Why Philosophical Arguments for God Fail

I’ve been having a debate with a theist who has been looking at William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument in detail and inviting reasons why it isn’t valid.  So I gave him some.  Because Kalam is an intellectual disaster, purporting to do things that it simply cannot do, to people who are emotionally invested in believing in something they cannot demonstrate.

I could just as easily construct a philosophical argument for dragons.  Does that mean dragons exist?  Of course not.  So these arguments entirely fail to do what they purport, by their followers, to do.

So what is so wrong with Kalam, you might ask?  Well, it fails on two fronts.  First off, Craig claims that “whatever begins to exist has a cause”.  We are unaware of anything whatsoever within our universe that doesn’t “begin to exist”, hence it’s a nonsensical statement.  We do not have a single example of anything that did not “begin to exist”.  To get around this, Craig invents something out of whole cloth, an uncaused cause, which does not exist in reality.  He just made it up and we all know, made up things do not actually exist.

The other problem, and this is a consequence of where Craig gets his argument, all the way back to Plato and Aristotle, and the fact that apologetic arguments don’t keep up with the times.  Back when Plato thought it up, he had no idea of modern cosmological thinking, he looked around him and formed ideas based on his limited understanding of the world.  Craig is doing the same thing.  Back in 1979 when he came up with the idea, we didn’t know as much about our wider universe as we do today and we certainly didn’t have any ideas about a multiverse. Craig asserts that his “solution” is the only possible solution, therefore true, but because we have no idea what the physical laws might be in a larger multiverse, it stops being the only possible solution and starts being yet another unsupported claim. Other universes might not have causality, hence infinite regress may not be a problem.  And since the whole of Kalam is based on infinite regress being supposedly impossible, once you remove that possibility, the whole thing crumbles.

Now Craig and his ilk are counting on his followers being ignorant of the facts and not smart enough to see through the lies, that’s why so many flock to see him and pay exorbitant fees to sit and listen to him speak.  But the fact is, philosophy doesn’t actually prove anything.  It doesn’t actually provide evidence of anything.  In almost all cases, it is just mental masturbation.  It is especially so in cases like this, where Craig and other apologists are trying to use it as “proof”.  It isn’t proof.  It cannot be proof.  The only way to prove that gods exist is through science and science doesn’t find a shred of evidence that they are real.

Kalam and other philosophical arguments don’t prove a thing.  They don’t provide objective evidence.  They don’t do anything but invent answers to questions that may not even be problems to help ignorant people feel better about the idiotic things they believe.  Ultimately, they are all identical and all equally useless in determining actual answers.  But what can you expect from people who have imaginary friends?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)