Thought on Atheism and the Kalam Argument

Certain atheists try to get around the implications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by asserting that perhaps the universe really did spring forth into existence uncaused out of absolute nothingness, but apart from asserting such an absurdity, it is also worth pointing out that if the atheist is willing to accept such a possibility, then he should immediately cease being an atheist, for if he believes that a universe can actually come into being uncaused from nothingness, then, since nothingness is utterly non-discriminatory, there is no thing preventing something that would very much fit the definition of a god, or a multitude of gods, coming into being uncaused from nothing, and since such uncaused ‘god creation from nothing’ could have happened countless times during the infinite existence of nothingness, then the rational atheist, realizing this, should, if he wishes to remain rational, either drop his belief about things coming into existence uncaused out of nothingness or drop his atheism and embrace agnosticism; so, the atheist is in a bind, for if he asserts that things can come uncaused out of nothing, then he should cease being an atheist, and yet if he denies that things can come uncaused out of nothing, then the force of the Kalam argument bears down upon him like a crushing weight.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Thought on Atheism and the Kalam Argument

  1. Nice to meet you, and kudos on the fun topic! I think your argument partly depends on the type of Atheist that you are targeting. While some Atheists may be willing to assert that a universe can come from nothing, others simply advocate that what we are talking about with regard to origins is essentially unknown to both parties.

    Now, this aspect of the discussion does not necessitate that an Atheist revert to an all out Agnostic position. There are other ways to make Atheism an argument from probability based upon what is both known and unknown, objective and hypothetical.

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument in my estimation thrives upon a strict set of metaphysical premises and I’ll grant that it is a pretty fun reasoning process but it does not make its premises accurate or in some way availed to us logically.

    So the real issue here comes with being able to meaningfully necessitate that everything that exists has a cause for its existence or even granting a cause, that this cause must in fact be God. You see, another side of this equation must ask: Can a God, any God at all, be meaningfully identified within the world today?

    This question does not necessarily require only material demonstrations, however, it may indicate that if we want to talk about evidences that would be in any way meaningful or intelligible, then those evidences would best cater to an objective investigation into the matter. Apart from objectivity one will be hard pressed to make God into an option that is both true and properly identifiable to anyone that wishes to discover what is true in this regard.

    So in order to develop confidence in the Kalam argument I would want to inquire if it is in any way important or relevant to the Theist to have a means to meaningfully identify God within the world today? Is it important to know what we are talking about? If not, then I can do what William Lane Craig is doing and I can do it to necessitate any kind of God or cause that I desire. If I desire the cause of my existence to be some kind of spiritual force that is absent a mind, I can use the Kalam argument to impress a need for that.

    As an Atheist I personally have no qualms with saying that there is a string of prior causes that leads to me. Science appears to be the most thoughtful and methodical way to start talking about origins and the high implication for a Big Bang.

    To say that a Big Bang requires a God to kick start it means that a Theist has a very big burden of proof to meet. Would we even be having this conversation if a God was that easy to pinpoint as the ultimate answer? This is why I personally see skepticism toward gods as justified until we can start talking about God in an intelligible manner and not simply as a metaphysical possibility.

    Like

    • Just had to approve it the first time. It is through now and you should be able to comment freely from here on.

      And I will read your comment in detail when I get the chance.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s