Posted: Apr 07, 2011 7:19 pm
Oldskeptic wrote:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Craig needs to define what he means by, "begins to exist."
See: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8243
"The kalam cosmological argument uses the phrase 'begins to exist.' For those who wonder what that means I sometimes use the expression 'comes into being' as a synonym. We can explicate this last notion as follows: for any entity e and time t,
e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact."
Oldskeptic wrote:
2. The universe began to exist.
Again Craig needs to define what he means. Began to exist in what way? As a rearrangement of existing stuff, or again out of an absolute absence of everything? If he means a rearrangement then his "creator" god is unnecessary. If he means out of an absolute lack of anything then he needs to confront the first law of thermodynamics.
If the physical universe as a whole began to exist, then it must have come into being out of nothing, i.e. not out of any pre-existing physical stuff. Such an existence beginning ex nulla materia is not restricted by any physical laws, since there were no such laws before the physical universe began to exist.
Oldskeptic wrote:
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is just jumping to a conclusion without a good reason to do so other than having set the premises to lead to the conclusion desired.
The simple argument is logically valid, and Craig has argued at length why he thinks that its premises are true or at least much more plausible than their negations.