William Lane Craig and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[YesNo]

I'm confused about one thing in Craig's explanation of the Kalam argument that you might know, stuntpickle. He claimed that the cause of the universe was "personal". I don't know what he meant by that.

The way I see it, a choice had to be made by this cause. That meant the cause had to be conscious in some way in order to make that choice. I don't know what that consciousness is, but I wonder if it is related to the "personal" aspect of the cause that Craig claimed is required.

Do you know?

[stuntpickle]

I'm confused about one thing in Craig's explanation of the Kalam argument that you might know, stuntpickle. He claimed that the cause of the universe was "personal". I don't know what he meant by that.

The way I see it, a choice had to be made by this cause. That meant the cause had to be conscious in some way in order to make that choice. I don't know what that consciousness is, but I wonder if it is related to the "personal" aspect of the cause that Craig claimed is required.

Do you know?

By "personal" Craig means relating to a person or personhood-- that the cause must be some sort of person capable of choosing.

[MorpheusSandman]

Stunt,

I don't know why you keep bringing up "debating the existence to God." Every single point I've made (at least in our debate: YesNo and I got off-track) has been directly--not indirectly, not roundaboutly--related to the the arguments that are a part of the KCA. So you claiming I'm just trying to debate about God is a strawman. I also don't know what you mean about me being "hostile" and "dishonest". Even in my "three points" post I stated, very clearly, "Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about (nothing)." Note "seems to be." I did not say "Craig IS," I said he "seems to be," and I based this observation ON HIS ARGUMENTS. I did not invent his own arguments, I'm merely saying that when he, himself, talks of nothing, he doesn't specify what meaning of the word he's using, and, in fact, his examples seem to argue for a very different type of nothing. Thus far, you've completely failed to address this fact, and have preferred to shift the argument to my inadequacies and how you perceive me of being "dishonest" and "unqualified" and "hostile."

You'd like to blame me and me alone for making this "mistake," but considering you seem to know next to nothing about semiotics, let me take a moment to enlighten you to your own inadequacy: communication is a two-way street. When a student misunderstands a teacher, it is not automatically the student's fault. The teacher could be a bad teacher, the teacher could even be knowingly manipulative in order to get the students to believe what they believe. So far, all you've done to defend Craig is point out his credentials, and I've simply stated that I don't doubt Craig knows what he's talking about, but as to whether he's relating this lucidly/clearly to his audiences is another matter, especially when the option is out there that he could be knowingly manipulating them by playing upon their metaphysical intuitions of one word, while using it himself in a completely different matter.

If by "me committing" you're referring to my original statement: "Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about (nothing)," then I stand by it. Because "seems to be" qualifies the statement as a perception about what's going on, not an absolute statement of what's going on. What you need to do now is argue as to why that perception is wrong, to argue why people are unreasonable and dense for thinking Craig means "empty space nothing" when he uses examples from the material world. You haven't even once attempted to do this, and your insistence on switching the argument around to my level of competence, my hostility, dishonesty, and "unwilling to concede a point" is just a smokescreen. But why would I expect anything less from a follower of the master of smokescreens?

[stuntpickle]

Stunt,

I don't know why you keep bringing up "debating the existence to God." Every single point I've made (at least in our debate: YesNo and I got off-track) has been directly--not indirectly, not roundaboutly--related to the the arguments that are a part of the KCA. So you claiming I'm just trying to debate about God is a strawman. I also don't know what you mean about me being "hostile" and "dishonest". Even in my "three points" post I stated, very clearly, "Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about (nothing)." Note "seems to be." I did not say "Craig IS," I said he "seems to be," and I based this observation ON HIS ARGUMENTS. I did not invent his own arguments, I'm merely saying that when he, himself, talks of nothing, he doesn't specify what meaning of the word he's using, and, in fact, his examples seem to argue for a very different type of nothing. Thus far, you've completely failed to address this fact, and have preferred to shift the argument to my inadequacies and how you perceive me of being "dishonest" and "unqualified" and "hostile."

