If you find this interesting, you'll probably want to see the earlier video from Scott (TheoreticalBullshit) which led to Craig's weak response to a YouTuber. Actually, early in the video, Scott requests that you go ahead and watch "I Kalam like I see 'em" prior to watching this video. I don't think it's necessary to do it in that order, but however you prefer - I'll link that below this video.
I "Kalam" like I see 'em.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Clobbering Kalam - and William Lane Craig
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Really good video, John. Changing the meaning of causality midstream is the bread and butter of the Kalam argument, and fails miserably.
I've never been a huge Craig fan, nor have I ever been a big fan of Craig's Kalam argument. However, I am a big fan of Aristotle's argument from kinesis, precisely because the terminology doesn't afford the same looseness as terms like "material," which the presenter of this video seems quite fond of.
Speaking for myself as a proponent of creatio ex nihilo, I don't believe that God created the universe from nothing. To me, creatio ex nihilo actually means that God made that which is material from that which is not material.
So this kicks a major leg out from underneath this guy's argument, which assumes and utterly depends on metaphysical naturalism.
So, in short: this guy's objection hardly cuts the mustard against Craig, let alone Aristotle.
"So, in short: this guy's objection hardly cuts the mustard against Craig,"
Whatever you think about his refutation of the KCA, his primary argument was with Craig's claim that he doesn't condescend to philosophical arguments from "the Net", then straw man the argument from TBS.
He's points on Kalam were much stronger than you are willing to credit.
"actually means that God made that which is material from that which is not material."
Yes, that would be a clever trick. Can you provide a single example of material being made from something which is not material?
Sorry. 1:40 AM and I've had a few. Pretty sure you get the question and the point.
"Whatever you think about his refutation of the KCA, his primary argument was with Craig's claim that he doesn't condescend to philosophical arguments from "the Net", then straw man the argument from TBS."
That was not his primary argument. That was a side point that he dedicated roughly 20% of his airtime to.
"He's points on Kalam were much stronger than you are willing to credit."
Well, I'll forgive this naked assertion, but only because you said you'd had a few. Now that you've had time to return to equilibrium, perhaps you can elaborate on this assertion?
"Yes, that would be a clever trick. Can you provide a single example of material being made from something which is not material?"
The history of physics is sufficient. The raw potentiality that is [supposedly] the quantum soup can hardly be called "material" by any reasonable interpretation of that word. The problem is, metaphysical naturalists have stretched the meaning of the word "material" to the point of irrelevancy. No matter what the physicists discover, it's automatically "material" according to the metaphysical naturalists. That, my friend, really is a word game, and hardly a persuasive way to win an argument, IMHO. For that reason, among others, I don't give this guy's response much credit.
Well buddy, it looks like we're going to have to continue any and all conversations either here, on my blog, or elsewhere -- as your lord and master SI has finally pulled his iron curtain tactics on me.
I can't believe he fell for it so easily, personally, but hey -- this is the blogosphere right? Who needs evidence?
LOL!
Post a Comment