Craig’s Explanation of The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I have had a lot of comments, objections and concerns on Craig’s Explanation of
Cosmological Argument(Contingency Version)
which most I believe is because of misunderstanding between Cosmological Argument Contingency Version and Temporal Version also known as The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Craig is mastermind behind the revival of The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Bring this almost forgotten Argument for Existence of God back to the top of Religious Philosophy. Craig has answered most of the objections rose against this Argument from both the Historical Atheists and the New Atheists most Richard Dawkin’s popular work The God Delusion.

William Lane Craig, a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. The number one(my number one) Christian Debater of our time.

(Bold is my way of ask you to pay much attention)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe
William Lane Craig

Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Once we reach the conclusion that the universe has a cause, we can then analyze what properties such a cause must have and assess its theological significance.

Now again the argument is logically ironclad. So the only question is whether the two premises are more plausibly true than their denials.

Premise 1 seems obviously true—at the least, more so than its negation. First, it’s rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic. Second, if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it’s inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Third, premise 1 is constantly confirmed in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes.

Premise 2

Premise 2 can be supported both by philosophical argument and by scientific evidence. The philosophical arguments aim to show that there cannot have been an infinite regress of past events. In other words, the series of past events must be finite and have had a beginning. Some of these arguments try to show that it is impossible for an actually infinite number of things to exist; therefore, an infinite number of past events cannot exist. Others try to show that an actually infinite series of past events could never elapse; since the series of past events has obviously elapsed, the number of past events must be finite.

The scientific evidence for premise 2 is based on the expansion of the universe and the thermodynamic properties of the universe. According to the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe, physical space and time, along with all the matter and energy in the universe, came into being at a point in the past about 13.7 billion years ago (Fig. 1).Kalam Cosmological Argument

Figure 1: Geometrical Representation of Standard Model Space-Time. Space and time begin at the initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists.

What makes the Big Bang so amazing is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, “the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”1

Of course, cosmologists have proposed alternative theories over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Their proof holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe, which still eludes scientists, and applies even to any wider multiverse of which our universe might be thought to be a part. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.2

Moreover, in addition to the evidence based on the expansion of the universe, we have thermodynamic evidence for the beginning of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that in a finite amount of time, the universe will grind down to a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state. But if it has already existed for infinite time, the universe should now be in such a desolate condition. Scientists have therefore concluded that the universe must have begun to exist a finite time ago and is now in the process of winding down.

Conclusion

It follows logically from the two premises that the universe has a cause. The prominent New Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett agrees that the universe has a cause, but he thinks that the cause of the universe is itself! Yes, he’s serious. In what he calls “the ultimate boot-strapping trick,” he claims that the universe created itself.3

Dennett’s view is plainly nonsense. Notice that he’s not saying that the universe is self- caused in the sense that it has always existed. No, Dennett agrees that the universe had an absolute beginning but claims that the universe brought itself into being. But this is clearly impossible, for in order to create itself, the universe would have to already exist. It would have to exist before it existed! Dennett’s view is thus logically incoherent. The cause of the universe must therefore be a transcendent cause beyond the universe.

So what properties must such a cause of the universe possess? As the cause of space and time, it must transcend space and time and therefore exist timelessly and non-spatially (at least without the universe). This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial because :

(1) anything that is timeless must also be unchanging and

(2) anything that is changeless must be non-physical and immaterial since material things are constantly changing at the molecular and atomic levels.

Such a cause must be without a beginning and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any prior causal conditions, since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Ockham’s Razor (the principle that states that we should not multiply causes beyond necessity) will shave away any other causes since only one cause is required to explain the effect. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, since it created the universe without any material cause.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent first cause is plausibly personal. We’ve already seen in our discussion of the argument from contingency that the personhood of the first cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality. The only entities that can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be an unembodied mind.4

Moreover, the personhood of the first cause is also implied since the origin of an effect with a beginning is a cause without a beginning. We’ve seen that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature of the case that cause cannot have a beginning of its existence or any prior cause. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is very peculiar. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect that it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this happen? If the sufficient conditions for the effect are eternal, then why isn’t the effect also eternal? How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? How can the cause exist without its effect?

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that’s to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. (By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning.) By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist.5 So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

So on the basis of an analysis of the argument’s conclusion, we may therefore infer that a personal Creator of the universe exists who is uncaused, without beginning, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful.