You'd like to blame me and me alone for making this "mistake," but considering you seem to know next to nothing about semiotics, let me take a moment to enlighten you to your own inadequacy: communication is a two-way street. When a student misunderstands a teacher, it is not automatically the student's fault. The teacher could be a bad teacher, the teacher could even be knowingly manipulative in order to get the students to believe what they believe. So far, all you've done to defend Craig is point out his credentials, and I've simply stated that I don't doubt Craig knows what he's talking about, but as to whether he's relating this lucidly/clearly to his audiences is another matter, especially when the option is out there that he could be knowingly manipulating them by playing upon their metaphysical intuitions of one word, while using it himself in a completely different matter.

If by "me committing" you're referring to my original statement: "Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about (nothing)," then I stand by it. Because "seems to be" qualifies the statement as a perception about what's going on, not an absolute statement of what's going on. What you need to do now is argue as to why that perception is wrong, to argue why people are unreasonable and dense for thinking Craig means "empty space nothing" when he uses examples from the material world. You haven't even once attempted to do this, and your insistence on switching the argument around to my level of competence, my hostility, dishonesty, and "unwilling to concede a point" is just a smokescreen. But why would I expect anything less from a follower of the master of smokescreens?

Is it really a surprise that I'm not eager to address your "arguments?" I mean, you did demonstrate that you had no understanding of what metaphysics actually means or what a valid argument is. You accused a PhD philosopher of equivocating while, at the same time, equivocating yourself. These aren't errors in isolation, but rather the very essence of what you're calling your "arguments". I mean, really, how am I supposed to have a discussion about a metaphysical argument with a person who did not until a few days ago understand that his own naturalism was, itself, a properly metaphysical belief?

What I don't think you understand is that I'm not simply defending Craig. I would probably say the same sorts of things had you accused Shelly Kagan of equivocating. Both Craig and Kagan are obviously more capable thinkers than either of us. Listening to you critique Craig is like listening to a first-time opera-goer explain why opera is awful: it's completely wrongheaded and seemingly ignorant of what's actually going on. I'm not suggesting that the Kalam is unassailable, but I know enough to understand the avenues of approach a reasonable person might take in objecting. You, on the other hand, are wondering through the desert in the wrong direction, bud. So why don't I want to address your arguments? The same reason I don't want to argue with the guy who thinks the lady singing is fat and has an ugly wig.

Your entire first point has already been decided--with or without your approval or awareness. I can't help it if you refuse to see it. You were wrong. You lost. In case you missed it, it turned out you didn't really have a point.

By your own admission you "have misunderstood what Craig meant by nothing," and since this is, itself, the basis of the objection, then we can safely assume that "your misunderstanding" and your own faulty presuppositions of what Craig meant do not constitute "serious flaws" of the Kalam. And since your accusation that Craig had equivocated turned out to be entirely unwarranted, then there's no reason to continue belaboring the point. Your own befuddlement doesn't constitute a flaw in Craig's argument. It's not my job to correct your misapprehensions, and if ever I decided to do such a thing, I would require a far more persuadable subject than you.

If you take out the equivocation, all you're left with is that you don't understand why Craig uses the examples he does. Your own lack of understanding does not a "serious" objection make. Without the equivocation, there's no flaw in your first flaw.

Ready for more on #2?

P.S. More irony:

I did not invent his own arguments, I'm merely saying that when he, himself, talks of nothing, he doesn't specify what meaning of the word he's using, and, in fact, his examples seem to argue for a very different type of nothing. Thus far, you've completely failed to address this fact, and have preferred to shift the argument to my inadequacies and how you perceive me of being "dishonest" and "unqualified" and "hostile."

And you wonder why I call you dishonest. You say Craig has never explained what he means by "nothing". You can't be serious. He does just that in the same video you, yourself, quoted and does it immediately after the section you quoted, and he keeps explaining it well into the next segment. He means "not anything." And he says exactly that. I hope you're kidding yourself because you're not kidding anyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnHO8seI8Js

The relevant section begins at 24:40. He even reads from Plato at 26:20 to give the history of what he means by "out of nothing..." This conversation is so ridiculous.

[MorpheusSandman]

Stunt,

No, I'm not ready for Question 2, and If you're going to continue in this manner then I'm not ready for anything more because it's becoming blatantly apparent you'd rather attack me than address anything I've said.

