I recently re-read J.P. Moreland's defense of the kalam cosmological argument in his classic apologetics text, Scaling the Secular City. Good Lord.
Virtually all his arguments against the traversability of actual infinites presuppose that any traversal must have a beginning. In other words, he just blatantly begs the question against the possibility of a beginningless past. At least Craig offers arguments against the possibility of beginningless traversals, viz., his "immortal counter" reductio and his variation on the Tristram Shandy Paradox (which, unfortunately, have been decisively critiqued by (e.g.) Wes Morriston -- here, for example). I hope to discuss Moreland's arguments in detail some time soon.
UPDATE: Here is a link to a detailed discussion of Moreland's arguments against the traversability of a beginningless past.
1 comment:
I hear you. For me at least, it can get a bit painful to read through the same kind of poor reasoning over and over, hoping to see that you've just misread something or skipped a paragraph or seven. It's something that I've seen in particularly the works Craig and Moreland concerning the Kalam (or at least in the works that I've become familiar with). I do hear that perhaps Nowacki fares better, though I haven't been able to read his book yet. As always, I look forward to your next insightful post.
Post a Comment