On the contemporary scene philosophers such as Stuart Hackett, David Oderberg, Mark Nowacki, and I have defended the kalam cosmological argument.6

Dawkins’s Response

Now, fortunately, Dawkins does address this version of the cosmological argument. Remarkably, however, he doesn’t dispute either premise of the argument! Instead, he questions the theological significance of the argument’s conclusion. He complains,

Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.7

Apart from the opening dig,8 this is an amazingly concessionary statement. Dawkins doesn’t deny that the argument successfully demonstrates the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe. He merely complains that this cause hasn’t been shown to be omnipotent, omniscient, good, creative of design, listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts. So what? The argument doesn’t aspire to prove such things. It would be a bizarre form of atheism— indeed, one not worth the name—that conceded that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe, who may, for all we know, also possess the further properties listed by Dawkins!9

Dawkins does have a bit more to say about the kalam cosmological argument. He asserts, “it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity,’ or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.”10 I take it that the objection here is that something else of a purely physical nature can be regarded as the cause of the universe reached in the argument’s conclusion. But as we’ve seen, this objection won’t work. For the initial singularity is just the beginning point of the universe. So our very question is why the singularity came into being. It would be a fundamental misunderstanding to think of the singularity as some sort of super-dense pellet that has been lying dormant from eternity and that blew up a finite time ago. Rather, according the Big Bang theory, the singularity is the point at which physical space and time themselves, along with all matter and energy, began to exist. So there can be no physical cause of any sort of the Big Bang singularity. So what brought the universe into being? The principle of parsimony (or Ockham’s Razor) advises us not to multiply causes beyond necessity; but the principle of explanatory adequacy requires us to posit such causes as are necessary to explain the effect, otherwise we would never seek any causes for anything. We must therefore posit a transcendent cause that is beyond space and time and is therefore non-physical in nature. We needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading; but the point remains that a being such as described above must exist.


1“In the Beginning: In Conversation with Paul Davies and Philip Adams” (January 17, 2002). http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460625.htm.
2Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.
3Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking, 2006), 244.
4For a discussion of the possibility of atemporal personhood, see my Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 77–113.
5 Such an exercise of causal power plausibly brings God into time at the very moment of creation.
6 Stuart Hackett, The Resurrection of Theism: Prolegomena to Christian Apology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982); David Oderberg, “Traversal of the Infinite, the ‘Big Bang,’ and the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 303–34; Mark Nowacki, The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God (Studies in Analytic Philosophy; Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007); William Lane Craig and James Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 101–201.
7 Dawkins, God Delusion, 77.
8 The argument’s proponent doesn’t arbitrarily conjure up a terminator to the infinite regress and give it a name. Rather, as we have seen, he presents philosophical and scientific arguments that the regress must terminate in a first member, arguments that Dawkins doesn’t discuss. Dawkins himself recognizes that many regresses cannot be infinitely extended (God Delusion, 78), but he insists it is by no means clear that God constitutes a natural terminator to the regress of causes. But proponents of the kalam argument provide justification for what properties such a terminator must possess, and no name need be given to the first cause: it is simply the personal Creator of the universe.
9 We needn’t be worried by Dawkins’s little argument that omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible (God Delusion, 78). The impossible task Dawkins envisions for God is just a replay of the old chestnut, “Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?” The fallacy of such puzzles is that the task described is logically impossible, and omnipotence doesn’t mean the ability to bring about the logically impossible.
10 Dawkins, God Delusion, 78.

For more details on this Argument’s,debates, and podcasts can be found on William Lane Craig site, and in his Books:Reasonable Faith and On Guard is your place to dig deep.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Craig’s Explanation of The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  1. Dear Bill,

    You are very correct that majority of Christians do not believe in God because of argunent but because they are taught so. This is true with everything taught, it been arithmetics, evolution theory, e.t.c, the question comes when a person what to know if these things taught are warranted. Thus argument for God are needed to help a skeptics and strengthen a believer’s belief.

    I am sad Bill, that your restated P1’s are, sadly, Strawman. Premise 1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause. If God began to exist, then He also need a cause. But God, as believed in Judeo-Christianity, did not begin to exist, thus need no cause.

    Thank you Bill.

