Started 2 months ago (2009-09-17 23:23:00)
by tcampen
I think WLC looks at an infinite past as being unable to traverse that infinite to arrive at the present. This has several problems, however. The concept of "traverse" really can only apply to
two or more discrete points. The very argument uses the term "past" as a discrete point gramatically, where it is really an abstract concept. The moment you identify the two are more actual points to ...
Started 2 months, 3 weeks ago (2009-08-29 21:06:00)
by icepick
Hello mr. Chubster,
The Kalam view of
the first cause doesnt have the properties of nothing, but rather has properties much akin to those of traditional monotheism, i.e. omnipotent, creator of time and space, personal, etc.
The questions you raise are good ones, and I believe they can be addressed in the following fashion: If you accept premises 1 and 2, you must accept the ...
Started 3 months, 4 weeks ago (2009-07-27 00:11:00)
by Tisthammerw
Quote: Originally Posted by Mycol You, Dr. Craig, state that objective moral duties are what God commands us to do. You dismiss the charge that God’s commands (and hence our objective moral duties) could be
arbitrarily declared by God because God’s commands are expressions of His perfect moral virtues which are essential to Him. Fair enough; I grant your point for now. But what is a moral...
Started 2 months, 1 week ago (2009-09-17 01:09:00)
by ibelcaniva
I think he's looking at it backward. You start with the "greatest possible being," and, from its traits, deduce its existence.
Started 1 month, 3 weeks ago (2009-09-28 02:14:00)
by Tisthammerw
Quote: Originally Posted by theonlyway2truth finally Craig concludes Law=impossibility Chance=very low intrinsic probability design=no intrinsic probability Therefore, our best explanation is design. Now, What If I offer a fourth alternative I.E. a
multiverse. Now, I admit that there is no evidence for a multiverse and if it has no correlation to past theories it has no evidence ...
Started 2 years, 3 months ago (2007-08-18 14:51:00)
by harvey1
Hi Matthew, I think that you have misunderstood W.L. Craig. Yes, it is true that he believes that reason in a minister to faith, but he is also a very astute individual as to what constitutes good reason. So, like you alluded, there has to be a certain degree of skepticism in this scenario since at times he could be speaking as
WLC the philosopher, and other times as WLC the theologian. When he...
Started 2 months ago (2009-09-20 15:44:00)
by chubster
Hi Byrom, I think the reason you haven't heard anyone comment on this idea is that it is based on a mistaken view of evolution. Evolution is a biological theory that attempts to explain the
diversity of life on earth. It does not attempt to explain either of: 1. the beginning of the universe, or 2. the beginning of life. These questions are considered by those that study cosmology and ...
Started 2 months ago (2009-09-19 18:08:00)
by BeefEraser15
Wait! I have a thought. It says:
Quote:
Moral agents, however, the argument continues, cannot be required to give unconditional obedience to any agent. Moral agency, it is suggested, requires autonomy, and so the idea of a moral duty to give up one’s autonomy is incoherent; in giving up one’s autonomy one would cease to be a moral agent so would cease to have moral duties at all....
Size: 1,163 bytes
