How Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fail? Let Me Count the Ways (part 2 of 2).

How Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fail? Let Me Count the Ways (part 2 of 2). December 20, 2019

Let’s conclude our examination of William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument (part 1 here). His version of the argument has two premises and a conclusion:

1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2 The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 sounds like common sense until you realize that William Lane Craig (I’ll call him WLC) imagines a loophole for his god. Reinterpret premise 1 with this agenda, and you see he is talking about:

  • a supernatural creation (he provides no examples of a supernatural anything),
  • out of nothing (he provides no examples of creation out of nothing),
  • before time (which didn’t yet exist before the universe came to be)
  • with “begins to exist” as a special-pleading caveat to carve out a God-shaped exception
  • to the “everything has a cause” rule, which is false.

Seen this way, premise 1 loses all common-sense appeal and the Kalam argument fails, but let’s flog this dead horse and continue.

Second premise: The universe began to exist

WLC defends the second premise this way:

Let’s consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that’s the point.

If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

 6. The second law of thermodynamics is no ally to the apologist.

Unlike his frequent metaphysical handwavings, WLC makes a plausible argument here. If the universe is like a clock that’s running down, it can’t have been running forever.

But does WLC really want to argue that things always run down, so therefore everything must have a beginning? If so, then this must apply to God as well. (Yes, of course I know that WLC will say that God is an exception. But then I will demand evidence that such a god exists.)

It turns out that a clock is a poor analogy to the universe. The zero-energy universe theory says that if you convert everything to energy, matter and light are positive energy but gravity is negative energy. Add it all together, and the sum is zero—the universe has zero net matter and energy. Alexander Vilenkin, a cosmologist who WLC often cites, explains it this way: “The gravitational energy, which is always negative, exactly compensates the positive energy of matter, so the energy of a closed universe is always zero” (source: video @24:00). Though it seems like cheating, it takes no matter or energy to create a universe.

WLC might say that the zero-energy universe theory might be overturned with new evidence. True, but then his argument has become “The second law of thermodynamics might argue for a beginning,” which isn’t much of an argument.

7. The universe began . . . in its present form.

We don’t know what preceded or caused the Big Bang. The universe might’ve come from nothing, or it might be a rearrangement of material from another universe. (This point and point 6 may not coexist as objections.)

8. Response to Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin.

WLC frequently cites the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (BGV) to argue for a beginning to the universe and, if you want to posit a multiverse, a beginning for that, too.

He’s such a fan that he has the following quote by Vilenkin on several pages at his web site:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. (Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One [2007], p.176)

That’s powerful evidence for WLC, but if he’s such a fan, I wonder why he ignores this from Vilenkin on the very next page:

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God. . . . So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

Oops—it looks like WLC wants to pick and choose his evidence and hope that we don’t notice. (We’ll soon see that the cosmologists he cites aren’t the allies he imagines.)

Cosmologist Vic Stenger saw limitations to BGV:

I asked Vilenkin personally if his theorem required a beginning. His e-mail reply: “No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.” This is exactly what a number of existing models for the uncreated origin of our universe do.

In Sean Carroll’s debate with WLC (my summary here), he made clear that BGV starts with assumptions. Discard those assumptions, and the rules are different and eternality is possible. Carroll said:

BGV . . . is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical General Relativity breaks down, but it doesn’t help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there’s no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle can’t be resolved within a materialist framework. (Quoted in Vic Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, p. 130.)

In the debate, Carroll mentioned that there are over a dozen plausible models for the universe, including eternal ones.

WLC says he’s BFFs with B, G, and V, but then these guys go off and say things that WLC can’t possibly agree with. He should rethink who his allies are.

  • Vilenkin says that the universe can have no cause.
  • Vilenkin argues for the multiverse, which defeats WLC’s fine-tuning argument.
  • Alan Guth says, “It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue.”
  • WLC likes to channel The Sound of Music and declare, “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.” But Guth says, “Conceivably, everything can be created from nothing. And ‘everything’ might include a lot more than what we can see. In the context of inflationary cosmology, it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch.”
  • And if WLC’s interpretation is compelling, I await the conversion to Christianity of his allies Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin.