    Prayson

  2. This is an embarrasing argument for the existence of God. For starters, the basic thought process behind this argument is not why ancient people first believed in God nor the reason why modern people believe in God. People nowadays believe in God because they are told about God from other people. So, the purpose of the argument, apparently, is for people who currently believe in God understand why what they are doing can be philosophically justified? (I guess). Anyhow, it is the worst attempt at proving God I can possibly imagine. P1: Nothing observed begins to exist therefore there is no reason to believe anything begins to exist. Given that P1 can be restated: Nothing has a cause. Back to the original– Of course the intended deception of the argument’s constructor is to tempt one to accept the first premise without hesitation (‘it’s intuitive!’.). As mr Craig says ‘people don’t just pop into existence!’. Indeed they do not. But why is that? Hmm…it is because coming into existence requires time!! At what point did i become me?? As a zygote, a sperm, a 1000 cell creature, when I developed a brain????? Select any point in my development and it required time to reach that point. Now if ‘I began to exist’ wihout time then the first premise could be restated P1: Everything that exists has a cause. And of course that would mean ‘God’ requires a cause.

  3. Long ago, Kalam stated plainly and somewhat intuitively “Everthing which exists has a cause…” in Premise one.
    People who used this argument got sick of it being killed by the built in refutation. It was an argument which gave us a big fat target right on its weak spot. We would defeat it handily by saying “then what caused God?”
    ouch.
    see how that kills the old version so completely, so hillarously? By its own logic it is defeated. What’s more, it even ends up becoming an argument against the existance of God because if it is true that “everything that exists has a cause” and god has no cause.. bahaha! It was a riot how badly it was killed by such a simple phrase. “what caused God?” and we would all laugh hysterically at how it fractured at every angle and fell cartoonishly to the mat.

    Many years later, along came William Lane Crag who actually saw promise in this fallen giant. Though it was broken and battered, he began an unholy ritual which resurrected it by putting a patch on its weakest spot. Now the first premise is “everything *which begins to exist* has a cause”
    Woo, look how he taught that beat up palooka some fancy footwork.

    The problem is that we can see the patch. We just need to expose it for what it is, a way to mask the arguments weakness.

    He introduces a category, the category being…bum bum bum: THINGS WHICH DO NOT BEGIN TO EXIST. Crag’s problem is that he only lets one thing into this “category”- namely God. there really does need to be something else in the beginningless category for it to be a “category” and for this to be an honest argument. But it isnt an honest argument so nothing fits in that category except God.
    Lets fix it then, lets make it an honest argument:
    Here is what Crag is actually saying in premise one: “everything, except God, needs a cause…”
    Ouch, you see that, right there, there is our special pleading–all exposed.
    You peel off that patch and its still so weak underneath.

    Crag just wont learn that you can’t introduce a special exception for something in the first premise (the very thing you are trying to prove) and hide it by calling it a category. trading special pleading for question begging didn’t make it less fallacious. It’s easy to see when you realize that the Beginingless catagory is only, and can only be, synonymous with God.

    The only way to get out of this would be for Crag to tell us about lots of other things that somehow belong in this category of things which are non-created eternal things, enough to justify making a “category” for them. I think this would be a pretty bad idea though because each time he adds something to his category, he’ll have to explain why it doesnt compete with God as a universe creator. I think each one will need it’s very own syllogism to do that. Or maybe it would turn Kalam into a vast branching tree like network of syllogisms which would sadly do away with one of the fan’s favorite features, Kalam’s simplicity. And even I found it’s simplicity laughably charming, teehee; imagine working with frail human intuition where abstruse concepts like the origins of the mother lovin universe are concerned- snicker snort!

    Now when I see this poor old fighter Kalam, still swinging and missing and failing to impress; now looking for opponents who cannot see his obvious patch. I feel a pity when I push him over because there was a time when he was at least comical and he hit the floor with a little bit of a bounce and a clownish squeak sound. Now he’s a disgusting mutant creature, begging for his end.

    • Thank you Burlap,

      I believe it correct to say something’s did not begin to exist. Example Mathematician’s believes that sets, numbers, logic et cetera exist necessarily by the necessity of their own nature. Thus 2 + 2 = 4 even if the universe did not exist or we came to discovered it.

      Abstract objects cannot be said, philosophically, to begin to exist. thus, I believe Burlap, it is not true, that God alone is in that category.

      It was Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, 12th century Muslim theologian from Persia that argued “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.”(Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Archaeologie Orientale 46 (1947): 203.)

      Could you be kind, Burlap, to help us with the source of the kalam(Arabic: spoken words) argument you explained above?

      Thank you, Burlap, for the critic.

