Certain people can't ever get it right

[Gadianton]

A particular blog author with ties to Mopologetics has posted his 10,398th article arguing for a creator. He begins:

Why is there anything at all?

Either the universe — by which, in this instance, I intend the ensemble, the totality, of all that exists — has always existed in some form or another, a simple brute fact that requires and admits of no explanation, or it came into existence...With that in mind, the so-called Kalaam Cosmological Argument

We can shut down the conversation right here and ask the author to go back and learn more about the subject and try again. The Kalaam Cosmological argument doesn't try to answer, nor does it tell us anything at all about the question "why is there anything at all?"

See the SEP on cosmological argument.

It is said that philosophy begins in wonder. So it was for the ancients, who wondered what constituted the basic stuff of the world around them, how this basic stuff changed into the diverse forms they experienced, and how it came to be. Those origination questions related to the puzzle of existence that, in its metaphysical dimensions, is the subject of our concern.

First, why is there anything at all? Why is there something, no matter what it is, even if different or even radically different from what currently exists? This question becomes clearer when put in contrastive form, Why is there something rather than nothing? We can ask this question even in the absence of contingent beings, though in this context it is likely to prove unanswerable. For example, if God or the universe is logically or absolutely necessary, something would not only exist but would have to exist even if nothing else existed. At the same time, probably no reason can be given for why logically necessary things exist.

The article goes on about this first point, but I just quoted enough to show what a discussion about "why something rather than nothing?" looks like.

Then, the article tackles three more points before arriving at point five:

Fifth, if the universe has a beginning, what is the cause of that beginning? This is the question that is addressed by the kalām cosmological argument, given its central premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

There is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon between that first fundamental question, and the material the Kalaam argument addresses. The blog author, however, is an ideologue who doesn't really care to understand anything, he just wants to be right, and just wants Mormonism and broadly, Christianity to be right, without having to invest any real effort into understanding anything. He knows his base lack the curiosity for proper follow-up and so, just keep spanning cyberspace with a bunch of nonsense, I guess.

[dastardly stem]

Since Mormonism doesn't square with the position that God created the universe out of nothing, this simply doesn't work. For Mormonism God's creation wasn't a snapping things into existence, but was a taking material that was already sitting around and forming it into something new. And God himself is compose of material. He can't piggie-back on Craig because doing so fails to address his system of belief.

And...

William Lane Craig's favored argument gets people half way there and no further:

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

If the Universe has a cause it need not be assumed it's a unknown creator. The Kalam doesn't argue for a God but assumes a God.

But the biggest problem with Craig's favored argument is, why must we assume everything that begins to exist has a cause? The universe may simply be an exception by not needing a cause at all.

[Moksha]

William Lane Craig typically lays it out in a simple syllogism that runs along the following lines.

1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Placing a slice of hard salami between two chimerical slices of bread makes for a slice of salami rather than a sandwich. Dr. Peterson must have been hungry to reach for Craig's syllogism.

Gemli is on a roll in the comments.

[SeerOfProvo]

The author of that blog has a tendency to simply import philosophical arguments from other religious traditions (namely, orthodox Christianity) wholesale without even casually examining the nuts and bolts of said argument. This has the unfortunate result of many assumptions foreign to the Latter Day Saint belief system not only remaining embedded, but getting defended vigorously by apologists who are not even aware said assumptions can be discarded.

During the brief window I was allowed to comment on this blog, I raised the question of Classical Theism being present in the Moral Argument and how it was incompatible with the truth of our current dispensation. If you care to read, you’ll see a great lack of enthusiasm for wanting to discuss the issue other than stating some kind of vague awareness of the problem.

Creatio ex nihilo is an answer to a problem generated by the so-called “Middle” and “Neo” Platonist philosophies that early Christianity utilized in articulating, clarifying, and defending their faith in antiquity. Latter Day Saints shouldn’t be beholden to these kinds of doctrines, much less defending them by parroting Evangelical philosophers.

[Philo Sofee]

The author of that blog has a tendency to simply import philosophical arguments from other religious traditions (namely, orthodox Christianity) wholesale without even casually examining the nuts and bolts of said argument. This has the unfortunate result of many assumptions foreign to the Latter Day Saint belief system not only remaining embedded, but getting defended vigorously by apologists who are not even aware said assumptions can be discarded.

During the brief window I was allowed to comment on this blog, I raised the question of Classical Theism being present in the Moral Argument and how it was incompatible with the truth of our current dispensation. If you care to read, you’ll see a great lack of enthusiasm for wanting to discuss the issue other than stating some kind of vague awareness of the problem.

