Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1 - William Lane Craig

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by William Lane Craig

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 First Philosophical Argument

2.11 An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.

2.12 A beginningless series of past events involves an actually infinite
number of things.

2.13 Therefore, a beginningless series of past events cannot exist.

2.2 Second Philosophical Argument

2.11 An actually infinite collection of things cannot be formed by
successive addition.

2.12 The series of past events is a collection of things formed by
successive addition.

2.13 Therefore, The series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

2.3 First Scientific Confirmation

2.4 Second Scientific Confirmation

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4. If the universe has a cause, it is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

4.1 The cause is uncaused.

4.2 The cause is beginningless.

4.3 The cause is changeless.

4.4 The cause is immaterial.

4.5 The cause is timeless.

4.6 The cause is spaceless.

4.7 The cause is unimaginably powerful

4.8 The cause is personal.

5. Therefore, a personal Creator of the universe exists, who is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful.

Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=54765A57944CEDDB

Defending the Cosmological Argument (quick clips to rebuttals to typical refutations of KCA): http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=916E17EE70E98A68

Link of Dr. Craig's videos: http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Argument
• Atheists
• Atheism
• God
• Science
• Big
• Bang
• Christianity
• Apologetics
• Religion
• Philosophy
• Theism
• First
• Cause
• Infinity
• Infinite
• Universe
• Creator
• Creation
• Biola
• Talbot
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• drcraigvideos
• yt:stretch=16:9

[Intellectual4God]

I agree, it seems worse than magic to assume something can really come from an absolute absence of anything without cause, but what was that bit about subatomic particles coming into existence without cause? If that is true and an exact example of something from nothing without cause then wouldnt premise 1 crumble, followed by the rest of the argument opening up to other possibilities of origin?

I've had Atheists say this to me as well and i was never really sure how to respond to that

[drcraigvideos]

@Intellectual4God Tell them that they'd get a failing grade in physics. Subatomic particles DO NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING. The Quantum Vacuum is not nothing. It's a sea of energy. If they think energy is nothing, they're crazy. More here: watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow

[thispoorguy]

I don't have a problem with the cosmological argument, but this guy just assumes that if he can prove God, that it's the Christian god. What arrogance.

[drcraigvideos]

@thispoorguy *SIGH* Please, stopy lying: watch?v=G1IWoIw6fUU

[danielgraem666]

physical matter cannot be created, everything that physically exists is made out of matter and cannot be created, it always existed. its time and space that is new. Our universe is a bubble of nothingness floating through a white dense sea of matter.

[drcraigvideos]

@danielgraem666 Please get the first law of thermodynamics right: watch?v=hf90iRas-Xk

[Apologist68]

@steffencollen

Exactly well said

[steffencollen]

@thispoorguy I've read his book. He breaks it down by showing God exists, and THEN he posits the validity of assuming the Christian God is philosophically and morally THE God. He doesn't just assume that it's the Christian God, that is just your interpretation of these videos, which obviously don't accurately reflect his entire argument.

[Lahi53]

Thank you for posting these.

[eclipsesonic]

7:03-7:32 - That should definitely be in the "Wit of Dr. Craig" Videos!

[DaStCl87]

For the term 'beginning' Premise 1 is referring to creation from something that was already in existence or, put differently, a rearrangement in form. Premise 2 and the conclusion are referring to creation from nothing. Therefore a deduction cannot be made!

Until Craig provides evidence to support the statement 'whatever begins to exist FROM NOTHING has a cause' then the argument inevitably breaks down.