Causality | The Armchair Antichrist

A Short Refutation of the Kalam Argument

On October 5, 2009, In Christianity, Cosmology, Creationism, Philosophy, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

This is an argument that pseudo-intellectual theologians like William Lane Craig and others like him have used. And it goes something like this:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Premise 1 is correct to an extent because it seems obvious that everything that begins has a cause. However, the term created would be closer to what these pseudo-intellectuals actually mean. But, really everything that we see created is only a rearrangement of pre-existing atoms, so nothing is actually created. So, yes everything has a cause, but there was no creation because everything already existed to begin with.

Premise 2 is completely wrong. You cannot deduce facts from inside the universe and apply them to the universe as a whole. This is a fallacy of composition. Furthermore, causality itself is a property of the universe that as far as we know only applies to things within the universe. We do not have knowledge of other universes coming into existence so it is not correct to make that assumption.

Since both of the premises are incorrect, logically the conclusion must also be false.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Email This to a Friend

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)