 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Marc
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 3/10/2003 9:09 AM (GMT -6) |   | I recently read a debate beetween athiest philosopher Quentin Smith and Dr. William Lane Craig. In this debate Quentin Smith argued that God could not be the cause of the big bang because the idea of an omnipotent being does not fit with our current theories of causality (for a better representaion of the argument go to www.williamlanecrig.com and go under debates and read the Craig-Smith debate:Does God exist? March 1996, Southern Methoist University (Dallas, Texas)).
For the most part I was satisfied with Dr. Craigs replies to the argument and I don't think Smith really adressed Craigs rebuttal in his re-rebttal. Never the less, I am interested in what people who are a little bit more informed than myself (I'm a layman with no kind f college degree at this time) might say about this issue.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/10/2003 3:36 PM (GMT -6) | | ...for a (much) better representaion of the argument go to
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith0.html
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/10/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | As simple as I can put it Marc; I know for certain, that for every effect or event in my life or this world, there is a cause; whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The past declares the present state of things; the means of entering into this life or the power of entrance into this world, is found through returning or passing back to the origin, where I find the original cause of all other effects; out of necessity, itself being uncaused  .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Marc
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 3/11/2003 2:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the reply Tim!
I'm inclined to agree with you.
But Smith would not. He would probably note that even if it is true that everything that begins to exist nees a cause, God cannot be an option for anything because it is an inherrent trait of causality that the event that is the cause not be a logically sufficient (or necessary) condition for the even that is the effect. Now that statement seems to me to need an enormous amount of proof because it is so counter intuitive but I was just wondering what someone more versed in literature pertaining to causal relations might say.
Thanks again!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/11/2003 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | I got every video debate that William Lane Craig has had for Christmas… 
My wife is great!
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
Marc
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 3/11/2003 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | | That would be amazing Sean!
That's one incredible wife God has blessed you with:)
So tell me though, what do you think of Dr.Smiths argument?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/11/2003 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Marc,
My children know that the agency of a cause is the action or power of a cause, in producing its effect, and possess the faculty of mind to trace effects to their causes; I think Dr. Smith’s argument is ‘sand box gibberish’.
"It is an inherent trait of causality; that the event, (which) is the cause, not be a logically sufficient or necessary condition, for the event that is the effect." - Quentin Smith
Maybe I should have said it this way,
"The past declares the present state of things; the means of entering into this life or the power of entrance into this world, is found through returning or passing back to the origin, where I find the original, ‘which is the’ cause of all other effects; out of necessity, itself being uncaused."
SeanG: My wife is great!
Tim: My wife is great  !
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Marc
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 3/12/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Tim! I really appreciate you helping me understand this.
I would however like to try to clarify your response to Smith further.
I guess at this point I don't see how your claim is relevant to Smiths argument that causes are-essentialy fallible. It seem to me all you've stated is that there must be an uncaused cause. I guess at this point I don't see what that has to do with the nature of causality. A Thomist might say that the uncaused cause must be pure actuality, or unlimitd existance. He (the Thomist) would probably further note that what God "has" He "is" (because his essance is identical to His existance)and therefore if He has power; He IS power, and so is powerfull in an unilimited sence. That being the case; The firstuncaused cause simply MUST BE infallible in regard to causal ability. But this would only seem to end in some sort of a dillema. There must be an infallible cause of every contingent being and All Causes must be fallible..we've got to either go between the horns of the dillema or take one head on and deny it.
I might be just confused, just looking for clarity and understanding!
Thanks again Tim, I seriously appeciate your help:)
God bless!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 3/13/2003 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | OK, Marc, I've read the Smith-Craig debate. For what they're worth, here's my thoughts:
I find three distinct objections by Smith:
(1) Craig's Kalam argument equivocates by using the term "cause" differently in the premises than it does in the conclusion.
(2) The idea of divine causation of the Big Bang corresponds to no extant and/or adequate definition of causality.
(3) Logically sufficient conditions are not causes.
