Reformed Theology Problem with W.L. Craig's Infinite Regress argument  Calvinism

Problem with W.L. Craig’s Infinite Regress argument

Reformed Theology Problem with W.L. Craig's Infinite Regress argument  Calvinism
Problem with W.L. Craig’s Infinite Regress argument

Hi all, This thread is for Theistic Evolutionists. I've been listening to William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" podcast, which is an amazing resource of 7 years worth of podcasts! Subscribe, set your display options from "Oldest to newest", hit "Play all from here" and start at the beginning. Amazing! However, it occurred to me last night that his argument against Infinite Regress was faulty. You know, the idea that the universe was always here because something happened before that, and something before that, etc back to infinity. He asks if someone counting the past just before the Big Bang would ever get to the Big Bang and start history. You can't, because it's forever, but in the wrong direction. That's the argument anyway. You can't have infinite regress because you never get to now. You've always got to allow 'forever' to occur, but in reverse, 'forever' so to speak.

But. If we're going to have a podcast — and indeed a philosophy — that claims to respect science, surely it needs to acknowledge that there is no infinite regress prior to the Big Bang. Time is not an independent thing of this universe, but a part of Space Time. EG: Fly in orbit around a black hole long enough, and 1 year ship time for you on the ship will be about 2 years back home on earth. Fly 99% the speed of light, and 1 day ship time will be about 1 year back home! Want to go to Alpha Centauri? That's 4 days for you, 4 years for your family back on earth. If you went there and back again, your kid brother 8 years your junior would end up being your age when you got home. He might not remember that joke you told him just over a week ago your time, because 8 years have gone by for him. It sounds like a science fiction story, but these things are possible in the laws of physics. (If you could build something that withstood the shock of 99% light speed: most current materials would be shredded by interstellar hydrogen particles in near vacuum, let alone any actual space dust or micro-meteorites or the sheer energy required to get to 99% light speed).

The bottom line is this: an atheist would ask what on earth William Lane Craig was on about with his arguments for infinite regress because there is no time BBG. (Before Big Bang). I've heard one atheist say, "It's like asking what is south of the South Pole?" That to me sounds like they're avoiding the question of what caused the Big Bang, which is the contingency / existence question, but Infinite Regress is a spinoff argument that is kind of killed dead in its tracks by relativity. I'm just sad because I thought someone of WLC's reputation would get that?

Hi all, This thread is for Theistic Evolutionists. I’ve been listening to William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” podcast, which is an amazing resource of 7 years worth of podcasts! Subscribe, set your display options from “Oldest to newest”, hit “Play all from here” and start at the beginning. Amazing! However, it occurred to me last night that his argument against Infinite Regress was faulty. You know, the idea that the universe was always here because something happened before that, and something before that, etc back to infinity. He asks if someone counting the past just before the Big Bang would ever get to the Big Bang and start history. You can’t, because it’s forever, but in the wrong direction. That’s the argument anyway. You can’t have infinite regress because you never get to now. You’ve always got to allow ‘forever’ to occur, but in reverse, ‘forever’ so to speak.But. If we’re going to have a podcast — and indeed a philosophy — that claims to respect science, surely it needs to acknowledge that there is no infinite regress prior to the Big Bang. Time is not an independent thing of this universe, but a part of Space Time. EG: Fly in orbit around a black hole long enough, and 1 year ship time for you on the ship will be about 2 years back home on earth. Fly 99% the speed of light, and 1 day ship time will be about 1 year back home! Want to go to Alpha Centauri? That’s 4 days for you, 4 years for your family back on earth. If you went there and back again, your kid brother 8 years your junior would end up being your age when you got home. He might not remember that joke you told him just over a week ago your time, because 8 years have gone by for him. It sounds like a science fiction story, but these things are possible in the laws of physics. (If you could build something that withstood the shock of 99% light speed: most current materials would be shredded by interstellar hydrogen particles in near vacuum, let alone any actual space dust or micro-meteorites or the sheer energy required to get to 99% light speed).The bottom line is this: an atheist would ask what on earth William Lane Craig was on about with his arguments for infinite regress because there is no time BBG. (Before Big Bang). I’ve heard one atheist say, “It’s like asking what is south of the South Pole?” That to me sounds like they’re avoiding the question of what caused the Big Bang, which is the contingency / existence question, but Infinite Regress is a spinoff argument that is kind of killed dead in its tracks by relativity. I’m just sad because I thought someone of WLC’s reputation would get that?
Link: Problem with W.L. Craig’s Infinite Regress argument
Submitted by eclipsenow