Though I’m open to disconfirming evidence, it seems that WLC simply cherry-picks his evidence to cobble together a science-y argument, then stamps it with his two doctorates. He has no interest in honestly following the evidence.

He also enjoys mocking the pathetic plebes from his ivory tower. Take this defense of Kalam’s first premise:

I think the first premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause is virtually undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. . . . It’s silly then when popularizers say things like, “Nothingness is unstable to quantum fluctuations” or “the universe tunneled into being out of nothing.” (Source: video @22:55)

WLC has no argument here, just derision. He’s not a quantum physicist, and yet he cheerfully trash-talks those who are. Note also that WLC dismisses the “popularizers,” who include the very cosmologists he cites as allies.

9. The Big Bang isn’t a beginning

Yes, the Big Bang happened, but no, that wasn’t a beginning. This is a subtle point, but it’s worth making: the Big Bang takes us back 13.8 billion years in time, but that’s not the same thing as a beginning. The Big Bang is the point before which cosmologists can’t see.

WLC might ask, “But if God didn’t create the universe, then how did it come to be?” Science is the discipline that answers questions, not religion, and science may need to say that it doesn’t know. WLC offers an argument without evidence and imagines that this forces an answer.

WLC has an answer that he’s bursting to offer, but insisting that God did it is no answer at all because it comes without evidence. Science saying that the origin of the universe is one of its unanswered questions isn’t embarrassing when there’s insufficient evidence to make a conclusion.

It’s like the world created by Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky.” Show us that toves and borogoves exist, and then we can figure out what their properties are. WLC needs to show us first that God exists. Only then can we puzzle over his properties (outside of time, omniscient, supernatural, whatever). Until then, he’s just imagining a Jabberwocky universe without evidence.

10. God has an odd relationship with time

To bypass other problems, Christian apologists tell us that God has existed forever and that he is outside of time. But what does this even mean? The physics of their argument, God as a Time Lord like Doctor Who, is metaphysical bullshit. The ball’s in their court to support their fanciful claims.

I’ll close with an apt summary by blogger Uncredible HallQ:

This is just an example of Craig’s annoying tendency to make unsupported claims and then demand his critics disprove them, and it’s an absurd way to argue. If Craig is going that way, why not just announce God exists, demand atheists prove otherwise, and be done with it?


People are so unsophisticated in their thinking.
I am just appalled, honestly,
when I read the stuff that’s out there on the internet,
how inept and sophomoric people are.
William Lane Craig


It’s called faith because it’s not knowledge
— Christopher Hitchens


(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 10/28/15.)

Image from NASA, CC license


"The slightly more rational and better educated Christers are thinking for themselves and moving away ..."

Atheism Fails Because There Is No ..."
"From Stanford University web site an argument is valid if and only if it is ..."

Atheism Fails Because There Is No ..."
"You are applying logic and math to the situation, which is of course what I ..."

Who Has the Burden of Proof? ..."
"Isn't it quaint that you are lecturing Greg G on Logic and deductive reasoning? If ..."

Atheism Fails Because There Is No ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Bob Jase

    God exists outside time so nothing sequential can exist because creation requires a before & after. No theological bs can explain their position.

    • Len

      Of course it can: Goddidit! (shout it louder!)

      /s (just in case)

  • Castilliano

    WLC is sneaking in a Premise Zero, as if the attributes of god(s) have been established.
    Sorry, WLC, but there are many concepts of gods and no reason to privilege the classical omni-God (which doesn’t mesh well w/ the biblical Yahweh anyway.)

    An impartial listener not immersed in a god-besotten culture wouldn’t make this leap that WLC relies on from “causeless cause” to “I know what matches that criteria; God!” Take a step back and it really reads “I know of an unproven concept that matches that criteria, the god whose existence we’re trying to determine in this debate.” Until it’s been established as more than a concept, Yahweh/God cannot be a solution any more than any other concept.