With respect to (1), Smith argues that whenever we examine the causes of things that begin to exist, we inevitably find ourselves examining "rearrangers of pre-existent materials". So the only sense in which Craig's premise that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" has any evidential support is where "cause" means "rearranger". But the universe is not a rearrangement of pre-existent materials, so Craig's conclusion that "the universe has a cause of its existence" is plausible only if cause means something other than "rearranger".
I think Craig's response that the premise is rooted not in experience of causes but in the metaphysical intuition that "out of nothing, nothing comes" is a good one. Craig also makes the good point that we do in fact have experience of something analogous to ex nihilo causation--our mental ability to create thought-worlds in our minds.
With respect to (2), Smith examines various definitions of causality that have been proposed and argues either that they don't apply to God's causing of the Big Bang or the definition is inadequate as a general account of causality.
(a) Temporal priority (doesn't apply b/c no time prior to Big Bang)
(b) Nomological (doesn't apply b/c not governed by natural laws)
(c) Counterfactual (doesn't apply b/c it would imply reverse causal dependence of God's willing on Big Bang)
(d) Necessary and/or sufficient conditions (applies to God, but not adequate as general definitions of causality)
I agree with Smith on (a). As for (b), why restrict nomological definitions to laws of nature? Why can't we say that God's causation of the Big Bang satisfies the metaphysical law that whatever an omnipotent being wills to do comes to pass? As for (c), I like Craig's response that God's causing of the Big Bang does satisfy the stated conditions of Lewis's theory and that the reverse causal dependence problem arises for some natural processes as well--showing that the inadequacy lies not in the pecularities of divine causation but in Lewis's definition. As for (d), Smith concedes that God's willing can be construed as both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the Big Bang, but he goes on to argue that neither necessary nor sufficient conditions are either necessary or sufficient for a general account of causality. He's right on the technical point, but it's really beside the point. Smith assumes that causality is something that can (in principle) be univocally defined. I submit that there's no good reason to accept that as true. Aristotle recognized long ago that there are many different types of causal relation (efficient, material, formal, final). Sometimes when we use the word cause we mean "sufficient condition"; sometimes we mean "necessary condition"; sometimes we mean "probabilifying condition", and so on.
With respect to (3), Smith states that "for any x, if x is a logically sufficient condition of y then x does not cause y". God's willing, he grants, is a logically sufficient condition for the Big Bang. Therefore, God's willing did not cause the Big Bang. The problem with this argument is that Smith gives us no reason at all to accept the first premise! The example he gives (a body's being in motion is a sufficient condition for its existing but not a cause for its existing) shows only that x's being a logically sufficient condition for y does not establish that x causes y. What he needs to show (and doesn't) is that NO cause is ever a logically sufficient condition of the effect that it causes.
Hope that helps.
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 03/13/2003 9:38:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/13/2003 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | "I don't see how your claim (Tim,) is relevant to Smith’s argument that causes are essentially fallible." - Marc
The agency of a cause is the action or power of a cause, in producing its effect. Smith’s argument is opposed to ‘manifest truth’, inconsistent with reason, and against the plain dictates of common sense.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Marc
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 3/14/2003 2:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Alan,
Your clarity is a breath of fresh air!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Marc
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 3/14/2003 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan-
One more thing I was curious about. In the debate Smith claimed that he didn't see how Lewis's definition of causality could accomodate God as a cause of the big bang during Smiths rebuttal. I'm just wondering if you migh know why Smith couldn't see that..it seems clear to me but again, I'm not a professional..thanks again for your time man!
Tim-Thanks again for your comments! You said that the agency of a cause is the action or power of a cause. I don't think Smith would disagree with that basic notion. Where the problem arises is when one assumes that action or power to be infallible. I guess I might not be undrstand your point yet. It just doesn't seem relevant. Further your said that Smiths argument is against the common sense notion--common to who and in what sense? it was once common sense that the world is flat. With that in mind I think we need to deal with whatever arguments would be offered for the notion that causes cannot be logically sufficient conditions.
thank you again Tim..I really do appreciate your comments and I hope I might get some more clarity on them:)
GOD BLESS!!
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:18 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|