| gnu_ordure |
| Posted 03/18/12 at 05:59 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
I have a simple question. The wiki article on the Kalam argument says:
Quote: William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[20] - Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.
- This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.
Footnote 20 refers to
Quote: Craig, William Lane (1994). Reasonable Faith. Wheaton: Moody Press. ISBN 0-89107-764-2. , page 92
I'd just like to know whether this reference is correct.
More exactly, is the wiki article summarizing Craig or quoting him? If it's sumaarizing, is it a fair summary?
Thanks.
Gnu.
|
| Loading... | |
| LNC |
| Posted 03/18/12 at 06:23 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gnu_ordureI have a simple question. The wiki article on the Kalam argument says:
Quote: William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[20] - Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.
- This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.
Footnote 20 refers to Quote: Craig, William Lane (1994). Reasonable Faith. Wheaton: Moody Press. ISBN 0-89107-764-2. , page 92 . I'd just like to know whether this reference is correct. More exactly, is the wiki article summarizing Craig or quoting him? If it's sumaarizing, is it a fair summary? Thanks. Gnu.
This argument is found on page 104 and is under the heading: Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
So, this would not be a representation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I corrected the erroneous citation of the argument.
LNC |
| Loading... | |
| lionofjudah |
| Posted 03/18/12 at 06:23 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
| I'd say its fair perhaps others would disagree but thats my assessment.
LNC I don't see any difference in this formulation and the kalam just a little different wording. Could you please explain the difference, if indeed there is any? |
| Loading... | |
| gnu_ordure |
| Posted 03/18/12 at 07:02 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Hi LNC,
First, you've done the Wiki edit wrong, there's a red error message there!!
Second, there is a another reference which includes this Step 4 which cites a different source. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says in its article on the Kalam argument:
Quote: A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first or beginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especially in the Islamic tradition. Although it had numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the recent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. Craig formulates the kalām cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith 1993, chap. 1): - Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
- Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)
The cite is to:
Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith, 1993, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, New York: Oxford University Press.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#4
Slightly different wording, but if it's correct, perhaps the Wiki article should include it?
Thanks,
Gnu.
|
| Loading... | |
