dangerous idea: Craig replies to Quentin Smith on the initial singularity

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Labels: big bang, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Quentin Smith, William Lane Craig

6 Comments:

At May 29, 2009 11:09 AM , Matthew said...

Do you remember the Wilson-style-AFR where he said "Chemicals don't debate"? Smiths argument makes even less sense if you ask me.
At May 29, 2009 5:26 PM , Anonymous said...

I dislike talking about cosmology and apologetics. Bring up WLC, or Stephen Barr, etc, and suddenly everyone knows quantum mechanics.
At May 29, 2009 9:18 PM , Cruiserweight Boxer said...

Anon,
Are you saying that Stephen Barr doesn't know QM?
At May 29, 2009 10:45 PM , Anonymous said...

No. The people proving him wrong suddenly do. I'd show some respect if they'd cite arguments from non-Christian physicists, or had some kind of degree.
At May 30, 2009 11:14 AM , Ilíon said...

WLC: ""The most efficacious way to prove that God exists is on the supposition that the world is eternal," advised Thomas Aquinas. "For, if the world and motion have a first beginning, some cause must clearly be posited to account for this origin of the world and of motion . . . , since nothing brings itself from potency to act, or from non-being to being."{1} In Thomas's thinking, once it is conceded that the world began to exist, the argument is for all practical purposes over: it is obvious that a First Cause must exist. He therefore sought to prove God's existence on the more neutral presupposition of the eternity of the world; besides, the temporal finitude of the world could be known only by revelation, since the philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe were, in his opinion, unsound."

Is not the Argument from Reason also agnostic in regard to the question of the world having a beginning?
At May 30, 2009 11:29 AM , Jim S. said...

I think Smith has since accepted Craig's correction, that the singularity has no ontological existence. I seem to recall reading another of his essays where he points this out, and says it's the majority view of physical cosmologists.