Dr. Craig: Well, it’s interesting, Kevin, in my arguments, the properties of the being which is reached at the conclusion of the argument are deduced from the argument itself.
So, one isn’t dependent on definitions, rather one can deduce the properties. So, for example, in the Kalam argument, on the basis of the argument for a cause of the universe, this cause would have to be uncaused because we have argued that there can not be an infinite regress of causes.
So, you have to get back to a first uncaused cause. It would have to be beginningless because if it began to exist then it would have to have a cause according to the first premise, and we have seen that this is an uncaused cause.
So, it’s an uncaused cause, beginningless, and since it created time and space it has to transcend time and space, and therefore, be timeless and spaceless. Because it transcends time and space it has to be immaterial because anything material would be constantly changing and would, therefore, be in time and space.
So, we have got and uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being. It brought the universe into existence, and therefore, must be enormously powerful as the cause of space and time, matter and energy.
Then, I argue on several grounds for the personhood of this being as well. So, from the argument itself we are able to recover a number of striking properties of this cause of the universe that are theologically significant. It is an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Alleged-Evidence-Against-God#ixzz3KPsV4SyR
No comments:
Post a Comment