Hello everyone, here’s an interesting philosophical and scientifical critic of Dr. WLC’s Kalam argument:
I’ll like to know your guys take on the Kalam argument too!
2 Likes
Since today is Friday, I find it elegant and useful.
Humor aside, every time I read about it I come away with a different impression. I like WLC’s argument, but liking it doesn’t make it valid.
The first syllogism may not hold up; current mathematical efforts suggest that the universe may via cycles be its own cause. The best that can be said is that something has always existed, whether the universe itself or a cause of the universe. I do agree that Occam’s Razor suggests that the cause be singular, but if the universe is its own cause that is satisfied, the only question being whether the universe is sufficient to generate its next iteration (which if I understand that recent work correctly has been shown is workable).
If the universe is not its own cause, then the conclusion that the cause/Cause is personal is something I don’t think necessarily follows from the forgoing part of the argument.
But mostly I don’t bother to think about it – proofs of God are only useful to those who either already believe or occasionally those on the edge, and just pointing out that something had to be eternal seems to be enough.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.