The Cosmological
Argument Combo
The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument – William Lane Craig (WLC)
First, science is not used to prove the existence of Agent
(My nondescript way of referring to a higher being, i.e. God). This does not
mean that we don’t have ways of determining whether or not Agent exists.
Science itself is based on logic and reason. We can use logic and reason, just
as we use it to support science, to come to conclusions about whether or not
Agent exists.
In addition, scientific findings can be used to support
premises in philosophical arguments that have conclusions with theological
significance (paraphrase of WLC).
Argument 1: The Cosmological Argument (kalam)
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Objection #1: What caused God? –Dawkins
Response: God did not begin to exist. God is a necessary
being. The universe began to exist. It is not necessary.
Objection #2: The universe is eternal.
Response: Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem—Even cyclic
universes had a beginning.
Response: The impossibility of an infinite past.
Argument 2: The Cosmological Argument (mind)
1. Our minds exist (in the form that we experience them)
2. The experiential part of the mind does not exist in the
physical world—our experience of the world does not contain anything that can
be pointed at and labels “human experience”.
3. Therefore, our experiences exist outside of the physical
world.
a. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
b. Our minds (experiences) began to exist.
c. Our minds (experiences) did not begin to exist as an
emergent property of the physical world. Rather, our minds (experiences) began
to exist because of a cause that is outside of the physical world.
3. Therefore, our minds (experiences) have a cause.
NOW, it is extremely noteworthy that our minds (experiences)
are tied to brains. Therefore, it is likely that whatever Agent created the
universe also created our minds (experiences), and wed the two together. This
implies that Agent had a particular purpose for human life/experience.
Objection 1: Brains are sufficient for the mind (human
experience)
Response: You can’t point at a tree, or a computer screen,
or any of our mental projections in an actual brain—what you see are massive
complexes of neurons. Brains correspond to and are tied to our minds, but do
not completely equal our minds. You can put someone into a black and white room
from birth and give them full knowledge of the universe, but they won’t know
what the color ‘red’ is.
Editors note: This part is very difficult for me to explain,
but I truly believe it is a homerun. See this series on Screens: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-screen-argument-further-explained.html