You say Craig has never explained what he means by "nothing".

Please go back and find where I said he "never" (as in never at any point in any debate or any text) explained this. When you find that I never said that, maybe I can go on to question who's being dishonest.

In fact, I'm going to go back through all of my posts since this started and quote exactly what I said on this matter:

My argument is that Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about this, from using observational examples from natural reality, to talking about the singularity, to talking about everything prior to spacetime. In all cases, his nothing doesn't seem to be nothing in absolute sense

...why if NFC is so important does Craig constantly refer to examples of things coming from other things inside material reality?

...Perhaps you’re correct in that Craig has never equivocated on nothing meaning NFC in print, but I’m mostly familiar with his debates, and in those debates when he argues for P1 he always uses examples from material reality, that such-and-such things don’t appear out of nothing... Even if I accept Craig is always using “nothing” to mean “CAN,” that stresses all the more why he should specify that to his lay audiences at his debates rather than just rattling off “NFC” and then giving examples from material reality.

I already conceded that I could definitely be wrong that Craig is knowingly equivocating, but I drew this inference based on his own arguments, of which I quote below. If I was wrong about how Craig was using nothing, then I suspect many people are wrong about it, and I don’t think you can blame us for being wrong based on how Craig makes the argument.

Craig is a very careful and powerful rhetorician... he should know that when you use examples from material reality, where there is always “something” so far as we can and have observed, that people will equate “nothing” with being related to whatever material examples that are given. The fact that we as people regularly equate nothing with merely the absence of some things (like you said in your “nothing is what everyone just showed you”), then it is not fair to use the absence of some things as an argument for “nothing from CAN”. It creates natural equivocations in the minds of audiences...

If Craig always has CAN in mind when discussing nothing, he should be more diligent about making this clear, and one way to do that would be to STOP using examples from material reality. When he says “Surely an Eskimo village can’t come into existence out of nothing!”* most people will think “yes, that’s right, if nobody was around to build a village then it wouldn’t just appear on its own in Alaska!” What they will think about isn’t an Eskimo village popping into being where there’s CAN, but rather they’ll think of “nothing” as, say, everything in Alaska sans an Eskimo village.

Now, one consistency throughout all of these posts is that I'm essentially saying this: "If Craig is using 'nothing' in the CAN sense, then it is unfair of him to use examples from material reality to argue 'nothing from CAN' because it creates equivocations in the mind of the audience."

THAT is the point you have repeatedly side-stepped and utterly refused to address. You'd rather make all kinds of hay-maker accusations about me than you would to simply say: "You're absolutely correct. Craig's own examples do imply that the nothing he's talking about is equated to a physical reality we know to exist, rather than a CAN that is only theoretical." That's all I'm asking you to admit. And then you either have to concede that Craig is being unknowingly manipulative or knowingly manipulative (and, given his credentials and him knowing that there are multiple associations with the word "nothing," I'd lean towards the latter). The fact that Craig decides to define "nothing" in that video AFTER he has already made his example arguments from material reality does nothing to alleviate the point about this creating equivocations in the audience. In fact, it's a common tactic known as bait-and-switch. Hook them in with their own metaphysical intuitions using examples of one kind of nothing from material reality, and then switch to talking about a completely different kind of nothing later. Craig has been called out on this before (once in another video I already posted above).

So I will still be waiting for you to address the above.

Oh, and, btw, even in the explanation Craig gives, he still just blows by a naked assertion rather quick-like. When scientists say "nothing preceded the universe" they aren't talking about the philosophical CAN either, they're talking about the absence of space, time, and matter. That something else could still be there is still entirely a possibility. So Craig's still wrong. The fact that he's using Plato in light of modern science is still silly.

[stuntpickle]

No, I'm not ready for Question 2, and If you're going to continue in this manner then I'm not ready for anything more because it's becoming blatantly apparent you'd rather attack me than address anything I've said.

