Skip to main content

Debunking William Lane Craig's "Cosmological Model"

By Ben Love ~

William Lane Craig is one of Christianity’s foremost apologists. Oddly enough, for all of his vehement and vocal devotion to Jesus, Craig is one of the few Christian apologists who not only subscribes to the Big Bang theory but has also publicly spoken about it, much to the ire of his Christian colleagues.

Unlike many of his counterparts, Craig has conceded that the argument from design, which is used to argue in favor of a Creator, solves nothing. By way of a reminder, the argument from design states that since the natural world shows design, there must have been a designer. The problem, which many apologists deny but which Craig, to his credit, has attempted to grapple with, is that the designer also shows design. Thus, the designer needs a designer, and that designer needs a designer, and so on. To state this in another way, we could observe that all effects require a cause. But if God is the creator of all effects, this makes him the ultimate effect. What was his cause? Did he have a cause? Or was/is God the first and only uncaused causer? Who can say? Thus, the argument from design fails to answer this; indeed, it only shifts the mystery from one source to another.

Craig, in an attempt to heal the obvious breach in the theist cosmological model (which states that God is the first and only uncaused causer and thus the Creator of everything), has re-written the logical argument in a way which, he feels, solves all the problems and reconciles all the loose ends. 

His model is as follows:
  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Now, what this model cleverly says through that which it remains silent on is that God is among the things not included in item #1. Since God must be eternal, he cannot be among the things that “begin to exist.” Aside from that, the phrase “everything that begins to exist” is suspicious to me. It sounds contrived, almost like doublespeak, and it fails to resemble any form of logical argument we would normally use. However, for the sake of generosity, let us concede that Craig’s phrasing is fine in this instance. Is there a glaring problem here? Oh yes, there is.

If we observe that there are things which begin to exist, then there must be something in contrast that does not begin to exist; otherwise the term would be meaningless. This would imply that we can divide objects of reality into two categories: 1) Things Which Begin to Exist (TBE’s) and 2) Things Which Have Never Not Existed (TNBE’s). The problem here, and I cannot help but feel even Craig must be aware of this, is that if God is the only item to be listed in the TNBE’s, the TNBE’s are meaningless and the term is therefore just a cleverly disguised synonym for God anyway, which means we are right back to where we started. There must be more than one item listed in TNBE’s for this model to be any different or better than the model which it seeks to supplant. If there is more than one item under that category, no living person can say what it is. The only item that could possibly be in that category is God and God alone. Thus, TNBE’s is just a synonym for God. This means that when Craig says “everything that beings to exist has a cause,” he is really saying “everything except God has a cause.” This is the exact problem Craig was hoping to circumvent.

Therefore, while Christians are happily embracing the rhetoric of this new model, all they are really doing is subscribing to the old model with a new face. Underneath, the same problem exists of attributing a cause to God as the ultimate effect.

Craig, who is a tremendously intelligent man, has in this instance accomplished only a circular regurgitation of that which he wishes to refute.

Not. Good. Enough. Period.


Popular posts from this blog

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi