Since I discussed the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) in my prior post, I thought it would be appropriate to go over the argument in a little more detail. The KCA is an extremely powerful argument that describes how something cannot be caused from nothing. To reiterate from my last post, the KCA’s three premises are as follows:
1)
Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2)
The universe began to exist
3)
Therefore the universe has a cause.
In the above clip, Dr. William Lane Craig addresses the absurdity of denying the premises of causation. If someone suggests that the first premise is incorrect, they would have to prove that anything (not just universes) can come into existence without a cause. If the universe can come into being from nothing, what would stop anything from coming into existence from nothing? Dr. Craig poses the question, if you came home to find a horse defiling the carpet in the living room; would you chalk it up to a horse popping into existence from nothing in the living room? That would be an absurd conclusion! Even if you came home to find such a scene, you wouldn’t conclude that the horse came into existence from nothing. In the same manner, making the assertion the universe came into being from nothing would be equally absurd.
No comments:
Post a Comment