Of course, you're not ready. No narcissist is ever ready to have his sophomoric errors paraded before everyone. Perhaps you'd prefer to have another discussion of formalism to make yourself feel better. Unfortunately, I'm going to reveal all the other fallacies in your silly little list eventually anyway. But I admit it is fun to watch stick your foot in your mouth over and over again. Perhaps one of these days you'll actually make an effort to know what you're talking about.

Please go back and find where I said he "never" (as in never at any point in any debate or any text) explained this. When you find that I never said that, maybe I can go on to question who's being dishonest.

You're splitting semantic hairs. Saying someone "does NOT do something" and saying someone "never does something" is essentially the same. In fact, most style guides recommend the latter. You say something and then immediately take it back when someone proves you wrong. And frankly, you're wrong an awful lot.

THAT is the point you have repeatedly side-stepped and utterly refused to address. You'd rather make all kinds of hay-maker accusations about me than you would to simply say: "You're absolutely correct. Craig's own examples do imply that the nothing he's talking about is equated to a physical reality we know to exist, rather than a CAN that is only theoretical." That's all I'm asking you to admit. And then you either have to concede that Craig is being unknowingly manipulative or knowingly manipulative (and, given his credentials and him knowing that there are multiple associations with the word "nothing," I'd lean towards the latter). The fact that Craig decides to define "nothing" in that video AFTER he has already made his example arguments from material reality does nothing to alleviate the point about this creating equivocations in the audience. In fact, it's a common tactic known as bait-and-switch. Hook them in with their own metaphysical intuitions using examples of one kind of nothing from material reality, and then switch to talking about a completely different kind of nothing later. Craig has been called out on this before (once in another video I already posted above).

So I will still be waiting for you to address the above.

I destroyed your entire fallacious accusation, and just because you're incapable of understanding that doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. You lost. You don't know what equivocation means, so you should probably stop accusing people of doing it. I'm not about to pretend to have a philosophical discussion with someone who doesn't even have a basic grasp of the most fundamental philosophical principles and whose entire worldview is a hodgepodge of contrasting cliches.

Here is your first point in all its erroneous entirety:

1. The Problem of Nothing

Most of my last post was related to Craig's definition of "nothing" in his "ex nihilo nihil fit" argument that he has stated argues for the first premise. My argument is that Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about this, from using observational examples from natural reality, to talking about the singularity, to talking about everything prior to spacetime. In all cases, his nothing doesn't seem to be nothing in absolute sense, so his entire basis for using that classic argument crumbles, as does his basis for accepting P1 as true.

So if, as you've conceded, Craig isn't equivocating and he does, in fact, make clear that his nothing is "absolute", then your entire objection evaporates. All the other quotes you provide are from you backpedaling from the initial point.

You lost. You conceded every point you originally tried to make. All you're doing now is kicking and screaming like a child because you're angry.

Perhaps you should go back to discussing literary theory, where all bad philosophy goes to die.

[YesNo]

I'm not sure I'm following all the nuances of the discussion about nothing, but I want to state what I think is critical for me in this: is it possible for something to come into existence without any sort of cause whether this is within space-time or not? That is, can it come into existence totally by chance and without any material out of which it came (from nothing).

I don't think that is possible.

Does anyone think that is possible?

If it is not possible, then the beginning of the universe had a cause. Since the beginning of the universe in the standard model of cosmology includes the beginning of space and time as well, there appears to be no material cause to the universe, which is what would ground a determinism and which science could study. But even though there is no material cause, there still has to be a cause. All that is left is an efficient cause--something powerful enough to create a universe out of nothing that made a choice to do so.

[stuntpickle]

I'm not sure I'm following all the nuances of the discussion about nothing, but I want to state what I think is critical for me in this: is it possible for something to come into existence without any sort of cause whether this is within space-time or not? That is, can it come into existence totally by chance and without any material out of which it came (from nothing).

I don't think that is possible.

Does anyone think that is possible?

If it is not possible, then the beginning of the universe had a cause. Since the beginning of the universe in the standard model of cosmology includes the beginning of space and time as well, there appears to be no material cause to the universe, which is what would ground a determinism and which science could study. But even though there is no material cause, there still has to be a cause. All that is left is an efficient cause--something powerful enough to create a universe out of nothing that made a choice to do so.

