The notion of "creation of time" distinct from "creation of matter/energy" is absurd. The dogma is "Creation of heavens and earth" i.e. creation of the universe which is the totality of consistently interacting things. Time and space are not things in the sense we mean things. Time merely refers to changes in things.
Apparently Craig accepts the standard Copenhagen picture pf spontaneous appearance of particle in quantum vacuum. That he does without careful preparation of the grounds and without questioning the philosophical commitments of the Copenhagen school itself. If you admit that observers create reality by measuring quantum systems, you will not reach the notion of God as a necessary First Cause. This is noted by Morriston (pg 158). Given the lack of proper philosophical questioning of the Copenhagen from contemporary theists, unlike CS Lewis ("I can not believe this is what physicists actually mean") or Stanley Jaki, all arguments for the First Cause are going to flounder in the quantum sea.
It's been a while since I did any serious reading on the Kalam argument, but based on what I have read, I agree with Jeff that Wes Morriston is the Kalam argument's best critic and not just in this paper which only deals with the causal premise ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence"), but also his critique of the other premise ("The universe began to exist".)
Fiddling with the link VR provided, you can find a larger set of Wes's papers here.
I don't like Calam I like Clark's or my own. IO just posted an article about an article by a big name atheist philosopher on sec web that helps su[[prt the idea that the universe is not eternal. He rejects Kalam of course. Ultimately he ujnnwittingly backs it.
BTW Dr. R. Graham Oppy is picking n Argument from Reason at Sec outpost this morning.
I think the problem with Kalam is the argument about cau8saoity is inductive or empirical and it's structured into a deductive argument where it becomes invalid. argued in sup[ort of the CA it's a powerful argument.
Tillich did believe in arguments for God. He specially didn't like tye CA she would not like kalam. That had to do with his idea of God as being itself. He did not allow speaking God as existing because for him existing is what contingent things do. God is being itself. Makes it hard to argue or God's existence.
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI think Morriston is a Christian, so maybe that should be "the best response available to the atheist" or something similar.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of "creation of time" distinct from "creation of matter/energy" is absurd.
ReplyDeleteThe dogma is "Creation of heavens and earth" i.e. creation of the universe which is the totality of consistently interacting things. Time and space are not things in the sense we mean things. Time merely refers to changes in things.
Apparently Craig accepts the standard Copenhagen picture pf spontaneous appearance of particle in quantum vacuum. That he does without careful preparation of the grounds and without questioning the philosophical commitments of the Copenhagen school itself.
ReplyDeleteIf you admit that observers create reality by measuring quantum systems, you will not reach the notion of God as a necessary First Cause. This is noted by Morriston (pg 158).
Given the lack of proper philosophical questioning of the Copenhagen from contemporary theists, unlike CS Lewis ("I can not believe this is what physicists actually mean") or Stanley Jaki, all arguments for the First Cause are going to flounder in the quantum sea.
It's been a while since I did any serious reading on the Kalam argument, but based on what I have read, I agree with Jeff that Wes Morriston is the Kalam argument's best critic and not just in this paper which only deals with the causal premise ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence"), but also his critique of the other premise ("The universe began to exist".)
ReplyDeleteFiddling with the link VR provided, you can find a larger set of Wes's papers here.
I still find the argument fascinating though!
I don't like Calam I like Clark's or my own. IO just posted an article about an article by a big name atheist philosopher on sec web that helps su[[prt the idea that the universe is not eternal. He rejects Kalam of course. Ultimately he ujnnwittingly backs it.
ReplyDeleteMetacrocks' blog, uncaused universe
BTW Dr. R. Graham Oppy is picking n
ReplyDeleteArgument from Reason at Sec outpost this morning.
I think the problem with Kalam is the argument about cau8saoity is inductive or empirical and it's structured into a deductive argument where it becomes invalid. argued in sup[ort of the CA it's a powerful argument.
Of related interest, Feser has some interesting thoughts on the "Brute Force" argument here.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness to Craig, it should be pointed out that he has a response to this particular Wes Morriston paper here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-beginning-of-the-universe-have-a-personal-cause-a-rejoinder
Let's just say that Wes Morriston's arguments look a little less cogent when seen in the light of Craig's response.
22056
www.investigativeapologetics.wordpress.com
>I think Morriston is a Christian, so maybe that should be "the best response available to the atheist" or something similar.
ReplyDeleteWes Morriston is a follower & or fan of Paul Tillich. He is not an Atheist also Aquinas would not have agreed with the Kalam argument.
Tillich did believe in arguments for God. He specially didn't like tye CA she would not like kalam. That had to do with his idea of God as being itself. He did not allow speaking God as existing because for him existing is what contingent things do. God is being itself. Makes it hard to argue or God's existence.
ReplyDelete