That said, I don’t think that the major premise of the cosmological argument is unreasonable. Everything which begins to exist, it seems, must have a cause. A think cannot cause itself since it does not yet exist; and nothing comes from nothing. I know people like to cite quantum mechanics as refuting at least the latter of these, but ignorance about the cause of something does not imply that no cause exists. To the best of my knowledge, quantum mechanics by no means requires, let alone proves, that some events be genuinely causeless.

Regards,
Bnonn

Repeating this ‘everything has cause’ mantra opens one up to dogma - and prevents one from really understanding what is going on.

Craig also doesn’t refute himself by referring to God as “infinite”. He confuses some among his audience, evidently, but he does not refute himself. This very objection was raised at the evening Thinking Matters event in Tauranga. He was asked how he can talk about an infinite God directly after arguing that actual infinites are impossible. His answer was that God is qualitatively infinite, while his arguments are against quantitative infinite values. One cannot have an actual infinite number of discrete objects. That is what his argument is against. One can on the other hand, use the term “infinite” in a different way to describe God’s attributes, without intending to imply any such actual quantitative infinities.

Regards,
Bnonn

Re: Infinity & Causality
Interestingly, in this topic, infinity and causality come rushing together… because the very notion of causality sets up an ‘infinite causal regress’ (i.e. ‘what caused the thing that caused the thing the thing that… repeat ad infinitum [pun intended]). This –quite simply– is why it is called the First Cause argument.

And Ken, I’m not sure how you’re proposing that our understanding of quantum indeterminacy, vacuum energy or other things has so ’surely’ caused [yet another pun intended] causality to go out the window?

Also, problelms with the word ‘began’ are unwarranted. Talking of things merely ‘existing’ is to assume those things are eternal. Either the universe is eternal or it began to exist.

I can’t claim to understand the physics and mathematics of these issues but from my reading I understand that coming into existence is, in itself, not a problem for cosmologists. However, the physics of such high energies is. And, of course, you don’t get around problems like that using something which is only a belief.

And Craig’s use of “begins” is deceptive because when the traditional “exists” is used it’s even more obvious that the “existence” afforded to God is nothing more than special pleading. We’re less tempted to ask the question of “what caused God to begin” when we’re told that God is without beginning in the first place.

ManySome Christians are aware and a little embarrassed when they see the blatant use of the god-of-the-gaps in science. I suspect this is not really because they see it as being a poor way to discover the truth of matters but more because it is highly likely they’ll be caught out when science eventually fills the gap. All Christians feel confident to insert God into the biggest gap we have though and that’s the gap before the furthest moment we’ve been able to observe. No doubt if we ever see beyond this point God will be moved once more in a never-ending but retreating dance.

What will happen if the universe is proven mathematically to be infinite? Where will God go then? Will Christians all become pantheists?

Damian there are different cosmological arguments. The one Craig presented just happens to be an argument based on the beginning of the universe. It’s not avoiding anything. Moreover the traditional Leibnizian argument for God’s existence deals precisely with the “who made God” question anyways. It just argues for God’s existence being explained by his own nature (necessity).

Des says:
“My recollection is that, having dismissed infinity as a nonsense, Craig was happy to use it later in his references to his god. The recording will show if my recollection is correct.”

Yes Craig uses qualitative infinity to explain God. Many theologians do that. It’s just a way of describing God’s complete perfection and power. What Craig denies is quantitative infinity.