Welcome to Tuesday Morning Apologetics (TMA). Let’s talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA):
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
We have just spent months defending the first premise against all sorts of challenges. We’ve looked at causation, Energy and Time. And at the end of the day, we haven’t found anything that comes close to challenging the truth of the first premise of the KCA. So, I think we can stand firm that anyone is amply justified in believing the first premise is true and that there is no sufficient reason to doubt it. Let alone disbelieving it.
Now with that finally established, I feel comfortable moving on to the second premise.
The Universe Began To Exist
And, honestly, this is where the meat of the KCA is. What do I mean by that? Well, Dr Craig thinks that this is easily the most controversial premise of the argument and, therefore, needs the most attention.
Just like I did all the way back in KCA 02 with the first premise, I’m going to explain why some believe the second premise is to be favored over its negation. But unlike the first premise, this is going to take more than a single post. The reason for this is because Dr Craig defends the second premise with two additional philosophical arguments. That’s right. We’re going to be looking at arguments within an argument. On top of that, Dr Craig uses scientific evidences as well.
Now here, some people will complain that it’s foolish to use science to prove anything philosophically. And, to be honest, I totally agree. Science, because it’s always changing, is not reliable enough for that. But the thing is, and I can’t stress this enough, Dr Craig isn’t using science to prove the second premise is true. Instead, as Dr Craig has famously said,
“Science can provide evidence in support of a premise in a philosophical argument leading to a conclusion that has theological significance.”
The first philosophical argument that we’ll be looking at used to prove the truth of the second premise is called:
The Impossibility of an Actually Infinite Number of Things
Next week we’ll introduce what that argument is in some detail. But let me know what you think. What do you think about the infinite? Have you given it much thought until now or recently? I excited to finally be moving on to the second premise and I hope you are too!
SOURCES:
Craig, William. Reasonable Faith 3rd Edition (pg.126). Crossway
The RF Podcast: Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne: Science vs. Religion Part 2
Kommentare