These aren’t in Reasonable Faith, but there are two lines Craig uses constantly in his debates that are worth noting. Both are generally used as part of the Kalam argument, but have nothing to do with it logically. The first is his frequent use of the rhetorical question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (see, for example, his [...]
Kalam III: The very brief part that actually argues for God
July 20, 2012 By 37 Comments
Now that I’ve argued that Craig has no good arguments for premise (2) of Kalam (at least not reasons he can consistently use without also ruling out God as an explanation for the universe’s beginning), I could move on to the next argument. But I think Craig’s arguments for the claim that the cause of the universe is [...]
Kalam II: Philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe
July 19, 2012 By 43 Comments
Now I’ll deal with Craig’s philosophical arguments for the claim the universe had a beginning. The first argument goes like this (Reasonable Faith pp. 116-120):
The Leibnizian cosmological argument (as told by William Lane Craig)
July 18, 2012 By 32 Comments
Here is the first argument Craig gives in Reasonable Faith, which he calls the “Leibnizian cosmological argument” (pp. 106-111):
Follow Patheos
Atheist: