Earlier I responded to an email from Benjamin criticizing my rebuttal of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  He is still attempted to defend it.

Hello:
Saying that something begins to exist is simply self explanatory.

Hello Benjamin, That depends on your definition of “begins to exist.”

The sense of cars and those other things beginning to exist is simply by the fact that they are collections of other matter before them (I agree with you on this note) but the point is that they do not “exist” inexplicably because they were the direct result of intelligence assembling the parts and making them to appear as a car.

My point exactly.  Cars, trucks, houses, people, pets, etc. do not “begin to exist” in the same sense as the universe.  When apologists like William Lane Craig say: “The universe began to exist” they do not mean: “The universe was assembled from preexisting materials”  they mean: “The universe was created out of nothing.”

You’re saying that nothing begins to exist? That really is worse than magic! If you are saying we don’t begin to exist then you’re saying we have always existed. There are only two options.

The matter that makes up my body, your body, my car, and your dog has existed just as long as the universe itself.  It has been reorganized several times, going through many phases (plasma, hydrogen, star, supernova, planet, grass, cow, hamburger, muscle).  The matter was not spontaneously created when you were born any more than it was spontaneously created when your car was assembled.

And by the way, have you always existed? Were you not brought into existence by your own parents? If you say there was other bits of tissue that existed prior to your own birth and that was used to form you in the womb and eventually born then I think that statement is false.

I agree, that statement is false.  The matter that was used to create my body in the womb came from the food my mother ate while she was pregnant, not from “bits of tissue” and it definitely was not spontaneously created.  Yes, I (the matter that makes up my body) has existed for as long as the universe, AND I (this current reorganization of that material) was formed by well understood biological processes that began with conception.

P1 isn’t stating the conclusion because it’s not assuming the conclusion which would make it a circular argument.

If the definition for “begins to exist” used in Premise 1 can only be applied to the universe itself, then it is assuming the conclusion.

When it comes to things existing, there are only two options: existing necessarily and contingently. I’m sure you know the difference between those two. Either the universe exists and has a an explanation for its existence by its own nature (necessary) or has an explanation for its existence by an external cause.

In your video you said that there are some things that “pop” into being out of nothing and by nothing. You also mentioned virtual particles. Virtual particles are not examples of this because they disappear and appear because of the fluctuating energy they contain which is in the quantum vacuum. The vacuum is not how we understand it in normal language but is a sea of energy. Cars by themselves do begin to exist because they have to have certain parts in order to appear like a car, function like a car, and operate like a car. Saying that they don’t begin to exist simply because there was other pieces of matter before them doesn’t establish that they don’t begin to exist. You have to ask this question: Do they exist contingently or necessarily?

At what point does the car “begin to exist?”  When does it stop being preexisting materials and become a “car?”  When the iron ore is mined?  When it’s smelted into steel?  When it’s fabricated into a driveshaft?  Do all the parts need to be assembled?  Does it need to run?  Does it need a full tank of gas?  Do the tires need to be inflated?  What if a part falls off, does it cease being a car?  What if the engine dies and it no longer drives, is it still a car?

I’ve already addressed this earlier in this response, unless you are arguing that the universe was assembled from preexisting materials, your analogy is useless.  Virtual particles were mentioned because they appear to pop in and out of existence without any known cause.  They are a better analogy for the universe “beginning to exist” because they are not formed from preexisting material.

As far as the universe beginning to exist, there is a philosophical argument and evidence from astronomy and physics that supports the beginning of the universe.

We both agree that the universe began to exist.  The difference is that I think there is a natural cause (possibly similar to the circumstances that cause virtual particles to appear and disappear), and apologists like William Lane Craig think “magic” is a better explanation.

One cannot have an actual infinite series of events or causes. You also said in the video that the premise attempts to hide God and make him the exception to this rule of causation. Not at all.

Perfect.  If God is not excluded, then that means if a God exists he is not infinite and he must also have a cause.

In fact God by definition is a necessary being.

You can’t “define” something into existence.  And I don’t agree that a magic invisible man is “necessary” or even helpful for that matter.

You also said that Craig’s conclusions about the cause being timeless, immaterial, and personal don’t follow from the premises and therefore have to be dismissed. This is fallacious because Craig’s conclusion (the universe has a cause) doesn’t spell out those explanatory entities about him. They’re merely implied.

Thank you, you just made my point.  The traits he assigns are NOT “spelled out” (supported) by the premises.  Honestly, they aren’t even implied.  They are fabricated so Craig can insert his God in as the “cause.”  I could just as easily say the “cause” was a fart from a trans-dimensional universe farting fairy, and it would be supported by the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument just as much as Craigs “timeless, immaterial, and personal” creator.

Because think about it. If the universe had a beginning and had a cause, then the cause had to have been timeless because there was no time before the Big Bang occurred.