If you're referring to the "discussion" I'm having with Morpheus, then there are no nuances. Of course, he'd probably try to debate the validity of the word "no". He's just saying Craig's equivocating, but, wait, he says he isn't saying that. He's saying that Craig doesn't explain what he means by nothing, but, wait, he says he isn't saying that. There's absolutely nothing intricate or involved about our discussion. Morpheus has resorted to obfuscation, the last refuge of a failed debater. He's trying to confuse the point since he can't properly refute it.

[YesNo]

I agree that Craig is not equivocating. I don't see anything wrong with his arguments in using the Kalam. Apparently, even Dawkins doesn't. My concern is only marginally related to the discussion you are having with MorpheusSandman.

What I am trying to do is make sure that I am not missing something. Is there any other place where we could assume that something comes from nothing, or if there is something, that is, if there is a material cause, that Chance is the efficient cause? I think I am using "material" and "efficient" correctly here, but I don't know much philosophy and I know these are technical terms.

EDIT: I thought of a way of expressing my concern: Can Chance ever be the efficient cause of anything?

For me, chance is only a probabilistic model and covers our ignorance of the actual cause. There is no Chance that is an efficient cause of anything. Or, to put this in other words, an efficient cause is either deterministic or it is the result of a free choice. There is no non-deterministic, non-choice efficient cause of anything.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Aristotle's Four Causes and Bacon's restriction of them to material and efficient causes as far as science is concerned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

[stuntpickle]

I agree that Craig is not equivocating. I don't see anything wrong with his arguments in using the Kalam. Apparently, even Dawkins doesn't. My concern is only marginally related to the discussion you are having with MorpheusSandman.

What I am trying to do is make sure that I am not missing something. Is there any other place where we could assume that something comes from nothing, or if there is something, that is, if there is a material cause, that Chance is the efficient cause? I think I am using "material" and "efficient" correctly here, but I don't know much philosophy and I know these are technical terms.

There's no instance where we can assume that something comes from nothing. What people like Krauss seem not to understand is that when someone asserts something to be true, they assert that it is true in principle. So to say that something can come from nothing is to state that such is a workable principle and generally applicable. If we accept that something can come from nothing, then the foremost devastation will be done to science, as science presumes that material effects result from explicable mechanisms, which is to say science, more than any other discipline, presupposes the essence of the Kalam's first premise. Craig is right when he says that if we accept such inanities as something can come from nothing, then it becomes impossible to explain why things don't just pop inexplicably into existence all the time. What he's rightly pointing out is that to claim that something can come from nothing is to attempt to destroy every variety of human inquiry, all of which presuppose that things operate according to some basic reliable mechanisms.

The sort of argument that is now occurring is precisely why I stopped being an atheist. I realized that most atheists, myself included, were refuting their own worldview in order to deny the existence of God. The difference between me and most other atheists, I believe, is that when I realized this, I changed positions. The sort of irrational obstinance I often see demonstrated among atheists isn't really an "atheistic" characteristic, but a human one. Most persons don't know why they think what they think. And when the errors of their thinking have been pointed out, they simply try to find some other means to rationalize the position they had already presupposed.

The truth is that you needn't take anyone who takes issue with the Kalam's first premise seriously. The first premise is one of the most banal, uncontroversial ideas in all philosophy, and any attempt to undermine it, will result in undermining one's own capacity to prosecute the issue. If things really don't work according to intelligible mechanisms, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything.

The truth is that reasonable objections to the Kalam are made against the second premise. The second premise is an inductive inference that is, although the current consensus, controversial. Of course, any objection to the second premise would generally require a a certain amount of specialized knowledge that most persons don't have, so rather than just give up before things get started, most atheists prefer to attack the first premise without understanding the consequences. When an actual atheist philosopher, like Quentin Smith, tries to refute the Kalam, he gives a very intricate explanation of a different cosmological view based loosely on relativity. He doesn't lodge absurd complaints that impeach his own capacity as a speaker.