Creatio ex nihilo is an answer to a problem generated by the so-called “Middle” and “Neo” Platonist philosophies that early Christianity utilized in articulating, clarifying, and defending their faith in antiquity. Latter Day Saints shouldn’t be beholden to these kinds of doctrines, much less defending them by parroting Evangelical philosophers.

Oh but they must appeal to authority, for that is the basis of Mormonism, authority, whether someone with a Ph.d, or some prophet here or there. Without authority to rely on Mormons assume truth is forever out of their reach. That is another flavor of Kool Aid I no longer have to ingest in order to actually think about things.

Authority is a man made concept which organizations love to exploit. Funny thing, the scriptures never do say God is authority. Rather they put the emphasis where it belongs, God is love.

[SeerOfProvo]

Since Mormonism doesn't square with the position that God created the universe out of nothing, this simply doesn't work. For Mormonism God's creation wasn't a snapping things into existence, but was a taking material that was already sitting around and forming it into something new. And God himself is compose of material. He can't piggie-back on Craig because doing so fails to address his system of belief.

And...

William Lane Craig's favored argument gets people half way there and no further:

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

If the Universe has a cause it need not be assumed it's a unknown creator. The Kalam doesn't argue for a God but assumes a God.

But the biggest problem with Craig's favored argument is, why must we assume everything that begins to exist has a cause? The universe may simply be an exception by not needing a cause at all.

There is nothing fallacious about the Kalaam argument (as Craig presents it) in the formal sense, all the propositions hold a correct syntactic relationship with one another, but one can certainly challenge the truth of each individual proposition.

To be fair to Craig and his overall project; he doesn’t expect nor intend any single argument of his to lead a person to accepting Jesus Christ. This is why he develops a veritable panoply of arguments in the hopes of driving a person towards Christianity and I’d say it all culminates with his extensive effort in promoting and defending his material on the Resurrection of Christ. The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is more or less designed to get a person into believing that there is a “creator” that is in a sense “personable”, the Moral Argument is used to establish the moral character of this creator, and so forth.

Some like to accuse Craig of a shotgun approach in his apologetics, that he wants to throw as much as he can against the wall in the hopes of getting something to stick. I’m of the mind to say that in reality he is trying to get as much material as he can in, because there are a lot of steps one has to take between a functional stance of atheism and/or agnosticism to holding the beliefs of contemporary Christianity. Taken individually, no argument of Craig can get one there.

[dastardly stem]

Since Mormonism doesn't square with the position that God created the universe out of nothing, this simply doesn't work. For Mormonism God's creation wasn't a snapping things into existence, but was a taking material that was already sitting around and forming it into something new. And God himself is compose of material. He can't piggie-back on Craig because doing so fails to address his system of belief.

And...

William Lane Craig's favored argument gets people half way there and no further:



If the Universe has a cause it need not be assumed it's a unknown creator. The Kalam doesn't argue for a God but assumes a God.

But the biggest problem with Craig's favored argument is, why must we assume everything that begins to exist has a cause? The universe may simply be an exception by not needing a cause at all.

There is nothing fallacious about the Kalaam argument (as Craig presents it) in the formal sense, all the propositions hold a correct syntactic relationship with one another, but one can certainly challenge the truth of each individual proposition.

To be fair to Craig and his overall project; he doesn’t expect nor intend any single argument of his to lead a person to accepting Jesus Christ. This is why he develops a veritable panoply of arguments in the hopes of driving a person towards Christianity and I’d say it all culminates with his extensive effort in promoting and defending his material on the Resurrection of Christ. The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is more or less designed to get a person into believing that there is a “creator” that is in a sense “personable”, the Moral Argument is used to establish the moral character of this creator, and so forth.

Some like to accuse Craig of a shotgun approach in his apologetics, that he wants to throw as much as he can against the wall in the hopes of getting something to stick. I’m of the mind to say that in reality he is trying to get as much material as he can in, because there are a lot of steps one has to take between a functional stance of atheism and/or agnosticism to holding the beliefs of contemporary Christianity. Taken individually, no argument of Craig can get one there.

I don't know that it's Craig's favored argument, it just seems as I've read or heard from him he includes it or some variation of it every time. So it seems to be his favorite. he might like the Teleological argument more...I suppose.

I pretty much agree with what you said, just wanted to clarify.

[Paloma]

...

Authority is a man made concept which organizations love to exploit. Funny thing, the scriptures never do say God is authority. Rather they put the emphasis where it belongs, God is love.

