Ok, say I grant Kalam as true.
One way to disprove the improbable history line of argument is to show that human beings are naturally inclined to believe in the supernatural. Combine this fact with evolution and it’s easy to see Christianity is erroneous. God was intelligently designed to fit human needs not the other way around. The very large range of god belief points towards human beings having a very poor understanding of God, ie justified agnosticism. Which is the strongest position without ontology and epistemology, which god doesn’t offer anyway.
But why present a scientific position to someone who usually doesn’t care about math and empirical research? Should one instead point out other confounding prophesy?
Also, so many bible conundrums.
Why doesn’t God identify Jesus through his fingerprints all the while mentioning how unique fingerprints are in the bible? How can we tell God designed the cosmological constant when he doesn’t have the foresight to record the most important story in existence until a generation after God died? God is outside time but doesn’t behave this way in practice.
You’re right, I don’t think the Kalam, or the other arguments are very rationally persuasive.. especially not someone who has an appropriately skeptical worldview.
But they do allow the Christian to flirt with reason enough to make them feel pretty justified in their beliefs, as if they have some good explanatory theories that support them… the arguments are probably more about defense, than offense. But I think you are right.. our flawed pattern seeking hardware - which constantly steers our intuitions toward agency, design, and intent - is what really gives the theist a home-court advantage. The theist is comforted - cracks in the dam mended - by nice, intelligent sounding, reason-mimicking arguments that tell them their suspect intuitions and personal biases are all true.
Their arguments cannot really do the trick for someone with a rigorous epistemology. So that can be the response to the Kalam…. you can say its an interesting hypothesis… but why should you believe its conclusion (especially with the commitment that Christian theism demands) any more than you should believe in and live according to string theory, brane theory, or any of the multiverse theories? Answer: You shouldn’t. The Kalam depends on piles of extremely uncertain cosmological claims. Claims that are unverifiable by any known means, by anything other than a philosopher’s best guess.
Right, I know, you aren’t the theist. But why doesn’t this line of questioning ever work with seasoned debaters? Positive evidence of God’s non-existence is found in the absence of evidence, in the gaps. The reason why debates go on and on is that people are inclined to believe such things. What is bizarre is how imperfect and human stamped the bible is given its assumed importance.
Well, debating live is hard… and when it comes to Craig, he is simply a very seasoned debater…. its an art he has mastered. Its really as simple as that.