The Kalam Cosmological Argument goes:

1. Whatever begins to exist, must have a cause of its existence.
2. The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.

A lot of debate on the KCA has concerned whether 1 can be applied to the universe itself. But 2 seems strongly supported by Big Bang theory. But do developments in string theory suggest that premise 2 is vulnerable? String Theorist Veneziano seems to think so. What do you think?

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/20...g-of-time.html

About 10 years ago, John Byl wrote an article mainly against Hugh Ross, but also predicted the problems with hitching one's wagon to scientific speculations.

It can be found here:

http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/cm15.pdf

(Pdf pages 26-29)

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

I have heard before by some that the Cosmological argument is philisophically fallacious (or perhaps alluded or implied this by saying traditional arguments for the existence of God are fallacious), yet I haven't heard reasoning as to why they are fallacious. I know that if it can be proven that the universe is eternal the Kalam Cosmological argument obviously doesn't work, but is this the only thing going against it? Is there some illogic hidden within the argument? Why are these arguments fallacious? (I don't want the answer that they don't prove in entirety the biblical God. I think this is a copout). Thanks in advance. ~Caleb

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA

I think the main objection is that it proves endless causation or must posit a disjunction between created and uncreated causation. If the latter then there is an equivocation on the word causation.

The problem is that some have used the cosmological argument to prove too much. It proves the impossibility of naturalistic science or eternal matter. It proves theoretically that a process of a different order than what science now observes must have created the world.

On top of this, the teleological, moral and other arguments can help to provide corroborating evidence which points towards the biblical God as scientifically probable. But the principal argument is the ontological, which is the only genuine presuppositional argument there is. In modern times it has been modified to provide an adequate justification for human knowledge, in which it has come to be known as "transcendental," though I prefer to speak of it as "foundational."

It should be observed that such arguments are mostly useful in a theoretical environment and serve mainly as counter-arguments to refute those who would disprove the existence of God. Whether they go beyond that will depend upon one's theory of human knowledge as it relates to the divine.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

In relation to the problem of endless causation, I think (I could be wrong) that the Kalam formation takes care of that, by saying that "˜everything that *begins* to exists has a cause, instead of saying everything that exists has a cause. Would you say that the moral argument is probable, or certain? I agree that the kalam cosmological argument is only probable, but does that mean we should dismiss it? Some have said that these arguments are fallacious. Are all of the forms of these arguments fallacious? How is the kalam formation fallacious? Thanks for the reply armourbearer. ~Caleb

[Edited on 7-29-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA

The Big problem with Kalam and other cosmo arguments is that they have to posit some sort of Superman instead of a transcendant God. The reason is that the argument goes from our regular everyday experience of causation to what God must have done when he created the world. The biblical view is that God creating everything is different than our causing or creating things. For example we can do nothing ex nihilo. For Kalam etc. to work, we have to say, its just like our non ex-nihilo causation, for if it is a different ball of wax, how can you defend it using everything experience? If it is a whole different deal, why is the observation that nothing creates it self, a problem? It is a whole different game, so why not let it have different rules?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

I don't believe in "time."

I would say that the theistic proofs (besides the ontological) all lead to probability, especially when used in a corroborative way. From a scientific perspective, that is the most that any proof can establish. Therefore the theistic proofs at least serve to refute atheistic arguments that depend upon science. Meanwhile the ontological argument directs itself to the question of being, or in modified form to knowing, and thereby refutes atheist arguments from these angles.

None of the arguments should be dismissed. They are the reasonable "proofs" objectively considered. Of course subjective persuasion belongs only to the Holy Ghost to give.

When the proofs are presented and subsequently rejected, a door is open to show how the judicial process is subverting the evidence. This is due to total depravity, and thus the discussion has appropriately moved from the ground to the first level -- from the existence of God to sin. If our Lord's miracles are observed it will be seen that He moved His auditory in this manner also, attesting to the objective validity of His miracles and attributing their rejection to His hearers' lack of belief, which ultimately arose from the hardness of their hearts.

[Edited on 7-31-2006 by armourbearer]

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Hermonta, you are correct. However, the problem for science is that it has not found "some sort of Superman." Hence the cosmological argument shows the existence of an order of being which scientific enquiry allows no room for.

Your ex-nihilo observation is to the point. The kind of causation required to bring something out of nothing is not the kind of causation which is posited in the premise -- every effect has a cause. But again, it shows the problems involved with a scientific conclusion which shuts out the supernatural. At some point in the history of our universe, something happened which scientific enquiry cannot account for.

The cosmological argument is vital for showing that empirical science does not have all the answers, and therefore cannot be relied upon as an ultimate source of authority.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Interesting. I never thought about the cosmological argument that way. Before I stumbled upon presuppositional apologetics (Paul Manata's Blog), I bought about 7 or 8 books from the evidentialist perspective. Including I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (I actually liked this one), New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, The Case For' Series, Christian Handbook Of Apologetics, etc... I have only read the 'I don't have enough faith...' book as well as the 'Case For A Creator' book all the way through (of my evidentialist perspective books). One of the most annoying things I have found (at least in the Case For...books is the reliance on the big bang model. As well, there are many instances where the claim is made that we must have Free Will (in the libertarian sense). Anyways, end rant.

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA