Argumentum ad William Lane Craigium

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Kalam cosmological argument is wrong.......Just ask any antitheist who wants to buck the implications of the Big Bang on materialism.

And it is wrong it is implied because it is supported by William Lane Craig who justifies old testament masacrees or so they say. So because Graig is a wrong un' everything he believes in is tainted.

But the Lane Craig effect in antitheism also is used in the advocacy of the rightness of philosophical naturalism.

[Shaker]

Vlad, that's not writing, that's typing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Kalam cosmological argument is wrong.......Just ask any antitheist who wants to buck the implications of the Big Bang on materialism.

And it is wrong it is implied because it is supported by William Lane Craig who justifies old testament masacrees or so they say. So because Graig is a wrong un' everything he believes in is tainted.

But the Lane Craig effect in antitheism also is used in the advocacy of the rightness of philosophical naturalism.
Sean Carroll has trounced Lane Craig in debate, it is suggested on another thread. Therefore we can accept his credentials. The man who advocates retiring Falsifiability from science.

Ah, the things those fundie antitheists say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

The Kalam cosmological argument is wrong....

Spot on so far...

...Just ask any antitheist...

Actually just ask anyone who understands what it entails and is capable of critical thinking. Whether or not he's an "antitheist" is entirely incidental to that, but ok....

...who wants to buck the implications of the Big Bang on materialism.

There are none that are relevant to your 'argument". Even if materialism failed in principle as well as - so far at least - in practice that would say nothing to iron-age myth as an alternative explanation.

And it is wrong it is implied because it is supported by William Lane Craig who justifies old testament masacrees or so they say. So because Graig is a wrong un' everything he believes in is tainted.

He does do that yes, but in this case he's wrong because he fails to grasp the facts and he argues his case poorly. That's all that's necessary for his wrongness.

But the Lane Craig effect in antitheism also is used in the advocacy of the rightness of philosophical naturalism.

1. There is no "Lane Craig effect".

2. There's nothing wrong with philosophical naturalism provided you stick to what it actually says and ignore your straw man version of it.

Apart from all that though...

Even by your standards this is pretty dim stuff Vlud.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally Vlud, what's with this weird bogeyman you've created for your latest ad hom - the "antitheist"?

It's entirely possible to be a fervent theist but to be able to work our that the cosmological argument is a crock. Or do you think that Aquinas was an "antitheist" too?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well Hillside

I'm going to ask you how the Kalam cosmological argument is wrong.

See if you can answer without mentioning William Lane Craig.

And I'm also going to ask you to advocate Sean Carroll also without reference to Lane Craig.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

I'm going to ask you how the Kalam cosmological argument is wrong.

It's been explained to you several times over on the thread about it. Why do you want the explanation repeated here?

See if you can answer without mentioning William Lane Craig.

WLC is barely mentioned on the relevant thread, and the rebuttals of the cosmological argument don't mention him at all.

And I'm also going to ask you to advocate Sean Carroll also without reference to Lane Craig.

Why on earth should I? I've read one book of his that was very good I think, and have read various articles and watched him in YouTube clips. In one of those he happens to take apart WLC, but for the most part his writings and presentations have nothing to do with WLC.

That on the other thread you misrepresented what Carroll does say is another matter, but that's for you to correct.

As - as ever - you've just ignored the rebuttal I posted to your OP here, should we take your silence as acquiescence?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlud,

It's been explained to you several times over on the thread about it. Why do you want the explanation repeated here?

WLC is barely mentioned on the relevant thread, and the rebuttals of the cosmological argument don't mention him at all.

Why on earth should I? I've read one book of his that was very good I think, and have read various articles and watched him in YouTube clips. In one of those he happens to take apart WLC, but for the most part his writing and presentations have nothing to do with WLC.

That on the other thread you misrepresented what Carroll does say is another matter, but that's for you to correct.

As - as ever - you've just ignored the rebuttal I posted to your OP here, should we take your silence as acquiescence?   

BBBBBBzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz William lane Craig mentioned in your reply.
You duck away from arguing against the Kalam cosmological principal with your usual ''already done'' schtick.

You just can't help yourself can you?

With regards Carroll. He is involved in science in the criticised for being as yet unproductive string theory and multiverse theory and a proponent of retiring Falsifiability from science.......any link there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

BBBBBBzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz William lane Craig mentioned in your reply.

