Readers of this blog are likely aware of the ongoing discussion involving Kristor of the Orthosphere, Dr. Charlton, and me—a discussion Kristor initiated via comments on a post I wrote about the nature of uncreated freedom.
Kristor continuously accuses Dr. Charlton and me of refusing to answer his questions, particularly about arguments like the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Referring to arguments like the Principle of Sufficient Reason or the Kalam Cosmological Argument amounts to little more than an implicit admission on Kristor’s part.
The nature of the admission?
He doesn't give the arguments and answers Dr. Charlton and I provide the attention and consideration they deserve. If he did, he would not have to refer to things like the PSR or the KCA because he could easily infer what our answers mean and how they fit in the context of those things.
Anyway, in the interest of clarity, I will dedicate a few posts to addressing the PSR and the KCA from my perspective and assumptions, starting with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Today’s post will be brief.
So, Romantic Christianity argues for the primacy of intuition over external considerations like philosophical arguments. Put another way, Romantic Christianity posits that everyone’s beliefs are grounded in intuition, regardless of whether an individual accepts that as true.
William Lane Craig, the philosopher behind the contemporary Kalam Cosmological Argument, confirms this Romantic Christian “principle”:
I am convinced that it (the KCA) is a good argument.
I just don't regard the argument as the basis for my belief in God. I've been quite candid about that. My belief in God is a properly basic belief grounded in the inner witness of God's Holy Spirit.
Putting the argument aside for the moment, I wholeheartedly agree with Craig. In fact, I’ll take it a step further. I don’t regard any argument as the basis for my belief in God. Like Craig, my belief in God is a properly basic belief grounded in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (not God’s holy spirit but more on that in another post).
My personal relationship with the Holy Spirit trumps external considerations, including philosophical arguments.
If I were of a flippant nature, I could simply tell Kristor that the KCA has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my belief in God, leave it there, and feel perfectly justified in doing so.
But I won’t do that.
Conversely, Craig goes on to say that this basic belief in God has no impact on the soundness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument,
Similarly, whatever reason I have personally for believing in God, whether it's the witness of the Holy Spirit or the ontological argument or the teleological argument or divine revelation, or whatever, that just has no relation to the soundness or the worth of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
The statement above helps shed light on why Kristor is urging me to engage with the KCA—like Craig, he believes it is a sound argument that supports the classical theist omni conceptualization of God, thereby undermining my non-omni conceptualization of God.
Once again, based on the primacy of intuitive belief, I am “within my rights” to tell Kristor to stuff it. He is well within his rights to do the same, but this nullifies any chance at discussion or sharing ideas.
In light of this, I will begin addressing aspects of the KCA in my next post.
Kristor continuously accuses Dr. Charlton and me of refusing to answer his questions, particularly about arguments like the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Referring to arguments like the Principle of Sufficient Reason or the Kalam Cosmological Argument amounts to little more than an implicit admission on Kristor’s part.
The nature of the admission?
He doesn't give the arguments and answers Dr. Charlton and I provide the attention and consideration they deserve. If he did, he would not have to refer to things like the PSR or the KCA because he could easily infer what our answers mean and how they fit in the context of those things.
Anyway, in the interest of clarity, I will dedicate a few posts to addressing the PSR and the KCA from my perspective and assumptions, starting with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Today’s post will be brief.
So, Romantic Christianity argues for the primacy of intuition over external considerations like philosophical arguments. Put another way, Romantic Christianity posits that everyone’s beliefs are grounded in intuition, regardless of whether an individual accepts that as true.
William Lane Craig, the philosopher behind the contemporary Kalam Cosmological Argument, confirms this Romantic Christian “principle”:
I am convinced that it (the KCA) is a good argument.
I just don't regard the argument as the basis for my belief in God. I've been quite candid about that. My belief in God is a properly basic belief grounded in the inner witness of God's Holy Spirit.
Putting the argument aside for the moment, I wholeheartedly agree with Craig. In fact, I’ll take it a step further. I don’t regard any argument as the basis for my belief in God. Like Craig, my belief in God is a properly basic belief grounded in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (not God’s holy spirit but more on that in another post).
My personal relationship with the Holy Spirit trumps external considerations, including philosophical arguments.
If I were of a flippant nature, I could simply tell Kristor that the KCA has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my belief in God, leave it there, and feel perfectly justified in doing so.
But I won’t do that.
Conversely, Craig goes on to say that this basic belief in God has no impact on the soundness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument,
Similarly, whatever reason I have personally for believing in God, whether it's the witness of the Holy Spirit or the ontological argument or the teleological argument or divine revelation, or whatever, that just has no relation to the soundness or the worth of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
The statement above helps shed light on why Kristor is urging me to engage with the KCA—like Craig, he believes it is a sound argument that supports the classical theist omni conceptualization of God, thereby undermining my non-omni conceptualization of God.
Once again, based on the primacy of intuitive belief, I am “within my rights” to tell Kristor to stuff it. He is well within his rights to do the same, but this nullifies any chance at discussion or sharing ideas.
In light of this, I will begin addressing aspects of the KCA in my next post.
RSS Feed