[YesNo]

When an actual atheist philosopher, like Quentin Smith, tries to refute the Kalam, he gives a very intricate explanation of a different cosmological view based loosely on relativity. He doesn't lodge absurd complaints that impeach his own capacity as a speaker.

I thought Craig's and Quentin Smith's Theism, Atheism, and the Big Bang Cosmology was more informative than the debates Craig had with Hitchens or Krauss. I'm going to read it again.

[MorpheusSandman]

Stunt,

Let's just stop this discussion. It's gone from being interesting to just being unpleasant, in general. You are so concerned with insisting I said things I never said, and so concerned about killing a strawman, that you have completely ignored the same argument I've made on this subject in every post since my very first one. You have singled out one part of that one argument, attempted to twist it into something it never was, and have completely ignored the reasoning behind that point. The fact that I've repeated the same thing countless times now, even going back through the thread and quoting myself where I mentioned it in every post, yet you STILL refuse to address it, is proof of YOUR dishonesty, not mine.

I thought of a way of expressing my concern: Can Chance ever be the efficient cause of anything?

YesNo, I've tried to explain this several times by now, but chance has never been said to "cause" anything, things have been said to happen BY chance but not BECAUSE OF chance. That's a key difference. Our entire understanding of cause is bound up in the realm of spacetime where variables acting on something can be predicted to occur at a certain point of time and space. Take gravity; we say we "understand" gravity because we can calculate with scary accuracy exactly at what point an object will hit the ground, or fly around a gravitational field. If we see a brick go through a window, we say the broken window was "caused" by the brick because we witness this event in spacetime, where there's a continuum between the brick being thrown, landing on the other side, and going through the window, leaving the window broken.

The entire point of evoking "chance" in terms of the universe's origin is that, outside of spacetime, and in the realm of quantum physics, there seems to be no predictable outcomes. Things just happen, and even though we can calculate probability, this is hardly the same thing as saying we understand the cause and the mechanism of those quantum events. Craig likes to make the argument that virtual particles are "caused" by the fluctuating energies, but, again, if you can't predict it, then how can it be a cause? That's why I said early on that contingency is not the same as cause. Cause is, and always has been, a much more precise term. It's the difference in saying the window breaking was contingent on the window being made at all, but the window being made did not cause the brick to go through it. Similarly, virtual particles are reliant upon the fluctuating energies, but saying those energies are the cause of virtual particles is dubious.

One thing to keep in mind was that Eisenstein's General Relativity shattered our first real understanding of causal physics, and quantum physics shattered our second real understanding of causal physics, and people are still trying to reconcile them. The notion that we have had our understanding of cause severely shaken twice within the span of one century should be enough to pause our reliance on it and, if nothing else, to try and parse exactly what our understanding of causality is and how that relates to quantum physics and events outside of spacetime. I honestly don't understand why Stunt thinks that atheists have to "violate" their worldview in challenging the first premise, because accepting that events happen by chance does not destroy our epistemology. And even if it did, we'd be willing to accept it. One can't impose what they want to believe on to reality, and even if we've staked our materialism in natural causes, then all that happens is that we shift that to natural chance that create a system in which natural causes exist. It's what I've often called the fishbowl analogy; we're living in a system that is the universe with its own laws that we observe. When we're talking about how the universe started, it's not reasonable to think that what we observe from the fishbowl holds outside of it.

[stuntpickle]

Stunt,

Let's just stop this discussion. It's gone from being interesting to just being unpleasant, in general. You are so concerned with insisting I said things I never said, and so concerned about killing a strawman, that you have completely ignored the same argument I've made on this subject in every post since my very first one. You have singled out one part of that one argument, attempted to twist it into something it never was, and have completely ignored the reasoning behind that point. The fact that I've repeated the same thing countless times now, even going back through the thread and quoting myself where I mentioned it in every post, yet you STILL refuse to address it, is proof of YOUR dishonesty, not mine.

