tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post3287712153512682965..comments2023-05-20T07:46:10.187-07:00Comments on ex-apologist: Moreland, the Kalam Argument, and a Beginningless Past, Part 2exapologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-33921507323607524692009-08-23T20:46:27.989-07:002009-08-23T20:46:27.989-07:00Hi Matthew,
Thanks for commenting. Your doxastic ...Hi Matthew,<br /><br />Thanks for commenting. Your doxastic trajectory wrt the kalam argument sounds strikingly similar to mine! <br /><br />Best,<br />EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-7183947065951002852009-08-23T02:26:46.683-07:002009-08-23T02:26:46.683-07:00THose traversal-arguments seem alright when you fi...THose traversal-arguments seem alright when you first encounter them actually. <br />When I had hope that Kalam could turn out to be a useful argument, I had an epiphany.<br />My main concern with the KCA is the beginning. I've read everything from Grünbaum, Smith and Morriston, but I have to say that Craig made some good points in response so I will grant him the parts on causality. My problem was with the beginning of time.<br /><br />So then I tried to figure out a valid syllogism for Craig's/Kant's argument and in a moment of absolute clarity, I realized that it just doesn't work unless you assume that there was an infinitely far beginning.<br /><br />Since that I believe that the KCA is a pretty useless argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com