Hello everyone! As long as you’re not blind (or running windows 98) you’ve probably noticed something different about the website. Yes, it has been redesigned, and with what I take to be a much better theme. It’s easier on the eyes and has a depth which the previous theme lacked, or so says I. Please tell me what you think! And as far as announcements go, I have a checklist of sorts that I’d like to share with you: Post a new Common Objections to Kalam on Singularities and Infinity... Read The Rest →
This objection is perhaps the worst, but since we are cataloguing rather common objections to Kalam, we should toss the following one into the mix. This objection goes something like this: The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument seems to put God in a rather difficult place when one considers that the word ‘universe’ means the totality of all that exists. God would be something that exists and so given that the universe began to exist [or all that exists began to exist], God too would begin to exist... Read The Rest →
I believe that God is a necessary being, a being such that (as Aquinas would put it), it’s existence follows from it’s essence. But then there’s a sound ontological argument, right? It’s been years since I’ve started thinking about an ontological argument with premises that everyone can accept and therefore, is immune to parodies. Every single one I could think of required axiom S5 of modal logic, which states that if there is a possible world W in which proposition A is true, then for every possible world W’, W... Read The Rest →
Paul Moser has a take on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness that is very unique. In the subsequent parts, I will get deeper into his view; but, for this post, I want to focus on the problems he sees for alternative theistic accounts of divine hiddenness.
Here is another very common objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I’ve noticed it used by some commentators on youtube as well as a good friend on Facebook. Here’s the objection:
I want to take this post as an opportunity to get some ideas on a few different thoughts that I have been having about incompatibility principles. Incompatibility principles are propositions that claim that God and evil are incompatible on some level. Every argument from evil needs one. There are of course many different types of incompatibility principles, but the hands down two most famous ones are "If God exists, then evil does not exist" and "If God exists, then gratuitous evil does not exist." Given the failure of the logical problem of evil, this post will not deal with the former.
I’m on a roll this week – I have yet another Common Objection to Kalam. And, this might be tiring by now, our criticism today comes from – you guessed it – Adolf Grünbaum. Now, this objection isn’t as common as the others, but it is no less interspersed throughout the endless grid that is the internet (to think of a Tron reference). Unlike my previous responses, this will not be so short, and not so simple as it were. I will draw almost entirely from the criticisms of Adolf... Read The Rest →
As promised, Part 3 of Common Objections to Kalam is here. I tackle yet another rather common, but no less important, objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And like our previous objection, Adolf Grünbaum used this exact objection in his Group 1 objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument in, “The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology.” In it he writes, “it would hardly follow that there is some one single conscious agency which was required causally for the occurrence of the supposed first state of the total physical universe. This... Read The Rest →
Our next Common Objections to Kalam comes spuriously out of the halls of internetdom. While it is popularly used as a response to the Kalām Cosmological Argument, Adolf Grünbaum (the famous philosopher of time) was, to my knowledge, the first fellow to bring up this objection, and in a manner fitting of the internet, before it fell from the high clouds of philosophical journals it was swept up and blasted by powerful critiques; and yet in spite of this, it is still rather popular on the internet and elsewhere.
In leu of the periodical nature of my previous post, I thought I would do something similar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. Thus, Common Objections to Kalam (COK for short) has been birthed! Like Bedside reading this will be a weekly endeavor, but unlike Bedside reading, I’ll eventually run out of objections, and at a rather quicker rate. Regardless, this week the objection mentioned is easy, nay too easy, but we have to start somewhere, and why not start with one of THE most popular objections to... Read The Rest →