The Kalam Argument - Intelligent Faith Radio (avl. on iTunes)

Do Science and Logic point powerfully towards the existence of a Cause of the universe?

Here in the "Kalam Argument", you will hear at least 5 solid scientific discoveries of the 20th century that point powerfully to a Cause of the universe, that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and personal - God.

Be sure to download the "Intelligent Faith Radio" podcast here, from the iTunes store as well.

NEW: "What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?" - Dr. William Lane Craig

What is perhaps the most powerful argument for God's existence today?

Here is a colorful, captivating, and concise description of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence, from the team at "drcraigvideos."

This is perhaps one of the most useful and potent arguments in today's culture of "scientism", so you would do well to memorize the simple 19 words of this wonderful argument for the existence of God:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Questions about the Cosmological Argument

Dear Dr. Craig

I’m a Muslim student from Iran. I’ve been really interested in your arguments and writing especially since I saw your works on Kalam cosmological argument. We have learned cosmological argument from contingency and along with my classmates we think that it really sounds. We considered the answers to objections made by Russell, Hume and etc.

I had two questions sir

1. Do many philosophers believe that no current version of cosmological argument does not sounds? And if so, what is the reason?(at least in your idea)

You once wrote in one of your comments that actually there s nothing all philosophers believe with no doubt! Is this the same or are they really retracted in current philosophy?

Read More

Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder

William Lane Craig
Wes Morriston maintains that a negative answer to the question, "Did the First Cause exist in time prior to creation?" forces the defender of the kalam cosmological argument to analyze the concept of 'beginning to exist' in a way that raises serious doubts about the argument's main causal principle and that it also undercuts the main argument for saying that the cause of the universe must be a person.

Morriston in the first part of his critique tries to show that premiss (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause loses much of its plausibility when it is applied to the beginning of time itself. At the heart of Morriston's denial that we have a metaphysical intuition of the principle's truth lies a dubious distinction between intra- and extratemporal beginnings. Apart from that same distinction Morriston provides no good reason to doubt the plausibility of the causal principle as an empirical generalization. His claim that the absence of a material cause of the universe is as troubling as the absence of an efficient cause backfires because in an uncaused origination of the universe we lack both. Finally, Morriston errs in thinking that a reductive analysis, if adequate, should preserve the same epistemic obviousness involved in the analysandum and in thinking that all intuitively grasped, metaphysically necessary, synthetic truths should exhibit the same self-evidence and perspicuity.

In the second part of his article Morriston, still assuming that God exists atemporally sans the universe, criticizes an argument for the personhood of the First Cause inspired by the Islamic Principle of Determination. Morriston objects that appeal to agent causation is nugatory because God's changeless state of willing the universe is sufficient for the existence of the universe and is an instance of state-state causation. The failing of Morriston's objection is that in speaking of God's willing that the universe exist, he does not differentiate between God's timeless intention to create a temporal world and God's undertaking to create a temporal world. Once we make the distinction, we see that creation ex nihilo is not (given a tensed theory of time) an instance of state-state causation and is therefore not susceptible to Morriston's objection.
"Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?"  Faith and Philosophy 19 (2002):  94-105.
In his interesting article "Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?" Wes Morriston explores several "little discussed aspects" of the ancient kalam cosmological argument.1 The argument may be simply formulated:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.



Pt. 9 & 10 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument" - Dawkins' Horrible Reasoning

Can We Learn Anything FromNegative Statements about God?

Does Richard Dawkins have a good objection to the Kalam?

(part 9 & 10)

 Apparently, some atheists think so.  In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe.

He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J.

Pt.8 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument"

Does Dr. Craig engage in a self-contradiction?

(part 8 of 10) Apparently, some atheists think so.  In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe. He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J.

Reflections on "Uncaused Beginnings"

William Lane Craig

dominoes01.jpg

Graham Oppy’s interesting analysis of the “causal shape” of reality conflates causal ordering with temporal ordering of causes and assigns the wrong causal shape to reality as conceived by many classical theists. His argument for the possibility of uncaused beginnings is also hobbled by his tendency to ignore the crucial issue of the objective reality of tense and temporal becoming. Oppy’s claims that only certain types of things can come into being uncaused at a first moment of time and that things cannot now come into being uncaused are examined and found implausible and explanatorily vacuous.

