Kalam Cosmological Argument (revisit)

Jul 20, 2010

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