Saturday, May 15, 2010
William Lane Craig: The Artful Dodger
The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that "Everything which begins to exist has a cause".
We are left wondering on what ground its proponents extend our concepts of the origin of existence of "things" to the Universe as a whole. Even if our physical realm in a larger multiverse has an origin, we get nowhere with this argument. Craig would have us believe that physical reality has some beginning, and that beginning obeys a common sense form of causality. Even in our own universe there are reasons to doubt our notions of causality.
The KCA is overly presumptuous and typical of religious arrogance. In the next WttU video, I will be discussing some of the weaknesses with jumping to conclusions about the origin of the Universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder what grounds the theist has for limiting causation to those things that have beginnings. Doesn't this presuppose that the theist has some empirical reason to believe that there are things that don't have beginnings? For example, it would make no sense to say "All crows which are black have wings" unless I had some reason to believe that there exist non-black crows (and that blackness was some how connected to wingedness). Otherwise "All crows which are black have wings" means exactly the same thing as "All crows have wings." By the same token, unless the theist has some empirical reason to believe in things without beginnings, the first premise reduces to "Everything which exists has a cause."
ReplyDelete