Which reply?

You duck away from arguing against the Kalam cosmological principal with your usual ''already done'' schtick.

You of all people are accusing someone else of "ducking away"?!?!?!?!?

Anyway, it's not a "schtick" - just read the thread that's relevant to it.

You just can't help yourself can you?

From handing your arse to you in a sling? No.

With regards Carroll. He is involved in science in the criticised for being as yet unproductive string theory and multiverse theory and a proponent of retiring Falsifiability from science.......any link there?

No. As ever, you fail to understand what the people you seek to criticise actually say. Rather than vaguely cite an author and claim he's done something why not for once to do the decent thing and provide a citation? I've read some Carroll and never seen him to argue as you suggest. If you think he has done though, then tell us where.

Any news by the way on why you think "what's the origin of the universe then?" is a meaningful question, or for that matter on the method you propose to validate your "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" as objective fact daftness or should we expect more stony silence on both counts?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlud,

Which reply?

You of all people are accusing someone else of "ducking away"?!?!?!?!?

Anyway, it's not a "schtick" - just read the thread that's relevant to it.

From handing your arse to you in a sling? No.

No. As ever, you fail to understand what the people you seek to criticise actually say. Rather than vaguely cite an author and claim he's done something why not for once to do the decent thing and provide a citation? I've read some Carroll and never seen him to argue as you suggest. If you think he has done though, then tell us where.

Any news by the way on why you think "what's the origin of the universe then?" is a meaningful question, or for that matter on the method you propose to validate your "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" as objective fact daftness or should we expect more stony silence on both counts?

Hillside I shall not in fact take your arse and hand it back to you in a sling ......because of kindness and you needing something to talk out of.............Here is a little something Sean Carroll wrote :

http://edge.org/response-detail/25322

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

Hillside I shall not in fact take your arse and hand it back to you in a sling ......because of kindness and you needing something to talk out of.............

Could you at least try? After all, the traffic has hitherto been entirely the other way so if you did finally manage it (or even manage an argument of any kind) it could be good for my "soul"...

Here is a little something Sean Carroll wrote :

http://edge.org/response-detail/25322

No doubt. Given your track history of misunderstanding and misrepresentation though, why not tell us what you think he's saying and what relevance that might have to anything you're attempting to say here?

PS I'll take it that your continued silence is a "yes" to the question of whether you'll continue to ignore the basic questions that undo your position.

Ah well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlud,

Could you at least try? After all, the traffic has hitherto been entirely the other way so if you did finally manage it (or even manage an argument of any kind) it could be good for my "soul"...

No doubt. Given your track history of misunderstanding and misrepresentation though, why not tell us what you think he's saying and what relevance that might have to anything you're attempting to say here?

PS I'll take it that your continued silence is a "yes" to the question of whether you'll continue to ignore the basic questions that undo your position.

Ah well.

I'm happy for people to read Carroll themselves on falsifiability.
http://edge.org/response-detail/25322.

He knows that multiverse or anything that goes beyond the big bang is unfalsifiable. Science must therefore be conformed to philosophical naturalism and not visa versa. Elegance must rule in his book. Note the final appeal to nature ....which he has retranslated from the great observable to mean the elegance of multiverse theory.

I'm afraid it smacks of idolatry from all angles.

[jeremyp]

BBBBBBzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz William lane Craig mentioned in your reply.

Infantile at best.

[SqueakyVoice]

Oh, look. Chunsty is losing an argument on one thread, so rather than stop and contemplate  why that might be the case, he's started another thread based on his own bizarre interpretation of the argument up to that point.

Well you've been doing that for at least a couple of years now, how's it working out for you, Chunsty?

[Outrider]

I'm going to ask you how the Kalam cosmological argument is wrong.

Special pleading, exactly the same as it has been every time anyone's brought it up. What made you think it would suddenly be different now?

(See, no mention of 'He who must not be named'!!!)

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Special pleading, exactly the same as it has been every time anyone's brought it up. What made you think it would suddenly be different now?

(See, no mention of 'He who must not be named'!!!)

O.

Are you talking about that formulated by the philosopher Al Ghazali, which you seem to agree with to the max with your we infinite regression........ or the version suggested by The Dark Lord Craig whose name must not be mentioned?

