In another thread Adrift proposed that; 'I've heard from skeptics that Dr. William Lane Craig wins his debates because he "Gish-Gallops".' This accusation is too vague and nebulous to do justice to the skeptics and in particular scientists objections to the apologetic arguments of William Lane Craig, and other apologists like; Alvin Plantinga and Whitehead on how science is used in their arguments. The purpose of this thread is to address specific objections by skeptics, in particular science, concerning the argument by these apologists.
The foundation of my argument is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism, which is neutral to philosophical/theological arguments for the existence of God. Basically the claims of William Lane Craig and other apologists cannot be falsified using scientific methods.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument will be the first addressed where the proposed support by science is misused by William Lane Craig and other apologists.
The basic Kalam argument:
William Lane Craig proposes the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, described as follows:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
Okay assumption if you can prove or falsify using scientific methods that a 'thing' began to exist.
(2) The universe began to exist; Therefore:
This assumption is dependent on what the proposed belief syllogism defines as 'the universe.' If one defines 'the universe' as our particular universe, or all possible universes and multi-verses than the argument is plausible that they have beginnings, but if the existence of our 'physical existence' is defined as the possible Quantum World that would contain all possible universes and multiverses than the argument fails completely, because there is not any falsifiable theories nor hypothesi for any absolute beginning of any 'thing.' The bottom line is absolute beginnings of any concept of our physical existence cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and becomes a philosophical/theological assumption in the argument.
(3) The universe has a cause.
I can easily agree that 'the universe' has a cause, but the claim that it has a cause other than a natural one cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and therefore it remains only a possible philosophical/theological assumption for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
The problem of 'actual infinities' in this argument and related arguments will be addressed in a separate post.
Anal grammarians are welcome to check my English.
The foundation of my argument is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism, which is neutral to philosophical/theological arguments for the existence of God. Basically the claims of William Lane Craig and other apologists cannot be falsified using scientific methods.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument will be the first addressed where the proposed support by science is misused by William Lane Craig and other apologists.
The basic Kalam argument:
William Lane Craig proposes the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, described as follows:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
Okay assumption if you can prove or falsify using scientific methods that a 'thing' began to exist.
(2) The universe began to exist; Therefore:
This assumption is dependent on what the proposed belief syllogism defines as 'the universe.' If one defines 'the universe' as our particular universe, or all possible universes and multi-verses than the argument is plausible that they have beginnings, but if the existence of our 'physical existence' is defined as the possible Quantum World that would contain all possible universes and multiverses than the argument fails completely, because there is not any falsifiable theories nor hypothesi for any absolute beginning of any 'thing.' The bottom line is absolute beginnings of any concept of our physical existence cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and becomes a philosophical/theological assumption in the argument.
(3) The universe has a cause.
I can easily agree that 'the universe' has a cause, but the claim that it has a cause other than a natural one cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and therefore it remains only a possible philosophical/theological assumption for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
The problem of 'actual infinities' in this argument and related arguments will be addressed in a separate post.
Anal grammarians are welcome to check my English.
Comment