So, a while back I watched the Sean Carroll vs William Lane Craig debate and found it to be completely lop sided in favor of Professor Carroll.
But I was more perplexed by William Lane Craig’s presentation of the Kalam Cosmological argument.
I shall check and copy it verbatim from the YouTube video, but this wiki entry has his proposition, so I thought I would use this…
***1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause
- The universe has a cause.
- If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
- Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful. ***
Now, whilst I do not agree with even the opening statements, especially that the ‘universe begun to exist’… I am completely baffled by how we get to this part…
“If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.”
Why must it? Surely he is just privilaging his theistic beliefs and a fallacious comment that doesn’t account for all possibilities.
There is zero proof of the supernatural or anything outside of the universe we reside within!
I strongly dislike how there is no rational link of how we get to God… especially his specific flavor of God… how does he know its not Thor? Or Zeus? Perhaps even David Lo Pan? Why a male? Why a being?
There is zero proof, so the argument of astrophysics supports the notion of a Christian God is utter bollocks.
It feels like one is having a chat with an articulate lunatic!
He starts by reading Shakespeare St Crispins day speech from Henry V then goes nuts…
“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers… I WAS CREATED BY INVISIBLE COSMIC DONKEYSSSS!”
Its tragic as he appears well read, articulate and far less annoying then most apologists, such as Sy Ten Blubbermouth… yet, he cannot demonstrate causality to his God.
Its simply a God of the gaps in my opinion.
Perhaps someone here may enlighten me if I’m missing something?!