The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[JJoseph]

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.

[no one]

I don't understand how things work, so therefore magic!

[JJoseph]

As Dr. Craig rightly remarks, Atheism is worse than Magic, because at least with Magic, you have the Magician and the Hat! But atheists take far greater leaps of faith to uphold their theory, and claim entire Universe can just pop into existence out of nothing. If that could happen, why not rabbits from hats?

The Emotional Non-Rational Atheist: Everything just magically created itself from nothing out of nothing by nothing.

The Calm, Logical Christian Theist: Since everything created has a Creator, and the Universe is shown to be created because it had a beginning, therefore the Universe had a Creator. This Truth of Christian Revelation is also, now in this 21st century at least, a Truth of Logical Reason confirmed by Empirical Science.

Grace be with you.

[neil]

I don't believe the universe began to exist. Perhaps it's difficult to grasp the concept of the universe always having been in existence, but think of the existence of the universe in the other direction of the timeline - is it as difficult to grasp the concept of a universe that never ends?

Even if the universe does come to an end, what does that look like? Do things start to fade like people in the movie "Back To The Future"? When could this end of the universe occur, 5 seconds from now?

What is this "Big Bang Theory" empirical confirmation? Maybe what some consider as empirical confirmation isn't actually so.

Keep in mind that the individual who came up with the "Big Bang Theory" was a Roman Catholic priest, and it "confirms" the notion of a beginning to the universe that was created by a deity.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

It is not obvious that premises 1 and 2 true are correct, therefore conclusions 3 and 4 are invalid.

Next boring, tired argument, please.

Boru

[no one]

Is there a course that the godiboi warriors take that teaches them how to completely misunderstand everything?

Why do all these major asshats all have the same exact inability to comprehend?

[zebo-the-fat]

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.

OK, so what caused the "Eternal Creator of the Universe" to exist? and if he/it "always existed why can't the universe have always existed?
We don't know (yet) what created the universe, but "I don't know" is not the same as "god did it"

[JJoseph]

I don't believe the universe began to exist.

Ok, then. Question to you: What existed 100 BN years ago?

a) Nothing. And if so, then everything came from nothing.
b) Nothing material, i.e. an Immaterial Spiritual Being.

Atheism is forced to hold on to a. Defenders of Kalam say b.

We know the Universe began to exist because we know its finite age.

Whereas the God of Christian Revelation has always declared Himself Eternal.

It is not obvious that premises 1 and 2 true are correct, therefore conclusions 3 and 4 are invalid.

Insufficient. It's insufficient for Atheists to claim "it's not obvious". They must show that the negation of 1 or 2 are more probably true, and then construct a logical argument of their own, if they want us to believe the Universe either did not begin to exist, or that what begins to exist pops into being uncaused.

Dr. Craig, the Athanasius of this age against the Arianism that is Atheism, has a put a lot of thought into this argument he popularized, and it stands imho.

OK, so what caused the "Eternal Creator of the Universe" to exist? and if he/it "always existed why can't the universe have always existed?

Premise 1 of Kalam is, What begins to exist has a Cause. The Converse of it is, whatever was uncaused exists eternally. Therefore, it is only creatures, that began to exist, that have a Cause. The Eternal Creator does not need to, and there is no circularity in Kalam, but the mere converse of it applies to God.

We don't know (yet) what created the universe

Well, maybe in 20 or 25 years you will know that God created it, but speed it up already; we know, God is waiting, and life is passing you by. Everyone who wants to go to Heaven must get this Question right and live accordingly so that he or she may indeed go to that Father's House with many Mansions and live eternally there happily forever and ever. Amen. In Jesus' Name.

[Belacqua]

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.

As you see, some people are as yet unpersuaded that the universe began to exist. I'm no expert; I can only repeat objections made by others.

First, when some physicists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss) talk about the universe beginning to exist, they say that it is made from some already-existing thing. Quantum fluctuations, or something like that. So in fact their theory demands that there was already something existing -- it's not the beginning of everything. 

Then there are all kinds of wilder theories about universes "budding off" from other universes, in some kind of multiverse speculation. I have no idea how serious this is, but it again posits that there was existence before our universe began. 

Though Kalam is a Prime Mover argument, I find it weaker than the Aristotelian/Thomist version. The A/T version works whether there was a temporal beginning point or not. 

Since it started with Aristotle, I think you'll agree that the argument only goes so far as to assert that SOMETHING is the prime cause. To get from there to the God of the Bible -- the revealed God who sent his son, etc. -- requires a great deal more argument above and beyond a Prime Mover.

[neil]

I don't believe the universe began to exist.

Ok, then. Question to you: What existed 100 BN years ago?

a) Nothing. And if so, then everything came from nothing.
b) Nothing material, i.e. an Immaterial Spiritual Being.

Atheism is forced to hold on to a. Defenders of Kalam say b.

We know the Universe began to exist because we know its finite age.

Whereas the God of Christian Revelation has always declared Himself Eternal.

Neither "a" nor "b"; to me, the universe existed essentially no differently 100 billion years ago from the way it exists today.

I don't believe the universe has an age (other than infinite), and (thus) I don't believe that we actually know its finite age.

BTW I don't identify as atheist; I'm non-religious.