Thought on How You Can Know that the Kalam Argument is Strong

One of the ways in which we can know that a certain theistic argument is strong and compelling is by observing how atheists fallaciously react to it, for when we take the Kalam Cosmological Argument for example, we can begin to see atheists grasping at any mere possible doubt to dispute the argument rather than a reasonable doubt about it (essentially engaging in a form of selective hyper-skepticism which they never use anywhere else (such as the theory of evolution, for example)), or they try to divert the whole discussion by claiming that the argument does not specifically prove the Christian God (something that it was never meant to do), or they try to distract us from the argument by straw-manningly claiming that the “original” version of the cosmological argument is based on the idea that ‘everything has a cause’ (as if that objection, even if true, which it’s not, would have any relevance for the Kalam version of the argument), or, finally, they try to assert that support for the premises in the argument are based on the idea of composition rather than on induction (induction, meaning the tool of reasoning upon which all science depends); so, when you see such utterly bad and irrelevant objections, you know you struck the atheist on a very painful nerve.


3 thoughts on “Thought on How You Can Know that the Kalam Argument is Strong

  1. (1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
    How do you distinguish between things that begin to exist and things that do not? Why doesn’t the premise distinguish between ex nihilo and ex materia creation? How can you claim to know anything about ex nihilo creation and causality? If time began to exist, and if causes are temporal, how can there have been a preceding cause to time; what does ‘before time’ mean?

    (2) The universe began to exist.
    What do you mean by universe? If this bubble of space time didn’t come into creation ex nihilo, but is actually a reconfiguration of pre-existing stuff, are they different ‘universes’? Or are they the same universe? Energy, according to the law of conservation of energy, may well be eternal: does that mean the universe is eternal? What about non-linear models of time?

    (3) The universe can a cause of its existence.
    Depending on whether you can solve the paradox of temporal causality without time, define the universe in such a way that it did actually begin to exist (instead of just changed), then the argument may have a point. But it still doesn’t rule out physics as an answer.

    APOLOGIES – I don’t know you, so the following paragraph is not based on you. Instead, it is based on my experience with belligerent defenders of the argument and I want to address some of the rebuttals before they come up, just in case:
    Where did the physics come from? Maybe physics are eternal. Maybe not. But any good philosopher will immediately discredit you if you claim to be certain about this. This is the point about distinguishing between ex nihilo and ex materia creation. You can change the language, then you’re arguing about the distinction between contingent and noncontingent causes.


  2. please demonstrate that your god didn’t begin to exist, and therefore deserves the exemption from premise one. i don’t mean argue, i mean please demonstrate.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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