    I prefer the Dead, Dumb Pixie Committee concept myself. They were the cause of the universe. Sadly, they were dumb, so there are a lot of counter-intuitive elements in nature as well as flawed design. And dead, hence the major portions of empty space. And it had to have been a committee because there were so many variables to tackle and everybody knows a watch needs a watchmaking company. These pixies, by definition, are magical and self-causing (so don’t confuse them with the pixies of other religions…I mean cultures…because those are simply wrong, or facets of my pixies, or demonic spirits posing as if on the DDPC.)

    I’m reminded of I believe Stephen Law’s argument for an evil god. It’s proven by all the same methods that prove omni-God, with some tweaks to invert good/evil. In proving/not proving evil god, believers can see how hollow the base good-god argument had been.


    • The concept he favors has lots of issues too.

  • Michael Neville

    Science says “we don’t know the cause of the universe”. WLC says “therefore it was my personal, pet god”. I think there’s a hole in his argument.

    • Lex Lata

      Yep. By this liberal arts nerd’s reckoning, the Goddidit element is the weakest link in evangelical Kalam arguments. Putting the cosmology, quantum mechanics, and other science aside, the notion that space-time as we know it began and was caused has some intuitive appeal. So I don’t mind provisionally granting it for the sake of argument.

      But to identify God specifically as the cause is an unjustified leap of logic requiring a massive presuppositional assist. Assuming the universe had a cause, there’s exactly as much–or little, rather–scientific evidence pointing to the God of Abraham as there is for any of the myriad other creator deities of humanity’s various religions. In fact, there’s no compelling, impartial reason to conclude the cause is any of the gods worshipped by us creative, credulous primates over the millennia–it could well be wholly beyond our ability to describe or even imagine.

      • Michael Neville

        it could well be wholly beyond our ability to describe or even imagine.

        This brings to mind J.B.S. Haldane’s comment: “Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Douglas Adams version (I think) was: “It has been said that if anybody ever figures out the Universe, it will vanish and something even more incomprehensible will immediately take its place….There are also those who believe this has *already occurred*.”

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Several times.

    • If it were a donut hole, at least it’d be tasty. As is, it’s pretty repulsive.

  • Ann Kah

    What his argument says, in essence, is “Nobody knows how the universe began, therefore I know…”. It isn’t worth taking that seriously.

  • Jim Jones

    You might just as well attribute the origin of everything to the oozlum bird.

    After all, achieving full insertion must cause a rift in the space-time continuum.

    • Len

      I saw one of those in my garden this morning.

      • Jim Jones

        For god’s sake, don’t startle it!

  • Phil Rimmer

    To reiterate (because this argument never gets a fair shout or for that matter a challenge) nothing ever begins. It always transforms from something else and is identified as “beginning” in retrospect when it meets the criterion of a new thing.

    That a universe may be net nothing, an elastic space-unidirectional-time and filled with fields like thus and so, separated out but summing to zero, emerging from an existing principle, a stripped down quantum reality, time-symmetric, means that it is mere semantics to talk about a “causal before”. The principle, a space time-spawning mechanism, isn’t existent merely before. We have to say simply it exists. It doesn’t depend on the ticking down and unidirectional causality of entropic time. It is outside space-time, as well as in it. Those artefacts of quantum reality not involving entropic time, are the existing stripped down quantum reality.

    A principle exists.

    • epeeist

      To reiterate (because this argument never gets a fair shout or for that matter a challenge) nothing ever “begins to exist”.

      This is one I have raised a number of times in the past, all we ever see is a change in the configuration of the universe.

      Krauss can stumble on semantics and muddle on metaphor. “A Universe from Nothing” equivocated “nothing”…

      I didn’t think it was a particularly good book, but to be fair all that theists ever produce when presented with a definition of nothing is to say that it is incorrect, they never produce a definition of their own.

    • eric

      “A Universe from Nothing” equivocated “nothing”…

      Maybe I’m thinking of a different book, but I thought Krauss did a pretty good job of addressing the ways ‘nothing’ can be defined. First half of the book is about newtonian nothing (i.e. no energy or matter on a space and time “stage”). Most of the second half was then spent talking about ‘nothing’ in the context of Einstein – i.e. what does ‘nothing’ means as we take away spacetime and get left with only rules governing how a system may evolve. And the last chapter was spent discussing more metaphysical concepts of ‘nothing,’ i.e. what happens if we even call those rules a ‘something’ and want to throw those out, too.

