Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But it says a lot about the guys style e.g. he's a dualist and I don't mean pistols at dawn.

How about pointing out where he is in error in what he is saying instead of attacking the man because he holds to a particular world view. I hate that about ye atheists. Because someone holds to a view that you don't subscribe to then he/she are by definition not to be listened to or read. Talk about closed mindedness. If we all only listened to and read people who we happen to agree with then the world would be a very dull and boring place to live. Just point out what it actual is that you disagree with and tell us why instead of slinging muck around the place.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How about pointing out where he is in error in what he is saying instead of attacking the man because he holds to a particular world view. I hate that about ye atheists. Because someone holds to a view that you don't subscribe to then he/she are by definition not to be listened to or read. Talk about closed mindedness. If we all only listened to and read people who we happen to agree with then the world would be a very dull and boring place to live. Just point out what it actual is that you disagree with and tell us why instead of slinging muck around the place.

He holds a world-view which is completely counter to the evidence, this could be a pattern in the rest of his thinking. He seems epistemologically contaminated. It's not closed mindedness it's limited cognitive resources. I'm not slinging mud, I'm just not wasting my time and trying to warn others so they don't waste theirs. Similarly I don't listen to creationists.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your personal opinions on dualism have NOTHING to do with the cosmological argument. You may as well say you don't like his choice in shirt colour or the blog theme he uses for as much relevance either would have.

Stay on topic.

Sorry, I tried to point out that if he's wrong headed(irrational) on the workings of the mind, it would make sense to be cautious about his ideas on cosmology.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So he is unscientific in one field, and deliberately (?) misinterprets science in another?

So cosmology how about it?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Sorry, I tried to point out that if he's wrong headed(irrational) on the workings of the mind, it would make sense to be cautious about his ideas on cosmology.

You see in part here I agree with Soul on this. We've had some geniuses in the past who came up with the most excellent of ideas yet at the same time they heralded the most whackiest of beliefs. If they just ignored them because of their whacky beliefs then we'd likely have missed out on some amazing ideas. On the other hand I see your point too and realise that it's a tricky one if I was sick with a tumour and the specialist doctor I went to believed that viruses weren't real and all in the brain then I wouldn't really have too much confidence in his treatment of my tumour. So, in a world where we only have finite time to read stuff I'm inclined to be of the opinion that if you know someone to be a loon in one area say astronomy, then you ignore their opinion in completely different fields at your own peril. If they do say something valid in their loony field then that's their tough, if we spent all day constantly checking loons ideas then we'd get absolutely no where. Yet even then we should probably check on loons now and again.:) Everyone likes to point out Ptolemy vs Galileo. When Copernicus proposed his idea that the earth was not at the centre of the solar system he did so by proposing a model that was hugely flawed and to the available evidence present at the time was completely bizarre and loony.

Malty_T wrote: »

You see in part here I agree with Soul on this. We've had some geniuses in the past who came up with the most excellent of ideas yet at the same time they heralded the most whackiest of beliefs. If they just ignored them because of their whacky beliefs then we'd likely have missed out on some amazing ideas. On the other hand I see your point too and realise that it's a tricky one if I was sick with a tumour and the specialist doctor I went to believed that viruses weren't real and all in the brain then I wouldn't really have too much confidence in his treatment of my tumour. So, in a world where we only have finite time to read stuff I'm inclined to be of the opinion that if you know someone to be a loon in one area say astronomy, then you ignore their opinion in completely different fields at your own peril. If they do say something valid in their loony field then that's their tough, if we spent all day constantly checking loons ideas then we'd get absolutely no where. Yet even then we should probably check on loons now and again.:) Everyone likes to point out Ptolemy vs Galileo. When Copernicus proposed his idea that the earth was not at the centre of the solar system he did so by proposing a model that was hugely flawed and to the available evidence present at the time was completely bizarre and loony.

Edward Feser is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. He has been a Visiting Assistant Professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and a Visiting Scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Santa Barbara, an M.A. in religion from the Claremont Graduate School, and a B.A. in philosophy and religious studies from the California State University at Fullerton.

Called by National Review “one of the best contemporary writers on philosophy,” Feser is the author of On Nozick, Philosophy of Mind, Locke, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, and Aquinas, and editor of The Cambridge Companion to Hayek. He is also the author of many academic articles. His primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and the philosophy of religion.

Feser also writes on politics and culture, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective. In this connection, his work has appeared in such publications as The American, The American Conservative, City Journal, Crisis, First Things, Liberty, National Review, New Oxford Review, Public Discourse, Reason, and TCS Daily.

What a loony :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The debate was focused on the kalam cosmological argument that he did make, wasn't it? What have I missed?

Oh just the simple fact that that wasn't him, it was William Lane Craig.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Isn't this what you did, even though the cosmological argument has been shown to be full of holes, not the slam-dunk you thought it represented?

It hasn't been shown to be full of holes. The only thing full of holes is you're knowledge on the subject. Please read the link and you'll know what I'm talking about. Don't just disregard it because the guy is not an atheist.