      Prayson

      • Always glad to help.
        But the laws of mathematics are not necessarily necessary. The reason is that mathematics is not prescriptive of the universe- it’s descriptive!
        If the universe worked a different way, we would have a completely different set of laws to describe it.
        We made the laws of mathematics to describe a property of things which exist in this universe. That is, as long as we don’t resort to ugly equivocation errors between the idea of math and actual numbered things.

        I actually have a pretty good imagination (even for a mere mortal) and I can imagine a universe where math and logic and other “necessary” ideas are not necessary at all, even useless- and all I have to do is imagine such a universe, to show they are unnecessary.
        Think abstractly with me now:
        A universe of total consciousness where “you” and “I” are meaningless statements and persistence of existence doesn’t even move linearly though “time” no one would be able to perceive any one thing because there wont be any one thing or even a finite number of things. The dry rain falls upon an infinitely large square circle in a universe that drifts in an emotional state which is a little like content apathy but also like love and dizziness. There are actually 2 smells in this universe which can loosely be described as cinnamon and gasoline, but existence can experience them in the past or in the future or in different times at once and in as much or as little abundance as desired.

        Having evolved in this terrestrial universe, it’s hard to talk about such a place given the vocabulary we earth dwelling apes have come up with, but it isn’t hard to imagine. I’ll bet a being with infinite imagination could do even better than I can.
        There are people who have very poor imaginations, and think mathematical laws are necessary, it’s sad.

        It’s a bit like the mix up that creationists make when they believe that the earth was designed for humans rather than humans adapting to the earth. We looked around the universe and we, and every other animal to an extent, made up mathematics to help us understand it. as long as you don’t mix up the idea of actual numbered things with math, you’ll get it just fine.

        however, if poor God were actually bound and subservient to the laws of mathematics, I wonder what such a stringent limitation does to his ability to affect nothing with mere thoughts and make everything. I’d like to see the math on that one. Creation ex nihilo isn’t only limited by mathematics, it’s impossible.

        In every example we have of causation there are 3 things: the creator, the stuff being affected and finally the product. And cranky old Math just cannot accept it any other way. He even thinks the stuff being affected is the most important part!

        imagine an empty black void with only God asking his boss Mathematics if he can make everything out of nothing from nowhere using thoughts. The dreary and bookish Mathematics glaring stingily at God from his desk which is stacked high with organized formulas and equations.
        Mathematics takes off his glasses slowly and sighs
        “So you’re putting pressure or friction or energy or something onto um- nothingness using, what was it?”
        God giddily replies
        “my thoughts! They’ll be all like *PSHEERW! and then everything will be all *PLING! My thoughts have powers see and-”
        “powers? Is that what you said? powers? You are an insult to everything I stand for! Get out of my office!”

        But if there never was a nothing, and there is no evidence to suggest that there was, and everything was smashed down into this tiny unit, then Mathematics could have created the universe as we understand it- without any help from his simple minded employee.

  4. Hi there.

    I have a question regarding this argument. I find this quite a good and convincing argument for the existence of God, or at least a timeless, transcendant first cause (which, I guess fits the description of what a God would be). Since I’m a pantheist, I’d like to know what is the reason Dr Craig, or you for that matter, thinks that this first cause/God, is the God of the Bible?

    Thanks in advance.

    Noel

    • Dear Noel,

      Thank you for you comment. From the argument(and other) we have the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties.

      God being independent from the his creation, self-existing, timeless and other collides with pantheist view which god is dependent-existing, timely, and material(universe).

      Only the Abrahamic religions believe in a God with these descriptions, that will be Judaism,Islam and Christianity.

      How then come to think this God is the Christian God is your question, and I will try to answer this way.

      One: Christianity( 33 A.D) comes from Judaism(goes back to Abraham c. 1800 B.C), but the difference is that Christians believe the promise Messaih(of Isaiah 53 and other predication) has already come namely Christ Jesus of Nazareth.

      Two: Islam(over 600 A.D after Christ death) derives from denial of Christ Jesus as God and his death on the cross for the sin of the world. Koran agree the virgin birth of Jesus and sinless life of Jesus. But say it was not Jesus who was crucified, the did a swap.

      Three: Christianity has the Historical Evidence support there views. Jesus resurrection, death, and so forth.

      If Jesus was who He was(God) and the Christian are right with their claim then the True God has revealed himself thus making Christian Biblical God, the God whom the argument from Natural Theology(Philosophy) described.