      That’s not equivocation. That’s a reasonably comprehensive response to critics who keep claiming he’s only superficially addressing the concept. His answers may not be correct, but I don’t think he’s avoiding or painting over the complexities.

      • Phil Rimmer

        I went back to read chapters 10 & 11 and I’ll be honest, I was underwhelmed all over again. I think him philosophically weak in not asserting that there exists in all likelihood a principle to make space times, even in the case of the multiverse where “physics at some fundamental level is merely an environmental science,” and “stochastic and random” offering no” prescribed “cause””. A principle, even a random output configuration one, exists.

        As he notes in the analysis of multiverse physics landscapes “we generally assume that certain properties like quantum mechanics permeate all possibilities.”

        This bland little bracketted off aside shows he fails to count as not nothing.

        I suspect, hitched to the provocative title of his book, he was loathe to conclude that either and most likely, a Principle or Principles exist, or we have no idea.

        • eric

          I think the end of the book is the weakest part too. However, I think judging the book just by the last chapter or two does it a disservice. Even if his ideas about how to get by the last question is crap, I’d say the book makes three really good points – points that theologians typically ignore or whitewash.

          1. When the ancient Greeks and then medieval theologians formulated the question/problem, they were really talking about a Newtonian nothing. In this context, science has shown their premise (that something cannot come from nothing) is wrong. So whatever theologians want to say about the issue now, it’s important to say that the original question has bee addressed. Yes, something can come from nothing, in the way Parmenides, Aristotle, and Aquinas meant “nothing.” Science answered the 2,000+ year old question. When it did, theologians moved the goalposts. And, ironically, theologians didn’t even know how to move the goalposts, until scientific discovery gave them a place to move the goalposts to.

          2. When it comes to the question of whether space and time can come from nothing, this question has also been answered by science, and the answer is yes. So again, whatever theologians may have originally meant, the expanded original question has also already been answered.

          3. Nobody has any idea about the third part. But, if any theologian tries to claim that science is the wrong way to go about looking into this question or science can’t possibly address such a question…see points 1 and 2. Maybe science can’t answer this question. But it’s track record in addressing ‘can something come from nothing’ type questions is 2 for 3. So why shouldn’t we provisionally believe that it might become 3 for 3 in the future, while theology’s record on the subject advances from 0/1 and 0/2 to 0/3?

        • Phil Rimmer

          Yes, its a book aimed at theism rather than science and related philosophy and the stance taken I believe is dictated by this. A universe from nothing is an idea that undercuts less sophisticated theologists’ assertions but lands itself in trouble with the likes of WLC.

          The Instanton and Villenkin show how the stuff of a space-time is made from no stuff.

          But this falls into the trap of “begins to exist”. If we can fairly note that a principle is needed for this parting of nothing into mirror image somethings, then we can assert that there IS such a principle (if we were clumsy we would say always existed) and for which there is no “begins to exist”. WLC defeated. Better science served.

        • Pofarmer

          My favorite answer, in a short paper I should have saved, I think from Stanford, when asked “Why is there something” is “Why not?” All we have ever experienced is something, why should we even think anything else is possible?

  • Mcgruff
  • I await an explanation of how God, existing outside time, acts within it (Incarnation, anyone?).

    • A God outside time would be frozen and immovable. With no time passing for him, he couldn’t think or take an action.

      • Yes, the same problem arises when people say God is changeless. It’s stuff like this that convinces me God as they posit him doesn’t (even cannot) exist, as it’s incoherent.

        • And if you take “God is changeless” literally, maybe we should give those Christians more credit than we do. If God is outside of time, by definition (time being required for change) he must be changeless. In fact, he’s static, frozen, inert.

          And, in fact, that’s what we see.

        • They fit together, but not with the rest.

          We see nothing, if that’s what you mean.

        • Len

          That’s actually more convincing than the Kalam cosmological argument.

      • 3vil5triker .