Faith and Philosophy

 27 (2010): 72-78. Reprinted with permission.

Introduction

Although Graham Oppy’s interest in the possibility of uncaused beginnings springs from his concern with cosmological arguments for God’s existence, 1 the truth of the causal premiss featured in at least one version of the argument, namely, that everything that begins to exist has a cause, is of such general metaphysical importance that it ought to interest any metaphysician. Unfortunately, Oppy’s article gets off to an uncertain start as a result of certain problematic features of his characterization of fundamental notions in his introductory section.

First, there is the ambiguity of what is meant by an “initial state.” Later sections of the article make it clear that Oppy’s concern is with temporally initial states. But that is not how initial states are characterized in his introductory section. Rather, there states are repeatedly said to be ordered “under the causal relation.” Thus, the series of states so ordered could all be simultaneous. States which form a circle under the causal relation, for example, need not require that time is cyclical, for the states may all obtain at once, rather like the four-intercalated flaps of a box top, each holding down another. Thomas Aquinas’ argument against an infinite regress of causes, which plays so central a role in the first three of his Five Ways, similarly concerned causes which are, as he put it, “essentially ordered,” rather than temporally or “accidentally” ordered. On Aquinas’ view, it is a matter of indifference whether temporal states take the accidental causal shape of Regress, Circle, or Contingent Initial State—in each case states must be sustained in being by God, who is prior to all other states under the ancestral of the essential causal relation. In order to rule out such possibilities, Oppy must be assuming that causal directionality entails temporal ordering of cause and effect. But the metaphysician will rightly be sceptical of any such attempt to rule out the possibility of simultaneous, essentially ordered causes by mere stipulation.

Second, even if we suppose that states which are ordered under the causal relation are necessarily also ordered under the earlier than relation, it is unclear why “naturalism would be preferable to theism,” as Oppy claims, if states of reality had the causal shape of Contingent Initial State. 2 Indeed, a good many, if not most, contemporary theistic philosophers hold that this is the causal shape of reality. For the initial state prior to all others under the ancestral of the causal relation is taken to be God’s bringing the universe into being. Since God’s so doing is a free action, such a state is contingent, despite the metaphysical necessity of God’s existing. Reality thus has the causal shape of Contingent Initial State. Mutakallim, or proponents of the kalam cosmological argument, given their strong commitment to divine freedom, 3 embrace this view, rejecting Regress, Circle, and Necessary Initial State as possible causal shapes of reality. Ironically, then, mutakallim will reject the first premiss of the argument Oppy reconstructs, namely,

1. If it is possible for reality to have a contingent initial state under the causal relation, then it is possible for other (non-overlapping) parts of reality to have no cause.

Proponents of the kalam cosmological argument will maintain that while reality must have a contingent initial state if the existence of the universe is to be plausibly explained, it is impossible for any existing thing, whether occupying an initial state or a later state of reality, to come into being without a cause.

Third, Oppy’s reconstruction of the argument on behalf of the causal premiss of the 

kalam cosmological argument neglects a crucial assumption of kalam: the view that time is tensed and temporal becoming is an objective feature of reality. Oppy’s tenselessly formulated premisses are entirely compatible with a metaphysic of tenseless time, according to which the parts of reality referred to in the premisses do not come into being at all but simply exist tenselessly at their appointed stations. On such a tenseless view of time, it is far less obvious that parts of reality which exist later than the initial state must have causes and that the things existing tenselessly at the initial state cannot exist without a cause, since they do not come into being at that time. If Oppy is to allow the argument in question its full intuitive force, then it must be reformulated along tensed lines. For example:

Click HERE to continue reading

Pt. 7 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Argument" - Equivocation??

Does Dr. Craig equivocate the phrase "begins to exist"?

What is the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?

(part 7 of 10) Apparently, some atheists think so.  In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe. He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J. 

Pt. 6 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Argument" - Nothing Ever Begins To Exist!?!

Have things always existed?

Is it an illusion when things come into being?

(part 6 of 10) Apparently, some atheists think so.  In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe. He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J. 

Pt.5 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Argument" - Nothing produces something?

Can "Nothing" do anything at all?

Could "Nothing" ever produce the universe?

(part 5 of 10) In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe. He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J.