      • Thanks for your answer. It was well explained. Another thing I don’t understand to well is that Craig says the first cause God, has to be timeless and immaterial, transcendent and independent of time and space. That I agree with, but it’s why he says it needs to be a personal being as well that I don’t understand. Could you explain that?

        Otherwise I don’t think my view of the pantheistic God conflicts with the God you speak of. My view may not be completely traditional pantheistic view, but I see God as not only being part of the universe, but transcendent too. The totality of EVERYTHING is God. God exists beyond space and time, yet space and time are part of God. As I like to say: God is the great contradiction. He is everything, and he is nothing. God is even in the nothingness outside space and time. As the John Ch.1 says: “Without him nothing was made that was made” 🙂

        And on your other point. All that is needed to prove Christianity correct is the historicity of Jesus, or at least his deity? Ok cool, I will look into that sometime. Thanks again.

  5. Pingback: Craig’s Explanation of Teleogical Argument | With All I Am

    • Dear Myers,

      I will fall in your Red herring, of the site,

      I have many times visited in this site, but I do not see any powerful arguments for why the Christian God is very unlikely.

      One thing is that they have created their own god(the God they feel cool with, a good who you say this and he does that) to which is very unlikely-Unlikely!

      Poor Biblical Hermeneutics, and understanding of Christian Doctrines.

      The Problem with Christianity, is Christians(C.S. Lewis) which is so true.

      Christian God is not an ATM, or Santa Claus, If God of the Bible is the God I discovered in Cosmological,Moral,Teleological arguments and on then I can not see why He is not free to do what He wished(not what I wish). If he wish to heal amputees or not!

      The problem is that many Christians and non-Christian have very poor understanding of who God is. I did have the same problem until I had a 3 week course of the Doctrine of God, to which I still have things I do not understand.

      I am sorry to say that the that site is full of blind ideas, to which blind and lovely people(which I am indeed sad) are blindly leading each other.

      Enough of the Red herring:

      But well, it is not the place for that here, we are taking about Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God 🙂

      Yours
      Prayson

  6. I just want to answer this:

    “Dennett’s view is plainly nonsense. Notice that he’s not saying that the universe is self- caused in the sense that it has always existed. No, Dennett agrees that the universe had an absolute beginning but claims that the universe brought itself into being. But this is clearly impossible, for in order to create itself, the universe would have to already exist. It would have to exist before it existed!”

    You obviously don’t understand Dennet’s position. Before the universe existed, there would be no time. Without time, there are no logical rules of cause and effect. Therefore, it is possible for the universe to be both the effect and the cause. Therefore, the universe could, in theory, create itself.
    Now Dawkins:
    “I take it that the objection here is that something else of a purely physical nature can be regarded as the cause of the universe reached in the argument’s conclusion.”

    No, that is not what he is saying. An a-physical force that always existed could have created the universe the same way theists claim God did. The argument is one of definition. Theists define the force as an a-physical intelligent creator. Atheists would say that the force was a non-intelligent, a-physical force. There is no evidence supporting that the force is intelligent, absolutely none. So even though the Kalam says that the universe was created by an outside force, calling the force God is a huge jump in logic because it could have just as easily been an a-physical random creating force. Since we are dealing with infinite time in this scenario, chance itself could have created the universe because no matter how low the odds are, there is an infinite amount time to roll the dice. Infinity multiplied by any number will give you infinity, meaning that no matter how low the odds are, a blind a-physical force directed by nothing but chance would create the universe. So, even though theists view Craig’s argument as an argument for God, atheists can use the very same argument to say the universe created itself. Craig accomplishes nothing with his argument, the whole thing is just a bunch of fancy wording that makes it seem more scientific to believe in God when in reality it is nothing new.

    A mixture of Dennet’s and Dawkins view creates a case that destroys the Craig’s version of the Kalam.

    • Dear Myers,

      I am so thankful for your good your opinion, defense of Dennett and Dawkin on the matter:

      One thing I am glad is that we have moved from our view that “Universe is eternal”, to a “Universe which begin to exist” 🙂 I am very proud that our exchange of ideas are indeed true seeking of Truth.

      First On Your Defense of Dennett:

      “You obviously don’t understand Dennet’s position. Before the universe existed, there would be no time. Without time, there are no logical rules of cause and effect. Therefore, it is possible for the universe to be both the effect and the cause. Therefore, the universe could, in theory, create itself.”

