Sunday, December 15, 2013

Problems with Cosmological and Kalam Arguments

Due to his tenacity, and enormous popularity with Christian apologists, William Lane Craig gets a lot of attention for his arguments for God.  Here's an explanation of his Kalam argument, and secondly, a discussion of several serious problems that cripple it.

Objections to the Kalam argument and Cosmological arguments in general:


Bob H said...

Dr. Matt, Thanks again for your posting.

I have argued your objections on YouTube with such users as Father Barron and InspiringPhilosophy(IP). Although, Cantor successfully refuted Aristotle's potential versus actual infinity reasoning, the strongest criticism is “The Gap” problem. The Cosmological arguments to be successful must depend on a valid and sound Ontological Argument. Fr. B. argues for a non contingency grounding of contingency and then uses the connection strategy of Aquinas by stating and “this we call God.” However, when Fr. B. is challenged to show how this demonstrates a Christian Triune God, he conveniently does not respond. IP recognizes that there is not a successful argument, but there is the cumulative effect of natural theology, feelings and faith.


westley sable said...

A New Thermodynamic Theory of Life
Hi Matt. This theory implicitly considers Tarskian meta-language statements as I do explicitly.

westley sable said...

*This theorist

Kathrin Ketti said...

Hello This is fucking web site here. Are u a good sucker then click this virus site ..... happy fucking day .......... 

Hasnain Mohammed said...

Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet.

Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.

No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be futile to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with an atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is close to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, unknowing and unperceiving, is his creator and that of all beings?

Some people regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it. But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.