The kalam argument

[AlNg]

Jesus is not God

I thought that Catholics believed in the Trinity?

 

[AlNg]

I can always divide the distance I have walked by 2.

Mathematically yes. But in reality there might be an underlying subatomic grainy structure to matter which cannot be divided when you get below the Planckian level.

 

[AlNg]

God, being the Pure Act of Being Itself, the Actualizer of all Actualities must “contain” all effects

Since God contains all effects He must have known what would happen when He created man. Why then would He regret that He had made man, when He knew all along what would happen?

 

[Isearch]

Since the Kalaam argument is not specific to Christianity – it applies in Islam and Judaism as well – then I feel no requirement to study specifically Christian theology. Both Judaism and Islam avoid the many logical problems with Jesus being both God and man.

I do believe we should have another thread about how Christ is God and Man.

 

[mhmtas63]

I thought that Catholics believed in the Trinity?

The Thread is “Kalam argument”. Qur’an say there is one and unique God and Jesus is prophet and human. God is always out of time and matter. God create time and matter. Jesus was in time and matter.

 

[Isearch]

Make another thread about the Christian belief of the Incarnation.

 

[AlNg]

God is always out of time and matter.

Not according to the Bible. God was observed walking around in a garden according to the Bible.

 

[mhmtas63]

Not according to the Bible. God was observed walking around in a garden according to the Bible.

Could you quote verse?

 

[AlNg]

Could you quote verse?

Genesis 3: 8.

 

[IWantGod]

All the other characteristics that Craig adds are not logically justified.

Why?

I have no real interest in defending this argument, but it’s clear that what Craig intends to convey is the idea that whatever causes physical reality to exist cannot be itself physical in virtue of it being the cause of physicality, and is therefore not a part of the space-time-continuum. Therefore the cause is necessarily beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. That much is inescapably true. But whether or not his argument suceeds from premise to conclusion is a question, and it is a question that deserves more than the assertion that “All the other characteristics that Craig adds are not logically justified.”

 

[rossum]

Therefore the cause is necessarily beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful .

All that Craig shows is that the cause is not physical. Non-physical things can have a beginning, angels for example. Non-physical things can change, as Lucifer did when he fell. Anything that changes is not timeless, as with Lucifer.

As to powerful, then all that is required is to be powerful enough to create one universe; the power to create two is not logically implied. How much power is required to create the material universe? A lot less than you might think:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Zero power is needed to create a zero energy universe.

 

[IWantGod]

All that Craig shows is that the cause is not physical.

So the universe has a non-physical cause and you agree with Craig on that point?

Non-physical things can have a beginning, angels for example.

Everything that begins to exist requires a cause.

Anything that changes is not timeless, as with Lucifer.

Perhaps. But we are not talking about a physical change, and we are talking about a being revealed to us in revelation and not through philosophy. Secondly Lucifer began to exist and if he has the ability to change at all it is in virtue of the first cause.

This does not change the fact that the first cause would have to be beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful in respect to creation.

But again i am not comfortable with the kalam cosmological argument as i feel that you would have to add other arguments to make it work.

 

[IWantGod]

zero energy universe.

What do you think that means in ontological terms?

 

[mhmtas63]

Genesis 3: 8.

Here verse in Qur’an:

54- Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds. (Al-A’raf-7)

Those kind statements are metaphors. There are many verses which declare God is eternal. In Bible a snake tempt Eve but in Qur’an it is Satan! And there could be many interpretations in Bible by people which is regard to be part of verses.

 

[HarryStotle]

mhmtas63:

God is always out of time and matter.

Not according to the Bible. God was observed walking around in a garden according to the Bible.

The more accurate description of God vis a vis time is that God is not constrained or restricted in any way by time, space or material constraints.

 

[HarryStotle]

Zero power is needed to create a zero energy universe.

The problem with zero power required is that you and Hawkings have to explain what it is that changes negative energy to positive energy. If you choose to claim ‘nothing’ or ‘zero’ is required then all fundamental changes in the universe’s energy profile are without need of explanation and may as well be unexplained, random and without cause.

Would that be your position?

Seems far more inconceivable than moving towards a supernatural (defined as ‘beyond the natural or observable’) realm to account for such changes.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

God, being the Pure Act of Being Itself, the Actualizer of all Actualities must “contain” all effects

Since God contains all effects He must have known what would happen when He created man. Why then would He regret that He had made man, when He knew all along what would happen?

Clearly, you are a literalist without the capacity to read poetic writing within its proper genre.

I suppose when you took physics and the textbooks described the actions of atoms and sub-atomic particles as acting like billiard balls or pictured as…

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Wpdms_physics_proton_proton_chain_1.svg

…you take such descriptions at face.

The issue in religious texts is to reconcile human free will with the omnipotent will of God, a topic which has been addressed a myriad of times in theological and philosophical writings without anything like a completely satisfactory rendering.

 

[AlNg]

Clearly, you are a literalist without the capacity to read poetic writing within its proper genre.

Protestants say the same thing about Roman Catholics who literally interpret the Last Supper, which Protestants imply indicates a serious lack of capacity to understand the nuances of poetic and symbolic writing. For example, Methodists do not believe in transubstantiation but that holy communion is a tangible means through which God works. It is a memorial of Christ’s death and Resurrection in anticipation of the heavenly banquet in paradise. Further "The Presbyterian/Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper is one of thanksgiving and remembrance for the self-offering of Jesus Christ once and for all time on a cross in Jerusalem. Christ’s perfect sacrifice of love and service is not re-enacted or reactualized at the Lord’s Supper; rather, in the joyful feast of eucharistic celebration, we offer our praise and thanksgiving to God for this amazing gift. "
So yes, Protestants agree with you wholeheartedly that it is necessary to read the Bible with the capacity to understand poetic writing within its proper genre.

The issue in religious texts is to reconcile human free will with the omnipotent will of God

I don’t think so. I think that the issue in religious texts is to reconcile human free will with the omniscience of God.

 

[AlNg]

The more accurate description of God vis a vis time is that God is not constrained or restricted in any way by time, space or material constraints.

Since God has a human body, namely the Body of Jesus, then His human body would be constrained and restricted by time and space. Also it appears that Jesus has a different will than God the Father
Matthew 26: 39 Mark 14: 36 Luke 22: 42 John 6: 38.
Do you take these passages literally or poetically?

 

[rossum]

This does not change the fact that the first cause would have to be beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful in respect to creation.

Your changeless is definitely wrong. If it were beginningless and changeless, then any effect it caused would also be beginningless, thus rendering itself redundant. A changeless cause can never switch from not-causing to causing and back to not-causing, because it cannot change. The God described in the Bbile is not changeless; if He were, then the Bible would read very differently:

On the first day, God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day, God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day, God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth day …

The God of the Bible is not Craig’s changeless entity.