      We still have to work with TIME issue. Time started when the universe being to exist.But we still have to know that nothing comes from nothing!

      A timeless(outside time), changeless(therefore space-less, needs no cause) and immaterial(without a physical body which need no causal effect to begin to exist) being must have bring about Time and Space( and the rest matter and antimatter -materials).

      Numbers such as 7, sets,(abstract) and unembodied mind are candidates for timeless, changeless, and immaterial.(You are allowed to add as many candidates as you like, but they have to fit this group, Forces do not fit in here, I am sorry)

      We know that abstract thing can not cause an effect, the only candidate left is unembodied mind, which is timeless,space-less, changeless and immaterial -to which Biblical Christians call, God, Yahweh.

      It is okay if you do not wish to call this being God(as Dawkin), it does not change anything.

      Your Defense on Dawkin,
      I am sorry to say that Physical-forces started at the Big Bang, they not eternal. Gravitational Force, Nuclear Force, Magnetic Forces and Electric Forces all had there beginning at the creation of the Universe.

      We can not hide behind this anymore. We need to face it.

      Dawkin and Dennett did nothing to Craig’s defense of this argument. well, I will give them little credit for weaken the Wikipedia watered-down Kalam Argument.

      But Kalam Argument for Existence of God is back, and I believe Dawkin, a zoologist needs a lot of digging to do. Him finds it unhelpful or misleading is not a defense, this applies to Dennett too.

      Question(To all readers): I do read Atheist Books, Have you try reading Theist books?(Be Honest)

      Why I am saying this is that, I was brought up by my Christian parents, who indeed were so poor in defending their belief.
      At 16, I left the church to become an agnostic(because of problem of suffering,and evolution) after pausing my parents with serious questions which they could not answer(so did my priest).

      In college taking High-Level Physics, Chemistry and Advance Mathematics, I became an Atheist, 2006. But something was not right? After I started reading both Atheist’s books and Theist’s books( I love doing this because it help me not to be a one-sided thinker). Something was not right, I weighed the Arguments for and against God(if there are any, I did not have any argument against God, Evil? If there was no God, then no Evil! Evolution? Evolution just cripple the Christian-creation-teaching, but has nothing to do with God. Could not God create a world which creatures evolved?)

      In 2008, I was back, Theist and a very strong one, because I did not have to belief only through faith, but also through reasoning. From Atheism to Bible College, I had to know this God, for me to know Him, I had to be with people who know God. All my past teaching in College and University where full of Atheistic worldview, but if I am always an Atheist, how do I know Theists teaching. If all I read is Dawkin and Dennett view on other Theist Authors, how am I going to have my own view on those other Authors arguments.

      So, I am not saying you will end up a Theist if you read both Atheistic and Theistic book, but you may end up being either a strong reasonable Atheist, or a strong reasonable Theist.

      I used William Lane Craig explanation of this argument because I think he is easy to understand and has a brilliant knowledge on Theist arguments for God Existence. Though other brilliant Thinkers like Alvin Plantinga( A professor behind trashing the Problem of Evil Argument), J.P Moreland, Alister McGrath, Paul Copan, Jerry L. Walls, Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister and many other I never knew there work until when I started taking Philosophy classes. Apparently their works(google any of the name for book titles) needs some answers serious answers if I were to stay as a reasonable atheist.

      To be a good Atheist, you need to read these guys defense of Theism. From there take with good understanding of Theist position, take a stand(your own stand, not Dawkin, Craig or anyone)!

      Never flow with any of there conclusion, whether Theists or Atheists, reason and reflect on there arguments, then make your own Conclusion.

      Many of my Atheist friends have just read Dawkin’s Book! God Delusion, nothing more nothing less. This is dangerous, for us to be true thinkers we need to read both Atheist’s Books, and Theist’s Book. Then “we decide” not Dawkin or Craig.

      It is time to start thinking, and thinking harder!

      “Knowing About God is Facts, Knowing God is Faith” Prayson Daniel

      Knowing about God existence does not need faith or your belief in Him, I can know anything about something,my future children, but I do not know them yet( a year shy of marriage, Children! maybe starting next year 🙂 ) My wife and I need to get them and be with them, grow with them,go through up and downs with them for us to know our Children. Yet this is true with God, Faith is in Knowing God, not about God.

      Yours
      Prayson

  7. Pingback: Arguments for Existence of God | With All I Am

Comments are closed.