Arguments for Christian Theism (Intro)

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/two-dozen.htm

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

What is the Kalam cosmological argument: (or who is William Lane Craig?)

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to both medieval Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most significantly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.[1] It has been revived in recent years most predominantly in the works of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.



William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument >

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.


2. The universe began to exist.


3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

(Note this is actually the simplest form of the argument, Craig has formulated a larger 9 point argument, in which he reasons against the possibility of the space/time consisting of an eternal series of causal events.

The first question that most people ask when presented with this argument is “then what about God.” - but the statement is not, “Whatever exists must have a cause, but rather “Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.” As God is eternal (and not characterized by an infinite series of finite elements” – The argument does not apply.


Criticism of the Argument:


By Austin Cline, About.com Guide to Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/06/21/unsupported-premise-in-the-kalam-cosmological-argument.htm

Unsupported Premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument


Dr. William Lane Craig‘s “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is one of the more sophisticated and (in some circles) popular arguments for the existence of God. Unfortunately, like so many other theistic arguments, it suffers from a fatal flaw that the author prefers to gloss over instead of address directly.

Francois Tremblay addresses the problems at Talk Reason, in particular the faulty premise of "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence":

What evidence does he have to prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? In his opening case, he states: “I really don't think that it's necessary because the premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence I think is so intuitively obvious that scarcely anybody could sincerely deny that it is false.“ He does support it elsewhere by using two arguments: our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole -- the universe -- on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts -- the existents around us - is a fallacy of composition. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter. ... // 

For the rest of Austin's comments
For Francois Tremblay's extended foundational critigue: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Craig.cfm )


The extended Kalam/Craig Cosmological Argument
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html
 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.




2.The universe began to exist.


     2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

     2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

     2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

     2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

     2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:

    2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

    2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.

    2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

    2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.

    2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.



3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.



4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a

personal Creator:

4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.

4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.

4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial,
timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:

4.21 The Creator is uncaused.

4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)

4.22 The Creator is beginningless.

4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1)

4.23 The Creator is changeless.

4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)

4.24 The Creator is immaterial.

4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator
is changeless. (4.23)

4.25 The Creator is timeless.

4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.

4.26 The Creator is spaceless.

4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25)

4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.

4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3)

4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.

4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points
to intelligent design.


5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

Resources (all over the map)

A review of Paul Davies
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_188-193.pdf


Dawkins on those who reject evolution:   (ignorant, wicked, duped, etc.)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html