        Its not only God, some Christians also use the concept of timelessness as a way to justify the idea of Hell being eternal. Supposedly its the inability to change what renders people unable to change their mind about God and thus escape that place/state.

        Of course, the whole thing doesn’t make sense once you delve into it; if you can’t change how can you experience anything at all?

  • Doubting Thomas

    The god WLC believes in couldn’t have created the universe because the god WLC believes in is fictional. The god WLC argues for could have created the universe, but the god WLC argues for and the god he believes in are two different things.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    Anybody who has studied the true history of the universe* knows that the universe began when The Doctor went back in time and caused to the Big Bang to stop the combined efforts of the Daleks, The Master, The Cybermen, and Disney from destroying it.

    * Except for the one episode made for US TV, that was just trash.

    • Len

      You can never trust Disney.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    One of my favorite under-referenced problems with Kalam is the circularity of it. Even taking the most sincere view of the argument, it should look something like this:

    P1: Everything that….
    P2: The universe…
    C: The universe has a cause

    Ok, here is a potential cause, how can we test its veracity?

    Instead, theists use origin of the universe to formulate a hypothesis and then reroute the hypothesis back through the same territory to substantiate it.

    Sorry guys, it doesn’t work that way.

    • For some reason, theists seem to think that just sitting in a chair and thinking really hard about what caused the universe, is somehow going to give them the right answer. As you say, it doesn’t work that way.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Quite. I just get a kick out of this particular tactic.

        “The universe needs a cause, what about god?”

        Got any evidence for this god?

        “Well the universe needs a cause, doesn’t it?”

        • But it’s not just any cause. It has to be a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial cause that is also mind. You know, because reasons.

          Yeah, let’s talk about something that is absolutely nothing like anything we’ve ever experienced, and then assert that it must be the cause of the universe. To top it off we’ll label it “God”, because we like to find ways to stick our preconceived ideas into our arguments, so that it doesn’t look like we’re just reasoning backwards.

          It’s so absurd that everyone should laugh at these kinds of arguments. Sadly, people make them and think they’re good, and laugh at us for thinking they arguments are rubbish. What a world we live in.

  • Rudy R

    The KCA can be distilled down to god magic is the cause of the universe. WLC is making a claim that it could not be a natural cause, but what he is really claiming is that he knows ALL the current science and concludes that it MUST be caused by YahwehJesus (props to Susan for that moniker). Again, a Christian apologists strategy is not to convert non-believers, but to create a facade of empiricism that would satisfy the scientifically uneducated on false scientific notions. WLC so much as revealed that if all of science proved that a god doesn’t exist, he’s still sticking with the belief in god. So my question to WLC would be, if science proved to your satisfaction that something can be caused by nothing, would you still believe in YahwehJesus? If the answer is yes, what is your point in debating the veracity of the KCA, when god magic is all the explanation you need?

    • Michael Neville

      The KCA, as described by WLC, is an exercise in argument by ignorance and incredulity.

  • Otto

    “Premise 1 sounds like common sense until you realize that William Lane Craig (I’ll call him WLC Bill) imagines a loophole for his god.”


  • Lord Backwater
    • Phil Rimmer

      Dr APJ Abdul Kalam-

      “Science is a beautiful gift to humanity; we should not distort it.”

      And of particular resonance at this time of year and in the arc of our civilisation …

      “Let us sacrifice our today so that our children can have a better tomorrow.”

      These are the real gifts.

  • The Apistevist

    Bill still hasn’t – to my knowledge – offered a satisfactory explanation on how God could create without anything. He works with Aristoltelian causation, but he prefers to disregard material causation. He has referred to Thomas Aquinas, but didn’t cite the source. He claims Aquinas said something akin to God having the potential within himself to create.

    It can be said every human has the potential to create from within themselves, but humans work with material objects. To say God has the potential within himself to create only helps support emanationism or pantheism, both of which conflict with creatio ex nihilo.

    For God to have the potential to create from within himself can easily be interpreted as creatio ex deo. I have a number of problems with the KCA and much to say about how a timeless god couldn’t create without absurdities, but I have been too busy to post it on my blog. Keep it up!

    • Greg G.