[Outrider]

Are you talking about that formulated by the philosopher Al Ghazali, which you seem to agree with to the max with your we infinite regression........ or the version suggested by The Dark Lord Craig whose name must not be mentioned?

The classical Kalam Cosmological Argument is Al Ghazili's, which purports that everything which beings to exist must have a cause, unless that thing is God because otherwise the argument doesn't prove God. That version.

Al Ghazili does not fall back to infinite recourse, he arbitrarily decides physicality must have been caused by a god, and then to avoid the obvious 'what created god' decides that god is infinite, without explaining why the physical reality can't be infinite on its own. So, as I said in short, special pleading.

O.

[jeremyp]

The classical Kalam Cosmological Argument is Al Ghazili's, which purports that everything which beings to exist must have a cause, unless that thing is God because otherwise the argument doesn't prove God. That version.

Al Ghazili does not fall back to infinite recourse, he arbitrarily decides physicality must have been caused by a god, and then to avoid the obvious 'what created god' decides that god is infinite, without explaining why the physical reality can't be infinite on its own. So, as I said in short, special pleading.

O.

But he surely proved that the God of Islam is the one that exists (being a Muslim)? So if Vlad thinks the Kalam Cosmological Argument has any validity, he must be crapping himself that he has been in the wrong religion all his life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The classical Kalam Cosmological Argument is Al Ghazili's, which purports that everything which beings to exist must have a cause, unless that thing is God because otherwise the argument doesn't prove God. That version.

Al Ghazili does not fall back to infinite recourse, he arbitrarily decides physicality must have been caused by a god, and then to avoid the obvious 'what created god' decides that god is infinite, without explaining why the physical reality can't be infinite on its own. So, as I said in short, special pleading.

O.

But hang on rider. Infinite recourse gives us an uncreated God anyway.....unless you are specially pleading atheism.

[Outrider]

But hang on rider. Infinite recourse gives us an uncreated God anyway.....unless you are specially pleading atheism.

How does inifinite material recourse - remember, the infinite recourse is a deduction from the universality of material cause and effect - result in the spontaneous requirement for a non-material, nonsensical god?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does inifinite material recourse - remember, the infinite recourse is a deduction from the universality of material cause and effect - result in the spontaneous requirement for a non-material, nonsensical god?

O.

We don't know whether it can or cannot. But since you are proposing infinite material....why something and not nothing?

[Outrider]

We don't know whether it can or cannot. But since you are proposing infinite material....why something and not nothing?

Because everything we have evidence for is something - even the things we traditionally think of as 'nothing - hard vacuum, for instance - at the quantum level turn out to be something, even if that something is 'only' potential. The existence of anti-matter means that 'nothing' is a balance point anyway, not an absolute lower limit of anything.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because everything we have evidence for is something - even the things we traditionally think of as 'nothing - hard vacuum, for instance - at the quantum level turn out to be something, even if that something is 'only' potential. The existence of anti-matter means that 'nothing' is a balance point anyway, not an absolute lower limit of anything.

O.

That as they say is no answer to the question why something and not nothing....is it?

Just like that bum answer to the universe. ''It's just here isn't it''.

[Outrider]

That as they say is no answer to the question why something and not nothing....is it?

It's a perfectly good answer to the question why have I not considered other things, which is what you asked.

Just like that bum answer to the universe. ''It's just here isn't it''.

That's only a 'bum answer' once you've explained why you think the question 'why something and not nothing' is valid. In what way does 'why' have any sense, here, you are presuming a causitive intelligence in presuming there has to be a reason for something.

There's a cause at each stage, certainly, and with data we could find out about that cause, maybe someday we will, but that cause will be an effect of an earlier cause and so on.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a perfectly good answer to the question why have I not considered other things, which is what you asked.

That's only a 'bum answer' once you've explained why you think the question 'why something and not nothing' is valid. In what way does 'why' have any sense, here, you are presuming a causitive intelligence in presuming there has to be a reason for something.

There's a cause at each stage, certainly, and with data we could find out about that cause, maybe someday we will, but that cause will be an effect of an earlier cause and so on.

O.

Sorry O you've been caught fine tuning not only your suggested infinite universes but also the questions you are prepared to accept as valid...and all to suit your argument.