Philo, in my own faith, I resonate so strongly with your emphasis on "God is love".

I'm always struck by how apologists seem to think that using their intellect and (to their own minds) having the better arguments, would move someone to believe in their own faith positions.

In my experience, the one thing that has been most persuasive in drawing people to faith is the (unwitting) example and influence of individuals whose lives have been transformed by love. I'm reminded of this quote attributed to St. Francis: 'Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."
John 13:35: "By this, shall everyone know you are My disciples, if you love one another".

It seems so counter productive to try to convince someone to have faith (especially when it goes against reason and against material evidence) ... and even moreso while mocking and denigrating the target of one's apologetic efforts.

If there is a role for apologetics at all (and I think there is a right and a reason for people to explain their own thoughts and beliefs), surely it must be done with humility and open-mindedness, those being qualities that don't take away from one's own deeply held convictions and experiences.

Without humility, grace and the realization that others don't see truth in what has come to the believer through what can only be described as mystery, the apologetic effort comes across as unappealing defensiveness and desperation.

[Physics Guy]

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Indeed this fails as a proof that there must have been a creator, because the major premise is not beyond all dispute. Conceivably something could maybe begin without a cause.

Even if it fails as a proof, though, I think it’s a decent argument that puts some weight on the scales in favor of a creator of some sort, at least from a scientific point of view. As much as science is about testing, it’s at least as much about assuming that Why? is always going to have an answer. Settling for “That’s just how it is!” might be logically acceptable but it’s never going to be scientifically acceptable. An uncaused beginning is just as untestable as a creator, it seems to me, so it doesn’t redeem itself scientifically that way. It gets zero points as a scientific hypothesis, while a creator gets at least one point for holding out some hope of further information.

Of course, the kind of “creator” that is supported by this argument doesn’t have to be much of a God; any kind of cause would do. And the minor premise, that the universe had a beginning, is just the current indication from cosmology if you extrapolate simply. Alternative speculations are currently unsupported but nobody can say that all alternatives have been ruled out.

I still think it’s a better argument than some atheists are willing to admit. It’s not a proof but it has a point.

[SeerOfProvo]

Oh but they must appeal to authority, for that is the basis of Mormonism, authority, whether someone with a Ph.d, or some prophet here or there. Without authority to rely on Mormons assume truth is forever out of their reach. That is another flavor of Kool Aid I no longer have to ingest in order to actually think about things.

Authority is a man made concept which organizations love to exploit. Funny thing, the scriptures never do say God is authority. Rather they put the emphasis where it belongs, God is love.

The use of authority is an occupational hazard for those of us who engage in apologetics. It is often a great excuse to avoid doing the hard work of learning a subject if one can just appeal to a favored authority and be done with it. Ironic that an self-proclaimed expert on Islamic Philosophy had so little to say about the subject.

I don't know that it's Craig's favored argument, it just seems as I've read or heard from him he includes it or some variation of it every time. So it seems to be his favorite. he might like the Teleological argument more...I suppose.

His dissertation under the late John Hick was on the Kalaam Cosmological Argument and he eventually published it in the form of two books; one about the history of cosmological arguments and the second was a modern presentation and defense of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. I think it would be a safe bet to say it is his favorite argument.

I still think it’s a better argument than some atheists are willing to admit. It’s not a proof but it has a point.

It has its merits and the favored attack route for a lot of atheists seems to be calling into question the Principle of Sufficient Reason via the first premise, but I think that is ill advised as there are weaker aspects to go after.

First is that Craig has to rely on an idiosyncratic view of time that he calls a "Neo-Lorentzian" from Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and his work underpinning special relativity, for Craig's argument to really stick he has to overcome tenseless theories of time and stake out a position known as "presentism" which essentially states that the "present" is a uniquely real over the past or future whereas the most commonly accepted theories don't favor the past, present, or future as being more "real" than any of the others. Craig is kinda forced to do this because if you accept the idea that time is without tense then it is hard to say anything really has a beginning in the robust sense that Craig needs for his argument.

He also spends a good deal of time arguing that infinite collections of anything cannot be real and are conceptual absurdities. One example he gives is that if you imagine you have a bookshelf that is infinitely long that has red and blue books alternating in color you have a situation where if you subtract all the red books, you'd be taking away an infinite number of books, but there would be an infinite amount of blue books left on the shelf. This, to Craig at least, is absurd and shows the folly on transfinite mathematics. Craig essentially has to overthrow Georg Cantor to make this particular cosmological argument viable.