THE KALAM ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM LANE CRAIG
This is William Lane Craig's Kalam argument for a personal creator God -
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Next argument:
The universe has a cause
If the universe has a cause
A creator of some kind exists.
This creator is without beginning. It which cannot change for that which changes can begin to change itself but we are saying we don't need it to have a begin of any kind or form. It is not subject to time. It is eternal which means it is unchanging and past and present and future do not relate to it.
If it is a personal creator then this being spans the
universe and is not a material being.
Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who spans the universe is
beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously
powerful.
This does not claim to prove this kind of creator exists
but to show it is sensible to suppose it does. You can regard it as proven
that there was a cause even if you can't say what it is.
_______________________________________
THE OBJECTIONS
The Kalam Argument is no good to science for there is no way to test anything it
says to any extent. Science cannot prove that there was a beginning.
Perhaps one day we will be able to show through science that it all really did
have a beginning. But we have to avoid a wait and see attitude for that would
lead you to waiting to see something that is proven true proven false.
It is only an argument for belief and not a proof so
Craig is not saying it is necessarily true. It could be that God is too big or
great to be simply believed in and we need proof. Belief is too much about me
and what I think. That is the problem with belief. If there is a God then how do
we make it about God? Worshipping the God I believe in and the God that is there
is two separate things.
Kalam assumes the universe began to exist. What if something eternal was turned
into the universe meaning that the universe in a sense always existed?
It assumes that we know all about logic. We do not. There could be a logical
reason we cannot think of why a creator cannot be personal.
It assumes creation is coherent. Creation leaves God unchanged. All that is
changed is that where there was not anything at all now there is something. God
simply tells it to exist. That is magic. Creation is the worst theory about the
origins of all things. Because the terminology is that God made all things from
nothing it doesn't seem so bad. But in fact where there is nothing to make from
there is no making at all.
It assumes that a timeless God can do things. What if there is some logical
reason why he can not? What if there is a logical reason why he cannot make
anything other than personal beings? In that case, the existence of stones would
refute God. The Christian God expects us to believe there is some logical reason
we cannot even guess at why he lets so much innocent suffering happen. The
notion then that there are unknown logical reasons for things is not a problem
for a believer.
It assumes that the creator is personal which is cheating for even the classical
Christian view of God does not give us anything like another person though it is
called a person. For example, God knows all things past and present and future
so he cannot be surprised or have a sense of humour. That is nothing we can
relate to. It is not a person in any way that can appeal to us.
If you have a choice, what will you go for? The personality of God or his power
to create? The personality if you value love and feel God is a loving being. A
person loving you is more important than a person looking after your interests
mechanically without love. The creator thing will matter to you if you just care
about existing and what you are going to get out of the creator. How do these
principles affect the kalam? If you want love then it does not matter that God
is God but all that matters is that there is a loving person there. God being
God does not matter. To say he does not matter is to contradict the definition
of God which is a being that matters totally and ultimately. The creator thing
would
God is that which alone matters. But if you had a choice and it had to be one or
the other, would you save a dying baby for his own sake or for God's? If you are
human it will be about the baby. This is the easiest way to prove that even if
there is a creator he cannot be God to you. Proving a creator and proving God
then is not the same thing.
And it assumes that there is one creator. Craig says if you use Occam's Razor
one God would do. You don't need to wonder if there is a pile of Gods when one
would explain. That is not a very strong way to affirm monotheism which
allegedly is a vital and important concept!
There is more to worry about than trying to explain that the universe had an origin and what gave it an origin.
People have other concerns that call for explanation too. Suffering can and will feel more real to you than anything else so what about that?
The Razor does not decree that there is only one God. It warns that you don't need anything else that is all. But surely that is permitting you to assume another God too? What would the big deal be?
It gets worse if you agree with Christianity that it is possible for there to be one God, who is one being and yet more than one. They say he is three persons. But what if he is one person and there are two other intelligences that are impersonal? That would mean that even if there is a God you can still say the universe was not created by a person.
If you think God touches you, remember that it could be some rather good natured but proud creature that wants you to think that that is touching you. What if God exists and some being we cannot call a God is what is engaging with us? Perhaps we cannot call it a person at all? As we are so limited, it does not take much for that being to seem like a god to us.
The moral argument for God supposes that we need to believe in God or we need there to be a God to validate moral concepts such as justice and love. Kalam refutes moral arguments for it gives rise to deliberate lies. This conflict shows that if there is a God then it is not a God who is morally interesting.
APPENDIX: BACKTRACKING COUNTERFACTUAL AND THE KALAM
1 Time travel is impossible for you cannot go back in time to kill your father when he was a baby
2 But if the universe lets you go back to meet him but stops you killing him there is no contradiction
3 Cause is full of paradoxes and mystery
Therefore we should avoid attempts to use God as an
explanation for being the start of the universe for we are stuck with saying,
its paradoxes and mystery so we don't know what we are talking about
WORKS CONSULTED
A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Mandarin, London, 1994
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ,
Doubleday/Image, New York, 1964
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust,
London, 1971
AN INTELLIGENT PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum, London and
New York, 1997
AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS, John Hospers, Routledge, London, 1992
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, &
Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD,
London, 1950
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
ARGUING WITH GOD, Hugh Sylvester, IVP, London, 1971
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books,
London, 1971
CRITIQUES OF GOD, Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons,
Edinburgh and London, 1907
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1982
DOES GOD EXIST? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena,
California, 1972
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY, Antony Flew, Hutchinson, London, 1966
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic
Books, London, 2007
GOD THE PROBLEM, Gordon D Kaufman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1973
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch,
East Sussex, 1995
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ Westminster, Maryland,
Newman, 1962
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V. Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image
Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1996
PHILOSOPHY AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, Colin Brown, IVP, London, 1973
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
SALVIFICI DOLORIS, Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1980
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2007
THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984
THE CONCEPT OF GOD, Ronald H Nash, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
The Future of Atheism, Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett, SPCK, London , 2008
THE HONEST TO GOD DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards, Westminster Press,
Philadelphia, 1963
THE KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press, Cork, 1965
THE LANGUAGE OF BELIEF, A SCIENTIST PRESENTS EVIDENCE FOR BELIEF, Francis S
Collins, Free Press, New York ,2006
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New
York, 2006
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London,
1905
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982
WHAT DO EXISTENTIALISTS BELIEVE? Richard Appignanesi, Granta Books, London, 2006
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992
WHY DOES GOD? Domenico Grasso, St Paul, Bucks, 1970