Malty_T wrote: »

You see in part here I agree with Soul on this. We've had some geniuses in the past who came up with the most excellent of ideas yet at the same time they heralded the most whackiest of beliefs. If they just ignored them because of their whacky beliefs then we'd likely have missed out on some amazing ideas. On the other hand I see your point too and realise that it's a tricky one if I was sick with a tumour and the specialist doctor I went to believed that viruses weren't real and all in the brain then I wouldn't really have too much confidence in his treatment of my tumour. So, in a world where we only have finite time to read stuff I'm inclined to be of the opinion that if you know someone to be a loon in one area say astronomy, then you ignore their opinion in completely different fields at your own peril. If they do say something valid in their loony field then that's their tough, if we spent all day constantly checking loons ideas then we'd get absolutely no where. Yet even then we should probably check on loons now and again.:) Everyone likes to point out Ptolemy vs Galileo. When Copernicus proposed his idea that the earth was not at the centre of the solar system he did so by proposing a model that was hugely flawed and to the available evidence present at the time was completely bizarre and loony.

Well actually for what it's worth I think there is a strong link between understanding how the mind works and ones ability to assert truths about the nature of the universe. AFAIK Soul believes that the universe in it's current state is a causal chain from the big bang to said state, making him and correct me if I'm wrong a hard determinist, and we all know what that means for our understanding of the mind.

Malty_T wrote: »

I have yet to read an critic of the Cosmological argument phrase it this way

And I find it amazing that he didn't provide a direct quote by a single author or critic whom according ho him the vast majority phrase it that way. So, can anyone who read that blog post and thinks it's a good piece please point out where critics of the Cosmological argument have phrased it with "Everything has a cause"?

Ehem, you should you should be more astute in your reading Malty.

Read this , this and this. He puts these links in his piece.

Here's a few just for laughs:

The most important version of the first cause argument comes to us from Thomas Aquinas (1225-74).

The argument runs like this: everything that happens has a cause, and that cause itself has a cause, and that cause too has a cause, and so on and so on, back into the past, in a series that must either be finite or infinite. Now if the series is finite is [sic] must have had a starting point, which we may call the first cause. This first cause is God.

What if the series is infinite? Aquinas after some consideration eventually rejects the possibility that the world is infinitely old and had no beginning in time. Certainly the idea of time stretching backwards into the past forever is one which the human mind finds hard to grasp… Still we might note here that Aristotle found no difficulty in [this] idea. He held that the world has existed forever. Aristotle’s opinion, if correct, invalidates the first cause argument.

[From Jenny Teichman and Katherine C. Evans, Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide, Second edition (Blackwell, 1995), p. 22.]


The Cosmological Argument… in its simplest form states that since everything must have a cause the universe must have a cause – namely God… [But then] what caused God? The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) then raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can’t the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused?

[From Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Viking, 2006), p. 242.]


The basic cosmological argument

1. Anything that exists has a cause of its existence.
2. Nothing can be the cause of its own existence.
3. The universe exists.

Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence which lies outside the universe.

[From Robin Le Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Routledge, 1996), p. 4]


It’s a natural assumption that nothing happens without an explanation: people don’t get ill for no reason; cars don’t break down without a fault. Everything, then, has a cause. But what could the cause of everything be? Obviously, it can’t be anything physical, like a person; or even something like the Big Bang of cosmology. Such things must themselves have causes. So it must be something metaphysical. God is the obvious candidate.

This is one version of an argument for the existence of God, often called the Cosmological Argument.

[From Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2000), at pp. 21-2.]


"Examples could easily be multiplied. A cursory inspection of the bookshelves here in my study turns up Michael Martin’s Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, and Simon Blackburn’s Think as further examples of books earnestly presenting the “Everything has a cause” argument as if it were something that actual philosophical advocates of the Cosmological Argument have historically defended." - Edward Fesse

Seriously introductory texts, mentioning the bare bones version?

Lots of people – probably most people who have an opinion on the matter – think that the cosmological argument goes like this: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists.

Em, I might be wrong here but don't all the sources you provided also go into detail on the more complex variations of the argument?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I found this analysis of the various cosmological arguments to be very enlightening. It's by Edward Fesser, a Christian philosopher who has a flare for writing. It's a long read so I recommend using this handy application called readability. It converts the text on any website to larger font, increases screen width and gets rid of all the nasty flash banners etc. Just hit the download button and in a couple of seconds you are up and running. It's really lightweight and it wont impact your computer or any of your browser settings.

Thanks for the links Fanny. However, the only thing that Feser managed to convince me of is that he is either misguided or dishonest or both.

One of the best examples of this is one of the other blog posts he links to from the main article.

Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here and here). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.

First of all, he shamelessly quote-mines Hawking. The actual sentence, in full, reads:

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, in the manner described in Chapter 6."

He ignores the points that are made in the final chapter and chapter 6 and instead proceeds to construct a ridiculous strawman by deliberately misrepresenting Hawking's argument by saying the gravity is responsible for the universe.

For the most part, however, I don't think there is a lot of relevance in Feser's article to the specific debate here. He even makes exception for kalam in several places.

Since this debate is about WLC and his version of the cosmological argument though, I thought that it would be nice to get back to what he actually has to say.

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

As I have already said, one can almost skip over the bulk of the arguments that Craig makes if one wishes to. The construction of the premises and their initial conclusion are not the problem. Rather the problem with WLC's overall argument is this:

Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause?

He manages somehow to bridge the gap between the universe having a cause and that cause being God with an argument from ignorance. He claims that it can be "plausibly argued" and yet fails to do so.