William Lame Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument: Defeated Easily, As An Argument/Assertion From Ignorance!

William Lane Craig claims to have defeated all the attacks on his lame version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Here is the Argument, syllogism/tautology:


1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2: The universe began to exist.

C: Therefore the universe has a cause.


Logically, this is a sound argument, and we can all agree that the Universe indeed has a cause.

Then Craig makes a number of Assertions that are actually unfounded and are from an ignorance of all the possibilities surrounding cosmology and time/space.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound, but Craig's argument beyond it to assert his god, is entirely Fallacious.

Craig's additions to the KCA is, both an Argument From Ignorance and a God Of The Gaps Argument!

But, Craig has to make his god of the gaps argument, otherwise, the naked KCA, only states a cause exists, without making any further arguments for the cause.

So the KCA cause, can be any of the following plus many more causes.

  • Expanding Super Black Hole
  • Spark or fusion of dark matter, which suddenly expanded.
  • Etc.. multiple universes, bubble universe, etc... as far as the imagination of cosmologists go, each hypothesis is far more plausible than a supernatural agency being the cause.

NOTE: There is nothing in the KCA that even hints that the cause could be a Surpernatural agent, i.e. god. It leaves a blank slate.

It is just an empty tautology.

BTW: Even if it could possibly be construed that the KCA did indicate a god, (a massive leap of faith is required there), it would have to be either the pantheist (Spinoza, Einstein) or deist (Paine) god, it certainly couldn't point to the Bible god, as the Genesis account is so very wrong, and the god of the Bible is too human, because it is the projection of human minds.

That claim for the KCA, is a theistic assertion, or argument from ignorance fallacy. (god of the gaps)

Essentially all theistic arguments are either one of 2 possibilities.

  • Begging the question (circular) i.e. 1: The Bible is true, 2: Why is it true, 3: The Bible says it is true.
  • God of the gaps Fallacy, (Also called: Argument from ignorance fallacy): i.e. The Fine Tuning Argument: We don't know why the universe appears to be fine tuned, so god must have done it. The argument for god's hand in quantum mechanics is just another god/supernatural agent of the gaps argument, enter Deepak Chopra.

BTW: Craig uses variations of these all the time in his talks/debates.

Here is Craig debunking the other objections to his KCA, note he even debunks Richard Dawkins's attack, and I actually agree with Craig's objections to all those attacks.  

But, Craig does not defeat my attack here, as you can easily see in his own arguments, that Craig is drawing assertions, not from science, but his own false assumptions about what science claims, he is being entirely DEVIOUS and actually his claims about science are indeed LIES. 

Here is the reasoning behind my attack on his fallacious KCA argument and his ignorance of science.

It is true that when our universe began, it was the beginning of time t=0, as we know time, but, that is only time within our universe.  

This does not mean that there is no time/dimension outside of our universe, and indeed there most probably is space and time outside our universe, t=0 was only the time within our universe.

Our universe may have originated inside or from a black hole, which already existed in the previous time-frame of outside our universe, and it initiated the time within our universe.  

So, Craig's assertion that there was no time, prior to our universe is an Argument/Assertion From Ignorance Fallacy!

Because we don't know what exists outside our universe and we cannot assume that a different dimension of time does not exist there, because our universe must have been a product of something in that outside time, even if a supernatural agency existed, it too much have had time to plan the universe, therefore in Craig's own assertion of a god, time had to exist prior to the 'Big Bang' in order for that god to plan or think about forming the universe.  There is no possible way Craig can dodge this one without making another Special Pleading Fallacy of 'god doesn't need time to think!'

Fault in Craig's argument in a nutshell:

Craig makes conjectures that science does not make, Science states we don't know the conditions of the Cosmos (forces outside out universe) prior to the Big Bang.  Most scientists predict a cosmos exists outside our universe, where a different dimension of time exists, Craig ignores this completely, because it does not suit his narcissistic, egotistical, theological purpose.

Craig makes such an assertion, which is an argument from ignorance about what science claims.

Thus Craig is inserting a god, where science simply states "We Don't Know", which is a God Of The Gaps Argument/Fallacy.

Enjoy laughing at his naivety!


Views: 355

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2: The universe began to exist.

C: Therefore the universe has a cause

I can agree fully with the 3 things above. Problems begin here when you assert that the "cause" is your god that you have no evidence for, and claim at the same time that he always existed, so you can't put a beginning on him. How very convenient! You want me to believe your god argument and you have special pleadings for him. Well, it must be true. It said so in the bible.

Remember. When in doubt, god did it. When you have no proof, god did it. If you cannot explain it, god did it. Looks like Jesus and science fiction to me.

Yes Michael, the story of Jesus is full of science fiction (miracles).

It rivals Lord Of The Rings for imaginary characters and events.

Maybe I should start a school for LOTR theology.

It may rival Scientology.


I think it's inherent in human nature to imagine mystical causes for natural events without considering the practicalities. The idea that the universe ''began to exist'' is an open question, there are cyclic models galore in the scientific literature, and yet from this unknown a supernatural being is extrapolated?. David Hume once ironically noticed that anyone who believed in miracles is in actual fact claiming a miraculous identity for themselves. Not a vanity many would willingly admit to.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service