Exposing the fallacies of William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological argument

left.h2

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simply a desperate attempt by theologians to place the "God" word in what we don't know. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps.

Transcript: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Does God exist?
Or is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?

JKW: Right off the bat we get the classic WLC false dichotomy. To say that there is only the option of the viewable universe always existing (and everyone today knows this isn’t true), or a singular all-powerful being with male reproductive parts, who’s jealous, and loves the smell of burnt offerings is absolutely a false choice when there are infinitely other possibilities to consider.

Why not be honest?
Does God exist? Which one? What do we mean by God? Are we talking about some kind of greater intelligence, or specifically the man God of Western religion? If there is some kind of greater intelligence that started the universe, does it interfere with human affairs, where did it come from, what kind of entity would it be, would it resemble an evolved earthly ape?

How did the universe begin? Should we make the honest answer of we don’t know, should we formulate ideas and see if they agree with experiment, or should we follow the explanations provided by oblivious con men and ancient myths, should we simply make stuff up?

Let’s continue with the transcript…..

One approach to answering this question is the Cosmological Argument.
It goes like this…
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

JKW: This isn’t an argument for God, it’s an argument for science. How did the universe begin? We formulate ideas and test them through experimentation. Evoking God answers nothing. We can just as easily evoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Is the first premise true? Let's consider…
Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.

JKW: Believing that magic is the only answer to what we don’t currently understand is not more of a stretch than believing in magic, it is believing in magic. There’s plenty of myths that don’t involve a wand and a hat.

And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?

JKW: Good question, but why rely on magic for an answer?

No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.

JKW: And therefore Zeus is the one true God.

But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."

JKW: "Atheists" have typically said!? What does that even mean? Before Einstein’s theory of relativity and Edwin Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe many people, including Einstein, believed that the stars were static and eternal. How is that specific to atheists as opposed to Christians, Hindus and Muslims?

First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that's the point.
If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

JKW: Nobody is arguing that the universe has always existed and that the Big Bang never happened. Nobody has argued that for many decades now.

This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…
In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.
Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.
Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

JKW: Yes, in 1929. 1929!! Everybody today knows about the Big Bang!

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.

JKW: This has nothing to do with anyone being fond or not fond of a finite universe. Science is about challenging and scrutinizing ideas. Models are created and either stand up to experiment or are replaced by better models. This is how science progresses. Science is not about dogmatic allegiance to the ignorant babblings of ancient men on how the universe works who claimed to speak for God and therefore must have really been speaking for God. Religious extremism retards human progress. In order to progress, ideas must be challenged, including those that come from a king or cleric.

More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."

JKW: Once again, no one today is arguing that the Big Bang never happened.

This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

JKW: We don’t know if there is a multiverse. We don’t know if our universe was spawned by an older universe. We don’t know what is beyond our universe in which the time in space of our universe would be relative.

This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model.

JKW: Who’s hiding? What a disparaging remark to make about scientists. Scientists aren’t hiding behind anything, they’re boldly and bravely going where the evidence takes them. And many scientists are Christian. Scientists are not engaged in some kind of diabolical plot. Either ideas agree with experiment, or they don’t. And as science and technology progress, we find new means of experimentation. The real people hiding are the intellectual cowards hiding behind the “God of the gaps” argument which answers nothing.

It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.
And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like… God.

JKW: Here we go! Here we go! Classic WLC nonsense. Since the Big Bang had a beginning (which everyone already knows) there must be an all-powerful being who sacrificed himself to himself in order to save us from himself for the talking snake incident.

This is wrong, how the Big Bang started did not have to be uncaused or unimaginably powerful. It only had to be beyond the time and space of our universe. Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking are both modern cosmologists who have written books about how quantum physics and the force of gravity could spawn a universe through a spontaneous quantum fluctuation. No God required.

The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist.

JKW: No, this argument shows that, in fact, theological nonsense answers nothing.

- James Kirk Wall

Reference:
Reasonable faith with William Lane Craig - The Cosmological Argument

Please like my Facebook page at:
James Kirk Wall

To subscribe to this author, type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. This list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Leave a comment