If there was no time before the Big Bang occurred, that means the phrase “before the Big Bang occurred” is meaningless.  Besides, a timeless being would be incapable of creating anything.  The act of creation, or any act for that matter, implies the existence of time.

Stephen Hawking even spells this out in his book that time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang.

I recommend you actually read books by Stephen Hawking because he also spells out why a God is not necessary.

“Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference — the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!”

[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]

Saying it is a immaterial cause means that the cause did not have any pre-existing matter because the universe is made of matter and energy. If the universe is made of those two things and began to exist, then how could the universe have a material cause? How does that follow?

Which again shows why Premise 1 is simply rewording the conclusion, making the argument circular.  Every other thing that “begins to exist” comes from preexisting materials and has a material cause.

Also, we have no reason to believe that anything “immaterial” exists.  How is being “immaterial” different from being nonexistent?  What is an “immaterial” being made of?

As far as I’m concerned, when someone says God is “timeless” and “immaterial” it is the same as saying “God does not exist now, and never has.”

He also says it’s personal because abstract objects like numbers can’t cause anything and the other viable option is an unembodied mind.

Well, since the only minds we have EVER observed are fully embodied (and as far as we can tell, cease to function once the body is gone), I’m putting my money on the numbers.

Seriously, William Lane Craig doesn’t say the “cause” is “personal” because he doesn’t think it’s a number.  He says it’s personal because he wants people to think the God he is arguing for can interact with them in their daily lives (which goes completely against the “timeless” trait he applied earlier, but he doesn’t seem to care).

Well a mind can conceive of things and we think of persons having this sort of entity.

Exactly, apologists are anthropomorphizing an unexplained event into a superhuman entity without any actual evidence to support their conclusion.

Show me where my line of reasoning is false and I will correct it. In regards to existence, remember, there are only two options: Necessary or contingent.

There are a few places where your reasoning is bad, and/or poorly supported.

1. You use fallaciously use 2 definitions for “begins to exist” interchangeably, one which only applies to the universe, and one which applies to everything else.  (This is known as an equivocation fallacy.)
2. You state that God is not excluded from the need for a cause, or the impossibility of actual infinities, then you attempt to define him as such and fail to provide any possible causes for God.
3. Your position requires timeless entities to complete specific acts, which requires time.
4. You need to define the difference between “non-existent,” and “immaterial.” (It would be helpful if you gave some examples of tests which could be done to test for the existence of “immaterial” objects.)
5. All known examples of minds exist within living brains, your position requires you to provide evidence of “unembodied” minds.  (Where they get the energy to function, where they store their memories, how they operate without any synapses, etc.)
6. The discussion is about HOW the universe was created, stating that an immaterial being created it gives us no actual information about HOW it happened.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the physical world is all there is or that the universe just exists and thats it?

This universe is the only one we have any evidence of, which is why it is so important to live your life to the fullest, let your loved ones know how much they mean to you, and do your part to make the world an even better place for the next generation.  This physical world is the only one we can be sure of, and this one life is the only one we are guaranteed.  It’s important to cherish every moment.

I received an email from a Christian saying I misrepresented the Kalam Cosmological Argument in my video, Poor Apologetics 5.

Hey man:
If you’re going to take a look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument, then you need to properly represent how the argument is stated. You said, on the video, that William Lane Craig’s argument goes like this: Anything that begins to exist has a creator, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a creator.
This is clearly a complete misrepresentation of the argument and you need to fix it if you’re going to argue against it. His argument is not stated as you claim in your video but is like this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause. This argument is logically airtight and if you’re going to refute it, then you have to show which of those premises is false. Otherwise, the conclusion is inescapable. Have a blessed day man
Benjamin

Hello Benjamin,

You are correct, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is usually stated using “cause” at first, then the “cause” is redefined as a “creator” and anthropomorphically assigned human-like traits later in the argument.  I used the word “creator” because it is a more honest representation of what the argument is attempting to prove.  Apologists such as William Lane Craig do not use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to argue for the existence of a natural cause, they only use it to argue for the existence of an intelligent creator.

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause

Can you demonstrate anything OTHER than the universe which “begins to exist” in the same way the universe did?  (Cars, trucks, dogs, people, buildings, etc. did not “begin to exist” in the same way the universe did, they are simply examples of pre-existing matter being reorganize.)  Premise 2 is supposed to demonstrate that Premise 1 applies to the universe itself, however Premise 1 is invalid if you can’t show that it applies to something other than the universe.  If you can’t demonstrate this then P1 is simply stating the conclusion, which means this is a circular argument, not a “logically airtight” argument.

Without an example of something else which P1 applies to, the argument can be rewritten like this:

P1: Whatever begins to exist The universe has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause