED.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 5:25:42 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/30/2013 5:13:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 5:07:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:22:22 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:16:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:52:32 PM, Sargon wrote:
I doubt Craig would ever accept it because P1 is demonstrably false.

His argument relies on P1, so I doubt that he would reject it.

He argues that if the universe began to exist with a cause, then only God can be that cause to support P4 of his argument ("If the universe has a cause, that cause is God"). He also argues that if the universe began to exist uncaused, that means it came from nothing. If the universe didn't begin to exist, it is eternal into the past. Therefore, his argument rests upon P1 of the argument I provided being true.

It's not. How did you get the impression that WLC thinks the only ways for the universe to exist without god is that it's eternal or uncaused?

Actually, here is a direct quote from Craig!

"Now there is no doubt that creatio ex nihilo is deeply baffling. I well recall thinking, as I began to study the kalam cosmological argument, that all of the alternatives with respect to the universe's existence (the infinitude of the past, creation ex nihilo, spontaneous origination ex nihilo) were so bizarre that the most reasonable option seemed to be that nothing exists! Since our existence is, however, undeniable, we must settle, however uncomfortably, on one of the above three." - William Lane Craig [http://www.leaderu.com...]

The "three" he talks about is God creating the universe ex nihilo, the universe beginning to exist from nothing, or the universe having an infinite past. He believes those are the only options. Thus, it is clear that Craig believes that if God does not exist, the universe must either have a infinite past or begin to exist out of nothing. I quoted the man himself...

Abstract objects.

What about them?

WLC thinks that some of the ways proposed for the universe to exist without god are 1) it is eternal, 2) it is uncaused, or 3) it was caused by abstract objects.

P1 of the new argument assumes that P4 of Craig's argument has been established as support (the argument that only God could be the cause). Since P4 of his argument rules out abstract object; your rebuttal does not hold.

Thus:

" it is clear that Craig believes that if God does not exist, the universe must either have a infinite past or begin to exist out of nothing."

as well as your first premise:

"P1: If God does not exist, then either the universe came from nothing, or the universe has an infinite past"

are false.

Your rebuttal forgets the fact that P1 in my argument assumes that abstract objects have been ruled out as causes already, as establishing P4 is necessary for P1 to be sufficiently supported. Since Craig would agree that abstract opbjects have been ruled out, and that if the universe was caused, that cause is God, then he would still agree with the first premise.

You forget that the support for P4 of his argument (which shows that if the universe had a cause, that cause is God and not abstract objects), is the sufficient support for P1 of the new argument. The support of P1 and P2 of his argument, is sufficient support (according to him) for P2 of my argument.

Basically, P1 of my argument assumes that if the universe had a cause, that cause is God and not abstract objects. This is P4 of his argument, thus he would of course accept it! lol

Since P1 assumes abstract objects have been ruled out, then it would be illogical to include abstract objects as an option....


QED.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:42:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Basically, P1 of my argument, assumes P4 of his argument (if the cause of the universe exists, it must be God). Thus, listing an option that the premise presumes is ruled out already would be absurd!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:47:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Craig says himself that there are only three options:

i) Creatio ex nihilo (since abstract objects have no causal power, it would have to be God that creates it)

ii) Spontaneous origination from nothing (a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit)

iii) An infinite past

Thus, if i) is false (the one that entails that God exists), then only ii) and iii) can be true. This is exactly my premise:

"P1: If God does not exist, the universe either came from nothing or has an infinite past."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, you do raise a point that it makes the argument easier to follow if I say:

P1: If God does not exist, the universe is either caused by something that is not God, or the universe is uncaused

P2: The universe is not caused by something that is not God, and the universe is not uncaused

C: Therefore, God exists.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:02:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 5:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1 of the new argument assumes that P4 of Craig's argument has been established as support (the argument that only God could be the cause). Since P4 of his argument rules out abstract object; your rebuttal does not hold.

You're trying to mirror Dr. Craig's argument exactly, save for the fact that it's simpler. In the case of his original argument, P4 rules out abstract objects, P1 rules out the uncaused beginning of the universe, and P3 rules out an eternal universe. This eliminates all other alternatives proposed, except for god. In your argument, you only eliminate an uncaused universe (allegedly the same thing as the universe coming from nothing) and a universe that existed forever. This still leaves the existence of abstract objects as a cause of the universe, making P1 false. Your argument is inferior to the KCA for this reason. It simply does not have the same scope and validity as the KCA.

Another way in which your argument is inferior to the KCA is that your P2 requires P1 and P2 of the KCA. The only way of saying that the universe could not have come from nothing is to invoke a causal principle, and the only way of saying that the universe could not have an infinite past is the reasoning used in support of P2. Considering your admission above, your arguments requires three premises of the KCA for it to work.

If your argument needs three premises of another argument to work, while making the same conclusions, then just use that argument instead of an inferior version of it.

Your rebuttal forgets the fact that P1 in my argument assumes that abstract objects have been ruled out as causes already,

How, in any way, did I "forget" anything? How, in any way, is it a "fact" that P1 rules out abstract objects? There is nothing about P1 which rules out abstract objects. That's why it's a false premise.

as establishing P4 is necessary for P1 to be sufficiently supported.

Again, if your argument is so dependent on the KCA, then just use the KCA.

Since Craig would agree that abstract opbjects have been ruled out, and that if the universe was caused, that cause is God, then he would still agree with the first premise.

He would not even think twice about your argument. His argument rules out abstract objects. Your argument doesn't. He would not agree with the first premise because it is a false dichotomy.

You forget that the support for P4 of his argument (which shows that if the universe had a cause, that cause is God and not abstract objects), is the sufficient support for P1 of the new argument. The support of P1 and P2 of his argument, is sufficient support (according to him) for P2 of my argument.

Then your argument doesn't stand on its own. It's simply an inferior version of a better argument.

Since P1 assumes abstract objects have been ruled out, then it would be illogical to include abstract objects as an option....

That's why it's false. It makes an assumption which has no support in the argument itself. The best you can say is "P1 is true because of some premise in the Kalam", but then you're just admitting that your argument is inferior, and that one may as well use the original because it has more scope and isn't completely and entirely dependent on some other argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:04:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 6:02:24 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/30/2013 5:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1 of the new argument assumes that P4 of Craig's argument has been established as support (the argument that only God could be the cause). Since P4 of his argument rules out abstract object; your rebuttal does not hold.

You're trying to mirror Dr. Craig's argument exactly, save for the fact that it's simpler. In the case of his original argument, P4 rules out abstract objects, P1 rules out the uncaused beginning of the universe, and P3 rules out an eternal universe. This eliminates all other alternatives proposed, except for god. In your argument, you only eliminate an uncaused universe (allegedly the same thing as the universe coming from nothing) and a universe that existed forever. This still leaves the existence of abstract objects as a cause of the universe, making P1 false. Your argument is inferior to the KCA for this reason. It simply does not have the same scope and validity as the KCA.

Another way in which your argument is inferior to the KCA is that your P2 requires P1 and P2 of the KCA. The only way of saying that the universe could not have come from nothing is to invoke a causal principle, and the only way of saying that the universe could not have an infinite past is the reasoning used in support of P2. Considering your admission above, your arguments requires three premises of the KCA for it to work.

If your argument needs three premises of another argument to work, while making the same conclusions, then just use that argument instead of an inferior version of it.

Your rebuttal forgets the fact that P1 in my argument assumes that abstract objects have been ruled out as causes already,

How, in any way, did I "forget" anything? How, in any way, is it a "fact" that P1 rules out abstract objects? There is nothing about P1 which rules out abstract objects. That's why it's a false premise.

as establishing P4 is necessary for P1 to be sufficiently supported.

Again, if your argument is so dependent on the KCA, then just use the KCA.

Since Craig would agree that abstract opbjects have been ruled out, and that if the universe was caused, that cause is God, then he would still agree with the first premise.

He would not even think twice about your argument. His argument rules out abstract objects. Your argument doesn't. He would not agree with the first premise because it is a false dichotomy.

You forget that the support for P4 of his argument (which shows that if the universe had a cause, that cause is God and not abstract objects), is the sufficient support for P1 of the new argument. The support of P1 and P2 of his argument, is sufficient support (according to him) for P2 of my argument.

Then your argument doesn't stand on its own. It's simply an inferior version of a better argument.

Since P1 assumes abstract objects have been ruled out, then it would be illogical to include abstract objects as an option....

That's why it's false. It makes an assumption which has no support in the argument itself. The best you can say is "P1 is true because of some premise in the Kalam", but then you're just admitting that your argument is inferior, and that one may as well use the original because it has more scope and isn't completely and entirely dependent on some other argument.

You posted too soon, I already reworded the argument to be immune to your objections.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:05:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 5:58:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Actually, you do raise a point that it makes the argument easier to follow if I say:

P1: If God does not exist, the universe is either caused by something that is not God, or the universe is uncaused

P2: The universe is not caused by something that is not God, and the universe is not uncaused

C: Therefore, God exists.

This mirrors Craig's argument exactly, and gets to the conclusion in 2 less steps.