Once again, for your reading pleasure, the illustrious Kalam Ontological, oops, I mean Cosmological Argument!
If you are wondering why I am expending my precious time on this rehashed argument, thank Kristor of the Orthosphere, who insists that my assumptions pass the “scythe” of this argument—an argument promoted by contemporary Protestant system-Christian who reformulated it from the work a medieval Muslim who, in turn, was inspired by the logical arguments of an ancient Greek pagan.
That alone should make you pause for thought.
Anyway, here is the KCA again (not including premise 4 and conclusion 5).
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Let’s focus on Premise 1
What does everything encompass? No idea. It certainly cannot include God because that opposes Craig’s assumptions and beliefs (and mine, albeit for different reasons).
See the trick in the first premise? God never began to exist, but everything else did; hence God is the cause of everything!
Quick question. Why doesn’t the argument just stop there? Who needs the second premise and the conclusion?
Occam’s Razor, man! Occam’s Razor!
Next question. What does “begins to exist” mean?
To come into being from nothing? Or pre-existing things/beings undergoing change and existing in another way or form?
Craig implies the former, but the latter can also encompass “begins to exist.”
For example, I didn’t begin to exist in Hungary until I moved here a decade ago. Before that, I existed in another country.
Final question. What does cause mean?
I only ask because theologians and philosophers are known to be the most slippery and creative wordsmiths (lawyers eat your hearts out).
Anyway, Craig is referring to Aristotle’s efficient cause—the thing responsible for the motion or rest of the being in question (re: a carpenter is the efficient cause of a table. The material cause is the wood the carpenter uses. The final cause is the table's end purpose).
Ultimately, Craig implies that God is the initial cause of everything in the universe.
Okay, got it. Once again—are the second premise and conclusion even necessary? The first premise has covered all the bases.
After all of that, I can only begin to make sense of the first premise if I reword it in the following manner:
Every being that begins to exist in Creation has a creator.
Do with that what you will. I’ll address the second premise soon.
In the meantime, enjoy this “engaging” debate between William Lane Craig and Ben Shapiro.
The topic? Jesus.
Yes. Ben Shapiro...arguing about Jesus with the author of the Kalam Ontological Argument.
My goodness. What have I got myself into?
If you are wondering why I am expending my precious time on this rehashed argument, thank Kristor of the Orthosphere, who insists that my assumptions pass the “scythe” of this argument—an argument promoted by contemporary Protestant system-Christian who reformulated it from the work a medieval Muslim who, in turn, was inspired by the logical arguments of an ancient Greek pagan.
That alone should make you pause for thought.
Anyway, here is the KCA again (not including premise 4 and conclusion 5).
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Let’s focus on Premise 1
What does everything encompass? No idea. It certainly cannot include God because that opposes Craig’s assumptions and beliefs (and mine, albeit for different reasons).
See the trick in the first premise? God never began to exist, but everything else did; hence God is the cause of everything!
Quick question. Why doesn’t the argument just stop there? Who needs the second premise and the conclusion?
Occam’s Razor, man! Occam’s Razor!
Next question. What does “begins to exist” mean?
To come into being from nothing? Or pre-existing things/beings undergoing change and existing in another way or form?
Craig implies the former, but the latter can also encompass “begins to exist.”
For example, I didn’t begin to exist in Hungary until I moved here a decade ago. Before that, I existed in another country.
Final question. What does cause mean?
I only ask because theologians and philosophers are known to be the most slippery and creative wordsmiths (lawyers eat your hearts out).
Anyway, Craig is referring to Aristotle’s efficient cause—the thing responsible for the motion or rest of the being in question (re: a carpenter is the efficient cause of a table. The material cause is the wood the carpenter uses. The final cause is the table's end purpose).
Ultimately, Craig implies that God is the initial cause of everything in the universe.
Okay, got it. Once again—are the second premise and conclusion even necessary? The first premise has covered all the bases.
After all of that, I can only begin to make sense of the first premise if I reword it in the following manner:
Every being that begins to exist in Creation has a creator.
Do with that what you will. I’ll address the second premise soon.
In the meantime, enjoy this “engaging” debate between William Lane Craig and Ben Shapiro.
The topic? Jesus.
Yes. Ben Shapiro...arguing about Jesus with the author of the Kalam Ontological Argument.
My goodness. What have I got myself into?
RSS Feed
