Are the premises of the Kalam cosmological argument correct?

apeiron

In fact Craig does make an argument for the qualities a creating god would thus have as a result of KCA...as Wiki says....

Craig's more detailed arguments on each of these qualities is here....
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ig-smith1.html

Of course, on examination, the arguments are lightweight. But they are arguments nonetheless, rather than merely beliefs.

Ryan_m_b

Lightweight is a strange way of putting it. Illogical and badly formed would be better.

thorium1010

when one can argue this way, it can be used to describe pretty much anything metaphysical. Thats why it is a weak argument.

apeiron

The problem is that as soon as you make this kind of technical criticism - "Illogical and badly formed" - a theist philosopher would be in his/her rights to demand that you demonstrate that this is so.

So where Craig argues for example....

...can you now point to technical issues with the form of the argument, as opposed to questions about its premises?

[Clue: I would question whether mechanical vs personal agency is a valid dichotomy. Does it actually fulfil the law of the excluded middle as claimed? So this is a criticism of the formation of the first premise - an attack on its semantics. But the overall form of the argument looks valid if the premises were to hold. The global syntax has the conventional form.]

Ryan_m_b

The idea that the universe must have been either mechanically bought into existence or bought into existence by a personal god is a false dichotomy. The idea that the universe cannot be bought into existence by purely mechanical means is an assertion without evidence. Craig's arguments are nothing more than an attempt to rationalise the beliefs he already has. He has admitted before that for him his own personal experience is enough to convince him and that any evidence presented to him, even if it contravenes his beliefs, must be wrong even if he cannot discern why.

The biggest problem I have with any argument of this type is that it never seems to understand that "garbage in, garbage out". It is irrelevant whether or not your conclusions follow your premises if they are utterly flawed.