William Lane Craig's Cosmological Arguments

Post Reply New Topic

And I would reframe it to, therefore, mean that God is compelled to look forward to that which must happen.

Your logic is flawless, why reframe it?

Reframe his argument, not mine.

By the way, if logic doesn't apply to God, then what is William Lane Craig doing using logic to argue for God?

Ok. In the video above, he did not specify if GOD had a soul, however, "mental state" would perform the same function.



He makes his money that way. He uses logic, but has to add some concepts to get the desired results.



It would seem like pre-determination ? How does GOD still have free-will to make a random universe when he knows how it all should be?

Since he can see it, then he knows he is compelled to make it, and he is compelled to make it in the exact way.

There is no part of that statement that a Libertarian would agree with. The Libertarian argues that determinism does not apply to mental states and that will is more than random. Will is a cause of its own to a Libertarian. You are talking past Craig, not at him.

Well, I'm not communicating with Craig anyway. I'm communicating with the members of this forum.

Also, if some logic doesn't fully apply to mental states (and, especially, if stated without a reason why), then William Lane Craig's arguments are even more vain than they already are.

I don't think William Lane Craig would want you to speak for him on these matters.

And arguing, from their perspective, that will is considered a cause of its own only supports the argument that the will is pretty much not much of a will because it is still compelled to do one thing rather than another. If it isn't, then there is at least some degree of randomness playing a role, which still means it isn't a free will.

In other words, it's just a way to dodge the key issue, which is that God's will is not really much of a free will either way.

Exactly. If he was predetermined to create this universe, then there was no point to his mind. If he was really free to do so, then there was also no point to his mind.

So, if God actually does exist, he exists as he is unnecessarily.

The Singularitor, therefore, would be the simpler and better explanation.

I agree to the mental states of my own being deterministic because of how they relate to the universe that I live in. Even from my own perspective I cannot think of any reason to think that an immaterial being must be bound by the principles of material on material causation. One of the primary distinctions of the uncaused cause within the Kalam is the fact that it must be immaterial. The only demonstrable evidence we have of determinism is physical, so the libertarian is fully justified in asking you why it should apply to what they are discussing. The libertarian does not even accept that an agent is fully determined when the cause is physical, so why would they apply that to the immaterial? They just would not accept the foundation of your criticism because it is being generated between a completely irreconcilable worldview. Libertarianism is unpopular but it is not disproven or dead. Much as I pointed out to you the incompatibilism is also not proven false, even though it is just as unpopular.



Sure, I said in my first post that you would not find a foil in this discussion that agrees completely with Craig. I can however show you how the attack you are making does not really work. Otherwise you are just shadow boxing, you might as well be arguing in your head.

That's no different from arguing that God can make a squared circle even if it doesn't make much logical sense.

You are treating the indeterminism/determinism dichotomy as a logical absolute, when it is not, its been the mistake I have been trying to point out to you since my FIRST post. There is nothing incoherent with agent causation at the logical level, it only becomes incoherent if deterministic or indeterministic structures are shown to rule it out, I don't think you have come anywhere near doing that.

Well, it's not like you would want to be convinced anyway, because that would mean letting go of your faith at the end of the day.

Anyhow, even if it's not a true dichotomy and there are other options, it still holds that there can't logically be a free will (whether we're discussing humans or God) because either something happens randomly, with a cause, or a combination of both. There just isn't much freedom of will to consider (even on God).

The libertarian would agree with the underlined portion but they would say that will can be a cause.




Genetic fallacy. Also totally false because I have given you a good avenue for attacking Craig through his reliance on a narrow worldview.

And the will, cause or not, is either being caused to do things or does things randomly.

No way out of that.

This isn't just an issue for libertarians either. Your view is also threatened by this when it comes to God.

Like I said, repeatedly, its not a dichotomy. Will causes physical events, it is not caused by them, randomly or otherwise. Even within my own position, I would only go so far as to say that determinism only applies to physical causes, I see absolutely no reason it should apply to immaterial ones.

If will is random, then it is not a will, which means that it's pretty much pointless.

If will is predetermined, then it is not free, which also makes it pointless for God because, then, God wouldn't have used a conscious mind but some intrinsic feature in him that is compelled to do what it does.

Since that's the case, then the existence of the conscious mind in God is pretty much without a point. And it also leads to the question of why this universe and not something else.