The Hardest Questions on the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Dr. Craig answers a range of tough inquiries regarding the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Special thanks to Nemanja Jurišić and NT Podkast Serbia for this interview.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[elijah]

I must admit, I'm tired of hearing the same baby objections over and over. So I'm very grateful for this. Thanks Reasonable Faith

[bobmiller]

Craig what advice can you give to one who wants to take apologetics seriously to the text level!!! Please share please 🙏

“trying to make an apologetics youtube channel”

[delaliy]

Craig is my man, the lord has Craig around in this mordern era for specific reasons. His mind is greatly appreciated amongst the people searching for answers to non believers. Also i would like to say that the certain people are known by one name only... Bird Magic, Jordan Michael, Craig, Moses etc...lol

[Mentat]

Even though I think it's a ridiculous response to the Kalam, I do wish the "Unsatisfiable Pair" objection had been brought up so Craig could deal with it.

[TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Would love to see a Craig vs Morriston debate on Cameron’s channel

[alphaomega]

Something always existed. This creates everything. Hard concept to accept but the only logical axiom that explains the universe.

[TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Dr Craig, please make more appearances on Capturing Christianity ! Brother needs us to support his channel. I don’t work for or even know him; I wasn’t asked to say this. God bless

[Unbathed]

I. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
II. The universe is made of energy.

∴ The universe did not begin to exist.

[alexp]

“it seems to me” isn’t a reason to think that something is true.

[efol]

Craig still cannot believe that people think the universe popped into being out of absolutely nothing! See his debate with Sean Carroll.

5:10 Craig commits the same error: "Beer pops into being out of nothing." The word "pop" implies time, as there would be one moment when there's no beer and then a later moment when there is beer. The beer "pops" into being. The change of state is time. It sounds like he's labelling the prior state of non-being as "nothing", but this isn't usually what is meant by "nothing". When speaking about the universe itself, which is comprised of all contiguous space-time, this statement doesn't make any sense as time cannot "pop" into existence. To circumvent this language problem we usually refer to "the first moment of time." It's also referred to (confusingly) as the "beginning of time, " but you must take care to note that time does not begin, as that does not make any sense -- it's nonsensical to say that time itself transitions from non-being to being. It simply has a beginning, or initial state, or "first moment."

6:07 Craig builds his causal principle by observing the patterns of the physical universe. This is fine for explaining things inside the universe, but it does not apply to the universe itself. Causes precede effects in time. There is no time prior to the first moment of time, it does not have a cause.

9:37 Craig does understand the problem but chooses sloppy language:
Define "beginning to exist": entity x "begins to exist" at time t if x "comes into being" at t.
Define x "comes into being" at t: iff
1. x exists at t.
2. t is the first time at which x exists.
3. x existing at t is a "tensed fact". i.e. temporal becoming is a real and objective feature of reality.
This is consistent with "there is a first moment of time, " and thus has no problem. Ordinarily in conversation the phrase "comes into being" would imply a state of non-being, but Craig clarifies it. However, if this is what he means then why the fuss over the "universe pops into being out of nothing?" Apparently "pops into being" is different from "comes into being." Moreover, per this definition, God "comes into being" at the first moment of time.

Go back and watch at 6:07 to see the inconsistency. At 6:07 he correctly notes that we observe entities transitioning from non-being to being (i.e. they begin). We infer rules that describe how matter transitions from one moment to the next, namely cause and effect. This does not apply to the beginning of the universe, there's no time prior to the first moment of time! To get around this he changes the definition at 9:37.

11:19 He concedes that our physical concepts of time may break down at the first moment of the universe. It seems there is hope for Craig yet. However he then proceeds to suggest that a metaphysical concept of time does not depend on the universe nor does it break down at the beginning. So maybe it's hopeless.

12:19 He thinks the causal principle is metaphysical rather than a law of nature. The causal principle is derived from what we observe in the physical world, so I agree with the 6:07 version of Craig and disagree with this 12:19 version.

I bet I know his reply: "I can't believe you think the universe popped into being out of absolutely nothing!"

[haushofer]

These kinds of argument are why many theoretical physicists are sceptical towards philosophy.

[wmarkfish]

Beer and Beethoven is a good combination.

[ScienceFoundation]

The KCA remains special pleading. If the universe began to exist, the principles therein also began to exist and cannot be applied. You don't get to exempt causality from beginning to exist just because you need it for your argument.

[cogitoergosum]

The issue of bicycles etc coming into being has been firmly refuted over a decade ago. What is truly odd here is that Craig is perfectly happy to make similar arguments about Boltzmann brains, which presumably he considers to be not only probabilistically possible but likely. That is to say he is happy to entertain a Boltzmann brain that is infinitely more complex than a bicycle. This is nothing short of bizarre.

[overknox]

Really? 50 question about causality and he just keeps asking?
We get it, Kalam is pretty much impermeable unless you question the principles basic logic. NEXT

[DonswatchingtheTube]

The big-bang theory is breaking down. We are seeing maturity all over. It's a case of over extrapolating a motion to a greater picture. The planets seem to me to be created more or less in situ.

[elijah]

Yay! We're finally gonna hear some good objections.

[endofnight]

Anybody here follow the work of Bernardo Kastrup or Donald Hoffman?

[RobertSmith-gxmi]

An argument from ignorance that begs the question.Won't you please accept my composition fallacy doesn't prove the existence of deity.

[ReasonBeing]

I really tried to listen with an open mind, but all I hear is assertion after assertion without any demonstrable reason to believe them. There is also quite a few false dilemmas thrown in there for good measure