Monday, December 5, 2016

I'm in a book again! "Did God Create the Universe from Nothing?" by Jonathan M.S. Pearce

I'm very proud to say that I contributed a chapter to another book by Jonathan Pearce and Dr. James East.

This lovely book provides quite the response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  My contribution was related to Craig's inconsistencies in applying science to the philosophy of time, but Jonathan has an very broad set of objections to the argument.

It was even good enough to warrant a foreword by Jeffrey Jay Lowder, one of the OG's of Internet Atheism.

You can purchase a virtual or physical copy of the book here from Amazon. It definitely would make a nice stocking stuffer for any infidels this holiday season.


  1. Counter Apologist,

    Great chapter! Do you have any thoughts on some of the a priori objections to the A-Theory? You briefly address the question: how long does the present moment last? I think that there is no acceptable answer to this question, and so we must conclude that there is no unique present moment. The present, if there is one, must either be durationless or of some finite duration. If it has zero duration, then time can never pass because 0+0+0+... always equals 0. But if the present is some finite duration, it can always, in principle, be sliced into smaller units of time, which would entail that multiple intervals of time exist at once, which is inconsistent with the A-theory. You could postulate an indivisible chronon, but it's not clear to me that this is even coherent. And even if it is, it would entail that time doesn't smoothly "flow" but rather that time and motion is jerky and discontinuous and that objects essentially teleport through space, basically disappearing and reappearing at different places and times. If Craig wants us to give our metaphysical intuitions strong authority, then we should discredit the idea of chronons.

    Craig's own solution for the duration of the "present" is simply to deny that there is a unique duration, and the duration depends on what we want to talk about (e.g., the present minute, the present day, the present term of Congress). This seems totally inconsistent with his presentism. His view of a "non-metric present" means that for different people, the present is different lengths, and therefore multiple different intervals of time exist "simultaneously." That's entails that the B-theory is true.

    Do you have thoughts on this argument? Or is you reason for rejecting the A-theory purely based on relativity?


    1. Sorry for not seeing this comment until a bit late. This is a very interesting point, and I wasn't aware of Craig's position on the issue.

      I'd agree that it seems Craig's position is ridiculous given his commitment to presentism as the only part of time that "exists".

      This seems to be a pretty good objection to his position, though I'd probably need to read into the details of his view to see what kind of a case could be made.

      FWIW, my inclination towards the B-Theory is almost entirely due to relativity.

      Thanks for the info!