Hi all. I'm curious if any of you can refute the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence
Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.
Step 2: The Universe began to exist.
This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.
Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.
Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.
This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?
Regards,
Joseph.
Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.
Step 2: The Universe began to exist.
This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.
Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.
Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.
This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?
Regards,
Joseph.