      Bill still hasn’t – to my knowledge – offered a satisfactory explanation on how God could create without anything.

      Right, a cause acting on nothing has no effect.

  • …His version of the argument has two premises and a conclusion:
    1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause….

    But is premise 1 sound? I’ve been wondering how exactly this premise is substantively different from “every swan that exists is white”? While it may sound reasonable, from our limited perspective, I don’t know if we have a way to know that this is universal, or even applies to things like the universe. How would one actually go about determining that this is actually universally true?

    On top of that, everything we’ve ever known to began to exist has had some material cause, but what exactly would the material cause of the universe be? It doesn’t even seem to be coherent to talk about a material cause for the universe, at least under the kind of scenario that WLC is talking about. Have we ever seen something begin to exist with just an efficient cause? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

    The wonder thing about logic is that a valid argument (which I will grant that the Kalam is) will produce a necessarily true conclusion, but only if the premises are actually true. I’m not yet convinced that either premise 1, or even premise 2, of the Kalam is actually sound. Valid arguments are simply structured correctly, but don’t necessarily tell us anything about reality.

    • Susan

      is premise 1 sound?

      Is premise 1 necessarily true?


      End of WLC’s bloviating and equivocating.

      We used to have a commentator here who said it best:

      “Whatever begins to exist, begins to exist.”

      That’s all WLC’s got, even if he were to precisely define those terms…

      Which he doesn’t.

      ‘Cause that’s not where his money comes from.

  • emeritus123

    This inane and ridiculous drivel is really hilarious. It reads like a New-Atheist parody.
    My favorite parts:
    “But does WLC really want to argue that things always run down, so therefore everything must have a beginning? If so, then this must apply to God as well.”

    Yeah God needs a beginning too because otherwise he’d have ‘run down’

    And then directly this brilliancy:

    “But then I will demand evidence that such a god exists”

    Thats great.
    A: “Here is my argument for the existence of X”
    B: “Before i will look at your argument, i want evidence for X”
    A: “Yeah, thats why i present .. ah fuck it”

    “WLC says he’s BFFs with B, G, and V, but then these guys go off and say things that WLC can’t possibly agree with.”

    Craig cites the BGV-Theorem in his work but Alan Guth said he prefers coffee whereas Craig likes tea. Take that theists.

    “And if WLC’s interpretation is compelling, I await the conversion to Christianity of his allies Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin.”

    Sure, they only need to read Craig’s article: “From the BGV-Theorem to Christianity. How cosmology proves Christianity” published in Seidensticker’s Imaginary Bullshit 2019.

    “Science is the discipline that answers questions, not religion”

    Yep, William Lane Craig has a PhD in Religion

    “Contrary to WLC’s intuition, things may indeed pop into existence without cause. That’s the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.”

    Yes, read Heisenberg and Bohr’s famous paper: “We didnt write this shit, it just popped into being”.

    “Indeed, the universe itself was once the size of a quantum particle, so it’s reasonable to think that causelessness could apply to the universe as well.”

    Yes, Since the universe was small once upon a time, it may have just begun without a cause for no reason. Thats what small things do.

    “Why imagine that this common sense rule of thumb would apply to supernatural causes? And why even imagine that the supernatural exists?”

    There is an argument called “Kalam-Argument” that argues for the existence of the supernatural. Look it up

    “Since God is the only exception he imagines, WLC’s “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is simply a disguised version of “Everything has a cause, except for God,”

    Right, because a PhD philosopher like Craig sure never heard of this relatively obscure and virtually unknown philosopher Plato and his abstract objects, that dont have beginnings. Sure

    “How can there be a cause that works in time before there is time?”

    Seidensticker with the killer punch. It isn’t like Craig has discussed this at length, numerous times, in several books and papers. No, that can not be true.
    Next in line: Seidensticker against String Theory: “How can there be more than three dimensions if i cant see them”. BANG.

    • “So many words!” I thought to myself. “Surely there’s something challenging to respond to.”

      And that’s where I made my mistake.

      • emeritus123

        “”So many words!” I thought to myself. ”

        Most embarrassing for you: About half of them are yours.