Kalam Arguement

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

  1. The universe has a cause.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?!

The Kalam argument of first cause/cosmological goes back to Aristotle, through Aquinas to Craig and has been thoroughly debunked.

I suggest have a look at Aquinas Five ways/ Five proofs [for the existence of god]
Hint; if everything has a cause,what caused the first cause.? To claim it is exempt from cause is a special pleading fallacy.

One can also argue that the statement ‘everything has a cause’ is a claim, not a statement of fact. IE we really don’t know if that claim is true.

Below from wikipedia

1 Like

That is like 8 or 9 postulates disguised as one! This is brilliant, and really shows why Craig is at the top of his field (and by field, I mean these kinds of apologists).

1 Like

No, you haven’t missed anything Hero.
What you experience following Dr Craig’s ‘logic’ is what every other sane person experiences, that sense that one has fallen into a worm hole, jumped forward in time, and missed that salient bit where Craig explains the existence of a god in the first place.
I distrust arguments that rely on too many ‘ifs’.

Craig has proved his lack of intellectual integrity and disabuse of truth in his interview where he admits that if presented with utterly undeniable incontestable evidence, if that evidence contradicted his preferred scripture, he would shaft the evidence and run with scripture.
I recall another discussion/debate in which he insisted that all the little children recorded in Deuteronomy as having had their brains dashed out or being killed in the Jewish Lebensraum Genocide of Canaan were not killed on the orders of a cruel inhuman ‘God’, because their little souls were taken to heaven as they had committed no sin. If ever he looked like a complete psychopath, the self satisfied look on his face when he made that announcement proved to me he was quietly insane and could quite calmly justify any horrific monstrosity or act.

But Dr. Craig is not alone in all this. I am currently detailing, in my own amateurish manner, Professor Behe’s testimony from Kitzmiller vs Dover and the Professor’s insistence that his ‘intelligent design’ and 'irreducible complexity ’ are legitimate examples of the scientific method because they are based on evidence of observation (it sure looks like it was designed) and application of inductive reasoning (…so…therefore?..it’s a god!) reeks of the same deluded nonsense that Craig demonstrates.
In the theist mind ‘God’ simply exists before anything else can be
discussed and all arguments and evidence that prove the existence of that ‘God’ are already established as a priority. This stance doesn’t lead to truth but it certainly does save a lot of time.
Later in the trial under cross examination Behe displays the same blinkered attitude of Craig when he arrogantly denies even the existence of any scientific literature that contradicts his pet beliefs. Then when Rothschild presented him with stacks of books and papers written in direct response to his claims and those of creationism generally, he merely discounted them all as being incorrect and at the very least, ‘insufficient’.
I think at this point Judge Jones (a Christian) might have already decided that creationism/intelligent design/irreducible complexity were not science and quietly that Behe was as deluded as Craig, but that’s just my call.

But Hero, back to more important issues with your OP…are you really saying in all seriousness that you don’t beleive in INVISIBLE COSMIC DONKEYSSS?!! Man, you really have missed something here!

1 Like

The universe as we know it may have begun to exist. Or it may not.

If a god is put up as the first uncaused cause, one could put up anything which is sufficient as an uncaused cause. There may be some perfectly natural uncaused cause we just don’t know about. The universe as we know it may have budded off from some pre-existing universe ~ maybe, maybe not.

To propose “God”, as that uncaused cause is special pleading, (Wikipedia on ‘Special Pleading’). Can that uncaused cause, (a god), be proved, any more than any other notion of how our universe came to be here? (Spoiler: { Answer = “NO” } ).

Cheers, Mutorc S’yriah.

1 Like

I agree Nyar, infact i would say it is a web well spun by Dr Craig.

I just cannot see how he gets to that conclusion, to my mind it appears that literally anything could be placed in that spot.

Again, another comment i agree with.

The argument appears valid in the first few premises, but not sound.

For example, from what I’ve read, most physicists believe an eternal universe is more likely… or perhaps better said as, the evidence leads once to think it to be eternal.

And may I say I agree again, it certainly smacked of special pleading to me.

Indeed. A fallacious argument. Even if it could be shown the universe/multiverse had a cause, not convinced ‘god did it’ could then be reasonably inferred. Just as so far, ‘god did it’ has never actually been proved, on any claim.

During the 1970’s such claims were arse deep in popular reading.Same reasoning, except 'god did it ’ was replaced by ‘aliens did it’. Those books were so popular that they had their own genre.

Premise 1 is based on inductive reasoning on examples occurring within the temporal state of the material universe, and even that can’t be taken as an absolute, else we could rule out miracles with the same reasoning.
Worse still, Craig then unashamedly tries to apply this shaky rule he’s created to a non temporal state before the big bang, and before the material universe exists. Shoddy doesn’t even begin to describe this, and he’s a professional philosopher?

Ahem, premise 1 being violated like a drag queen at a tractor pull, with more known logical fallacies than a Witch doctors training course. He ought to be embarrassed.

More assumptions, and the usual dearth of evidence, and all in his sickeningly pompous and unabashed theistic style. I long ago came to realise Lane Craig is not to be taken seriously.

1 Like

I can’t add anything. " Between the 9th to 12th centuries, the cosmological argument developed as a concept within Islamic theology. It was refined in the 11th century by Al-Ghazali The Incoherence of the Philosophers, and in the 12th by Ibn Rushd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#cite_note-14)
It reached medieval Christian philosophy in the 13th century and was discussed by Bonaventure, as well as Thomas Aquinas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) in his Summa Theologica and [Summa Contra Gentiles].(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Contra_Gentiles)

And this is the very best the modern Christian theologians can offer us. It’s sad. So very sad.

As far as Craig’s second part to the argument, I have seen Blue universe creating bunnies, Rainbow farting unicorns and Big yellow universe creating bananas argued just as successfully.

Craig does nothing but point to a gap that HE creates… (We don’t actually know anything about the origin of the universe and causality breaks down at Planck time). So he creates a gap based on causality and then inserts his version of God into the gap., UTTERLY and COMPLETELY fallacious.

1 Like

Which he then excuses from HIS OWN RULE of causality by using a begging the question fallacy to make multiple unevidenced assumptions about the deity he is arguing for. Its risible nonsense.

His argument is constructed on the proposition that the entire cosmos (all of everything) is not eternal. He has to prove that point first.