I have never liked Craig's _kalam_ argument, and this video explains well why it is. David Bentley Hart's _The Experience of God_ is another good explanation.
WLC argument does not rely on Big Bang cosmology. He explained many times that Big Bang may not be the beginning and still he would claim that the world has a beginnig, and he gives philosophical argument for it.
Why do so many perceive the word "world" and "universe" the same? I would say the "world" on earth - is vastly different than the dead "matter" above the clouds. However, as Spirit and body is one, the "celestial" is in actuality a trinity, or three fold, inner and outer cosmic reality of eternal origin. I mean, before our fetus evolves into material form within the darkness of our mothers womb, her ovary must be vitalized by the celestial seed of our earth bound fathers staff - as all life on our plane formed of the dust of our mother earth: the living womb of the solar system - by father universe's' celestial star dust seed. Perhaps Spirit is eternal universal resonance giving rise to all structural and living matter formation of varying form and level of consciousness. The beings of highest consciousness called "Angels". The lowest called "devils". Adolescent and clever spirits eternally dancing with matured and discerning souls.
I do agree that creation must mean a continuing dependence on God, whatever else it might mean. I do have some questions/disagreements. Can a time bound world even be eternal? Is Carroll using the word eternal in the sense of infinite in time? Certainly we would not want to talk about God in that way. Is the speaker not trying to work within a naturalistic philosophy by accepting the findings of science as ultimate and trying to fit Thomas into them? My understanding is that even Thomas believed in a beginning to the world, but not from philosophy. I do understand that these matters, both philosophical and scientific, are very complex. But scientists say they know, or understand in a way that rules out the concept of creation. Shouldn’t that claim be questioned? In a parallel case, the beginning of the 20th century saw an attempt at a retrieval of Trinitarian theology. It got weird really fast because it tried to do so using philosophical naturalism. Shouldn’t part of conceptual therapy be a questioning of philosophical naturalism altogether?
I do not know....but I ponder when considering the topic here. Lets go with God is real and true, and all things where created by Him and through Him. If God created everything including evolving consciousness, would not the phenoms of creations nature, be natural to Gods creation - while the "natural" laws of Gods creation remain as a sovereign grounding like gravity, grounding the spirit of mankind male/female, keeping mankind humble, and of humility through the chastising of storms caused of each gerations arrogance?
I have never liked Craig's _kalam_ argument, and this video explains well why it is. David Bentley Hart's _The Experience of God_ is another good explanation.
The Experience is the seat of all knowing, that is... if the conciousness is not distracted by fantasy and drama.
WLC argument does not rely on Big Bang cosmology. He explained many times that Big Bang may not be the beginning and still he would claim that the world has a beginnig, and he gives philosophical argument for it.
Why do so many perceive the word "world" and "universe" the same? I would say the "world" on earth - is vastly different than the dead "matter" above the clouds. However, as Spirit and body is one, the "celestial" is in actuality a trinity, or three fold, inner and outer cosmic reality of eternal origin. I mean, before our fetus evolves into material form within the darkness of our mothers womb, her ovary must be vitalized by the celestial seed of our earth bound fathers staff - as all life on our plane formed of the dust of our mother earth: the living womb of the solar system - by father universe's' celestial star dust seed. Perhaps Spirit is eternal universal resonance giving rise to all structural and living matter formation of varying form and level of consciousness. The beings of highest consciousness called "Angels". The lowest called "devils". Adolescent and clever spirits eternally dancing with matured and discerning souls.
I do agree that creation must mean a continuing dependence on God, whatever else it might mean. I do have some questions/disagreements. Can a time bound world even be eternal? Is Carroll using the word eternal in the sense of infinite in time? Certainly we would not want to talk about God in that way. Is the speaker not trying to work within a naturalistic philosophy by accepting the findings of science as ultimate and trying to fit Thomas into them? My understanding is that even Thomas believed in a beginning to the world, but not from philosophy. I do understand that these matters, both philosophical and scientific, are very complex. But scientists say they know, or understand in a way that rules out the concept of creation. Shouldn’t that claim be questioned? In a parallel case, the beginning of the 20th century saw an attempt at a retrieval of Trinitarian theology. It got weird really fast because it tried to do so using philosophical naturalism. Shouldn’t part of conceptual therapy be a questioning of philosophical naturalism altogether?
I do not know....but I ponder when considering the topic here. Lets go with God is real and true, and all things where created by Him and through Him. If God created everything including evolving consciousness, would not the phenoms of creations nature, be natural to Gods creation - while the "natural" laws of Gods creation remain as a sovereign grounding like gravity, grounding the spirit of mankind male/female, keeping mankind humble, and of humility through the chastising of storms caused of each gerations arrogance?
The topic is too important go record the sound with a potatoe…