Look, Morpheus, you just don't understand the conversation at all. What Craig is doing in his examples is called reductio ad absurdum, and it attempts to reduce a position to its absurd extremities to prove its falsity. You see, when anyone proposes that a statement is true, they assert that it is TRUE IN PRINCIPLE. So when someone states that it is true that something can come from nothing, they are proposing it is true generally. Craig isn't giving us examples from his worldview, but yours. He's stating that if you assert that something can come from nothing then the following examples are consistent with your worldview. A 747 appearing in your bed for no reason would be, according to the atheist's proposition, logical. When you start asserting that this doesn't adhere to his idea of an immaterial God or that there is some fundamental inconsistency with his own worldview, you demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what is happening at this point in the conversation. He has no obligation to demonstrate some manner of immateriality since he's trying to conform to the atheist's proposition(nor would he otherwise).

I say the following without any malice whatsoever: you have no clue what is going on in the conversation. I have tried multiple times to tell you, but you're just absolutely unpersuadable. You keep demonstrating that you don't understand what's being talked about, whether it's metaphysics, fallacies of equivocation, or this or that point of fact. I can only try so many times to engage with you in this manner.

You keep saying that I'm ignoring your "arguments" but the truth is that you're not making any and don't seem to know how to go about doing so. You're making a ton of bald assertions from which no reasonable, consequential, relevant conclusion can be drawn. It's just mistake after mistake.

As an exercise, you should try to form a logically concluding argument from that mountain of "stuff" you said about Craig equivocating or using material examples, and it should conclude in direct opposition to the point you're trying to refute, which is the natural criterion for even having an objection to begin with, to say nothing of a good one. If your point is that Craig is wrong, then your argument would need to conclude with that. If your point is NOT that Craig is wrong, then you've lost all purchase on the original point about there being some fundamental flaw in the Kalam.

All this would be forgivable were you not such an impudent liar. Ignorance I can forgive. Intellectual dishonesty is more difficult. And, by the way, just parroting back whatever I said about you to me isn't at all impressive. In grade school I believe that's the called the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense.

And I'm still going to dismantle all the other fallacies in your little list regardless of whether you want me to. I simply cannot tolerate the falsity of it.

I honestly don't understand why Stunt thinks that atheists have to "violate" their worldview in challenging the first premise

Just add that to the already long list of things you don't understand.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/

in the realm of quantum physics, there seems to be no predictable outcomes.

This is, I believe, a gross misstatement. Quantum mechanics is generally thought to involve probabilistic predictions rather than deterministic ones, which is altogether different from having "no predictable outcomes." Heisenberg's indeterminacy was about accuracy of predictions rather than their possibility. Perfectly precise predictions are thought to be impossible, not predictions altogether.

Consider this:

One electron will be stripped away from a helium atom that is exposed to ultraviolet light below a certain wavelength. This threshold wavelength can be determined experimentally to very high accuracy: it is

50.425 929 9 ± 0.000 000 4 nanometers.
The threshold wavelength can also be calculated from quantum mechanics: this prediction is

50.425 931 0 ± 0.000 002 0 nanometers.
The agreement between observation and quantum mechanics is extraordinary. If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand. In contrast, classical mechanics predicts that any wavelength of light will strip away an electron, that is, that there will be no threshold at all.

http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstye...eQM/intro.html

Besides, there isn't really a clear understanding about what's going on with quantum phenomena. As I understand there are ten currently viable theories, and some of them are actually deterministic. As I understand it, most persons assume a more complete theory will emerge eventually, and right now we're still grappling with our ignorance of what's actually happening.

[Darcy88]

Praise to Craig. He fights the sick and stupid attitude which atheists have which says that Christians are retarded. He's the man. Even if I disagree with him scientifically at least he fights the arrogance rampant among atheists.

[YesNo]

YesNo, I've tried to explain this several times by now, but chance has never been said to "cause" anything, things have been said to happen BY chance but not BECAUSE OF chance. That's a key difference. Our entire understanding of cause is bound up in the realm of spacetime where variables acting on something can be predicted to occur at a certain point of time and space. Take gravity; we say we "understand" gravity because we can calculate with scary accuracy exactly at what point an object will hit the ground, or fly around a gravitational field. If we see a brick go through a window, we say the broken window was "caused" by the brick because we witness this event in spacetime, where there's a continuum between the brick being thrown, landing on the other side, and going through the window, leaving the window broken.

