This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
i prefer Clarke's CA to Kalam. avoid the messy first primes about things needing causesSoul, Mimd, Consciousness
Keep in mind that the only such things Craig cares about "needing causes" are those that begin to exist--a very cause-indicative effect.
My issue with the Kalam is its second premise. Although I think most of the evidence for it is impressive--making it a strong and persuasive argument, especially for appealing to our culture by referring to the sciences of observational astronomy and cosmology-- I am skeptical of the first philosophical argument Dr. Craig tends to give for the finitude of the past. How can you extrapolate from the Hilbert's hotel analogy that the existence of an actual infinite is metaphysically impossible?
How can you extrapolate from the Hilbert's hotel analogy that the existence of an actual infinite is metaphysically impossible?it seems pretty intuitive. there has to be a starting point or there's no reason for the wseries
Post a Comment