It's not a "law of the universe" that square circles can't exist, they just can't, in any possible world.
I see what you mean, but that's not a good example. A square circle is self-contradictory, saying cause and effect is a physical reality not a metaphysical reality is not. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate that cause and effect is metaphysically necessary.
[/quote]
That's a perfect example, and you hit the nail on the head. Causality itself is a metaphysical reality. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is possible that something can happen uncaused. Now, we are talking metaphysics here, so it doesn't cut it to say that the idea that things can happen uncaused is not logically contradictory in the way that a square circle is logically contradictory, and therefore it's possible. You need good reasons to think that something is metaphysically possible, therefore, for you to be rationally justified in thinking things to happen uncaused, you need to have good reasons. But you already admitted that demonstrating it would take a lot of money, which means you haven't done it yet.
I'm eager to see you demonstrate that something can come into existence uncaused and out of nothing.
You're eager for me to demonstrate what I'd have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to demonstrate? Don't think so, pal. You could of course do what I do which is listen to the experts, which in this case is Sean Carroll and most definitely not William Lame Craig.
[/quote]
Well, listening to the experts and believing what they say just because they said it would be a classic example of an argument from authority. We know there is a vested interest within the scientific community to shun any type of conclusion that may have religious implications. It's easy to demonstrate. Look at where rejecting the God conclusion takes scientists. To reject God they are rejecting causality itself. Some have even resorted to redefining absolute nothingness to fit a model someone created. I'd rather just say God exists, but, hey, I'm a senior in high school. What do I know about physics? I do know about philosophy though, and it tells me that out of nothing, nothing comes.
By the way, your "fallacy of composition" argument was in WLC's "10 objections so bad, I couldn't have made them up"
I'm well aware of that but I'm also aware that, as Sean Carroll rightly pointed out, "he says he's not doing this,
but then he does it" Craig talks out both sides of his mouth at the same time and doesn't have an intellectually honest bone in his body so I'm not too concerned. For example, in the Arif Ahmed debate, he literally said, regarding existence, that it may not be a property but it is a great making property. I couldn't make this up. I've also seen Craig's clip where he says he's aghast at how primitive his opponents' arguments are, how they're unsophisticated, etc. So again, don't really care, he's just an arrogant buffoon. In the real world of real intellectuals, Craig's a joke.
[/quote]
Well, I was reading ad hominems until you came to his debate with Dr. Ahmed. Now, I watched that debate and don't remember hearing him say that. Without going back and looking at it, thus not having the true context of when he said what you said he said, It seems to me that his supposed incredulity is just your misunderstanding of a nuance of the Modal Ontological Argument, of which I am a huge supporter and proponder. Now, it seems as if he was responding to Kant's "existence is not a predicate" objection to Anselm's version. But Craig is completely right: existence, as Kant pointed out, is not a property of things, but it can, in a way, be a great making property. That is to say, anything I imagine in my mind cannot gain the property of existence. Properties are things that distinguish something from another, which is to say, if A and B are the same, A and B will have the same properties in every possible world. What I think Craig was saying is existing in reality is not a property of things. Existing and not existing does not distinguish between A and B. I do exist in reality, but I'm me in any possible world, whether I exist or not. I do have a property of existence though, which is contingent existence. Properties of existence can distinguish one thing from another. If something had all my properties, but could not exist, that thing has impossible existence and therefore is not me. Great making properties are properties that are better to have than their negation, and indeed, although existence itself is not a property, necessary existence is a property and is better to have than either contingent or impossible existence.
WLC is scary smart. He has to be if people as brilliant as Alvin Plantiga hold him in high regard. Sam Harris even said it. In the philosophical intellectual arena, Craig is a force to be reckoned with. He even holds his own against professional, highly intelligent physicists. I dare Sean Carroll to discuss ethics or ontology with Craig. I would absolutely love to see that.
You also say that the universe "evolved." For that to be true, it would have to be eternal
Say what? That doesn't logically follow. Anyways, the universe likely is eternal. Our best and most current understand of the universe is that it did not, in fact, pop into existence at the big bang, which is yet another of WLC's strawman arguments.
[/quote]
If the universe evolved, it had to evolve from something. Things don't evolve into existence out of nothing. The dog may have come from a horse, but there was something before the dog. The question is not when our universe came into existence, but rather "is time past incomplete?" You may be quoting Guth on the likelihood of an eternal universe, but this was probably some preference of his. I'm no expert in physics, so I don't plan to attempt to rationally discuss the BGV theorem.
[/quote] Hilbert's Hotel? Jeez, next you'll be blabbering on about Boltzmann Brains!
[/quote]
Haha. They're good arguments sir. Using them is a privilege.
God bless
