Christian Apologists vs. the Kalam Cosmological Argument

In the last couple of days, two Christian apologists have published critiques of the Kalam cosmological argument.

#1: Calum Miller

Calum Miller provides an extremely thorough, open-minded critique.

#2: Danny Faulkner

Over at Answers in Genesis, Danny Faulkner has written an interesting article entitled, “Universe by Design: Misconceptions about General Relativity, Cosmology, and the Big Bang.”  Among others, the article has a section entitled, “The Big Bang Does Not Prove God’s Existence.” Faulkner provides the same objection made by Quentin Smith and others, namely, that if time began with the big bang, then an appeal to causality will not demonstrate the existence of God.

Both of these critiques were written by Christian apologists. The fact that they are apologists shows what should already be obvious: one doesn’t have to be an atheist, much less an ‘unreasonable’ atheist, in order to find the kalam cosmological argument wanting. This point shouldn’t need to be said, but other Christian apologists, such as William Lane Craig, sometimes give the opposite impression.

About Jeffery Jay Lowder

Jeffery Jay Lowder is President Emeritus of Internet Infidels, Inc., which he co-founded in 1995. He is also co-editor of the book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave.

  • Wes McMichael

    Wes Morriston’s critiques are also among the best. I don’t think he calls himself Christian anymore, but he’s a theist, at least.

    • Walter Van den Acker

      Indeed. I would go even further than that. Morriston’s critiques, when taken to their consequence, actually prove that if the universe indeed had a true beginning, it cannot possibly have been caused by the kind of personal God Craig believes in.
      I am not sure whether Morriston is a Christian or not, though.

  • Peter

    From Callum Miller’s article “I don’t think objections based on A/B-theory of time are very good. It seems to me that a KCA could just as easily be made using a B-theory of time.” I find this quite difficult to think about. Do you think the A/B theory of time distinction is important?

    Also just wanted to say that I think it’s highly probable that Miller is only raising these objections to the KCA as part of a long term plan to replace it with his own argument – The ‘Callum Cosmological Argument’…

    • John Mitchell

      I think that, given the b-theory of time, the argument is not very successful

    • Calum Miller

      I wish… shame I’m generally not too keen on cosmological arguments!

  • MNb

    Augustinus of Hippo already seemed to have realized this so Craig is a bit behind.

  • Msironen

    I am completely baffled as to what an article like Danny Faulkner’s is doing on a website like Answers in Genesis. I’d recommend it to anyone who wants to brush up on their modern cosmology at a basic level.
    My only quibble is with the section called “Modern Relativity Theory Does Not Eliminate the Concept of an Absolute Reference Frame”, where I think he makes a decent point about Mach’s Principle but somewhat overplays the significance.

  • jondrake

    An argument against the Kalam is not an argument against the existence of God.

    It is, well…an argument against the Kalam.

    On a side note, if the universe in some manner has always existed, then the theist can argue “so has God”.

    Once you accept the idea of the eternal, the camel is in the tent!

    • SGHeathen

      Define ‘God’. Has time always existed in its causal form? Time is an illusion. It is our understanding of cause and effect. And we label events ‘before’ and ‘after’ one another. But time is a variable and can be seen as another dimension. See theory of relativity. But in any way define ‘God’. Then explain if there can be more than one of that. If not why not if yes why are you not a polytheist.

  • Calum Miller

    Jeffery, did you see WLC’s response to this earlier?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X