I agree with what you are saying about chance. What I am trying to do is eliminate chance as a cause in my own mind. As I see it, if chance cannot be an efficient cause, then the Kalam argument is sound and the conclusion follows. That means atheism has been completely invalidated.

So at the beginning of the universe there was nothing, at least nothing that depends on space and time for existence since there was no space and time. That means the universe did not have a material cause. Since it came into being, it must have had an efficient cause. What I am trying to do is argue that that efficient cause is not chance, which we agree on. A deterministic process would require a material cause, but no material cause exists. (Some speculate that there is a multiverse which would provide a material cause and a ground for determinism, but even that had a beginning according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theory Craig mentioned.) So, unless chance is involved as a cause, the efficient cause created the world as a choice, that is, out of freedom.

I don't think this has to be a "person" as Craig suggests simply because the word person is unclear, but the efficient cause has to have enough consciousness to make a choice. Saying that this cause is "conscious" is more powerful to me than saying it is a "person".

The entire point of evoking "chance" in terms of the universe's origin is that, outside of spacetime, and in the realm of quantum physics, there seems to be no predictable outcomes. Things just happen, and even though we can calculate probability, this is hardly the same thing as saying we understand the cause and the mechanism of those quantum events. Craig likes to make the argument that virtual particles are "caused" by the fluctuating energies, but, again, if you can't predict it, then how can it be a cause? That's why I said early on that contingency is not the same as cause. Cause is, and always has been, a much more precise term. It's the difference in saying the window breaking was contingent on the window being made at all, but the window being made did not cause the brick to go through it. Similarly, virtual particles are reliant upon the fluctuating energies, but saying those energies are the cause of virtual particles is dubious.

Although one may not be able to predict the outcome accurately, one can still point to a cause. For example, take the changes in price of a stock index. These are not always predictable, but the cause of the change is obvious. The change is caused by people making transactions, or programming computers to make these transactions for them.

One thing to keep in mind was that Eisenstein's General Relativity shattered our first real understanding of causal physics, and quantum physics shattered our second real understanding of causal physics, and people are still trying to reconcile them. The notion that we have had our understanding of cause severely shaken twice within the span of one century should be enough to pause our reliance on it and, if nothing else, to try and parse exactly what our understanding of causality is and how that relates to quantum physics and events outside of spacetime. I honestly don't understand why Stunt thinks that atheists have to "violate" their worldview in challenging the first premise, because accepting that events happen by chance does not destroy our epistemology. And even if it did, we'd be willing to accept it. One can't impose what they want to believe on to reality, and even if we've staked our materialism in natural causes, then all that happens is that we shift that to natural chance that create a system in which natural causes exist. It's what I've often called the fishbowl analogy; we're living in a system that is the universe with its own laws that we observe. When we're talking about how the universe started, it's not reasonable to think that what we observe from the fishbowl holds outside of it.

I think we are in agreement regarding chance. When events "happen by chance" I think we both mean that we do not know enough about the cause to determine the outcome but we still can use a probabilistic model to predict the outcome.

However, if "happen by chance" means that chance itself was the cause, then that would "destroy our epistemology", if I understand the issue correctly. The reason to make chance the cause of the universe's creation is to try to guarantee that no consciousness was involved making a choice that resulted in the creation of the universe. Saying that chance was the efficient cause would do that.

Now that we know that the universe had a beginning, we still have the fishbowl. However, previously we thought the universe was the whole of the fishbowl. Now we realize it is just a part of it. It is just another fish inside the fishbowl. Previously, the fishbowl contained eternity since we assumed the universe was eternal (mainly to avoid an efficient first cause of the universe). Now we are forced to accept that the universe is not eternal. We are forced to deal with an efficient cause of the universe. We see that the fishbowl is bigger than we thought it was. The fishbowl still contains eternity. It is just different than we thought it was previously.

Imposing one's belief on reality has nothing to do with the Kalam argument. One must be careful not to try to impose an atheistic belief system onto reality as well. Atheism is a belief system just as surely as Christianity is especially now that we know that the universe had a beginning without a material cause, out of nothing as Krauss wants to argue.