Critique Of The Kalam Cosmological Argument

By Jason Barr

I. Introduction

In this article, I will be presenting a critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God made famous as of late by philosopher William Lane Craig. I believe that even though the argument is logically valid, there are insufficient reasons for believing the premises are actually true.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

By Miles Donahue

I. Introduction

In this extensive article, I will be presenting and defending the famous kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. In his 1979 book of the same name, William Lane Craig brought this argument to the forefront of philosophical discussion. The issues, objections, and counter-objections surrounding the argument are many, and form a fractal-like pattern. So in this article I will not respond to objections, but will wait for them to be raised by L.A. Mitchell. First, I’ll sketch the basic premises of the argument, then define key terms used, next outline supporting arguments for each premise, and end with concluding thoughts.

A Criticism of Cosmological Atheology

By Miles Donahue

I. Introduction

In less than 24 hours after publishing “General Relativity Proves What, You Say?: A Response to L. A. Mitchell”, Mr. Mitchell wrote an eight page counter-response [1]. In this article, I’ll review key terms used in the argument, criticize his responses to my refutation, expand on my original criticisms, and end with concluding thoughts. I take it as given that he and I are expected to maintain an appropriate level of respect and cordiality towards one another as we discuss these issues and arguments.

A Defense of Cosmological Atheology

By L.A. Mitchell

I: Introduction

”The beginning is the end

Keeps coming round again”

- How To Destroy Angels, ”The Loop Closes”

I recently published an article called “General relativity entails that the universe has no external cause”. It is necessary to read this article in order to understand the arguments being made (a link will be provided in the reference page for this purpose). [1] The Christian apologist Miles Donahue has responded to this argument on his website [2], and I seek to offer a defense of my ”cosmological atheology” in this paper.

General Relativity Proves What, You Say?: A Response to L. A. Mitchell

By Miles Donahue

I. Introduction

Mr. L. A. Mitchell has recently argued [1] that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity proves that the universe has no external cause, and by extension, that God does not exist. In my response, I will first define key terms used in the argument, boil the argument down to its essentials and address what Mitchell’s argument actually proves, and finally, provide a substantial criticism of that argument. I will not try to show that God exists or even formulate an argument for the existence of God. Because Mitchell’s contention is that General Relativity disproves the existence of God, he has the burden of proof to maintain that contention; I have no contentions to defend.

General Relativity Entails that the Universe has No External Cause

By L.A. Mitchell

I: Introduction

The expansion of the universe, and thus the basis of the Big Bang theory, is inferred based on equations derived from the theory of relativity. The theist who uses Big Bang cosmology to argue for the existence of god must accept these equations. Are these equations consistent with the arguments used by theists? In this paper, I will demonstrate that Big Bang cosmology actually contradicts the existence of god. Many of these arguments will be based on my previous essay titled “God and Physics: Why general relativity disproves god”. This paper will serve as a better argued and more concise alternative to the last paper.

Plan of Action

My friend and I have very different views on the world and, hopefully, this blog will get to the heart of that disagreement, as we discuss our differences and exchange criticisms. He is an atheist, I am I theist; I believe in God, he does not. I think we're both intelligent, rational individuals, and it's my hope that by discussing why we hold the views that we do, we can both learn something, and perhaps even change our own view. Our dialogue will basically take the form of an informal debate, more akin to how discussions take place in philosophy journals. For example, my friend will post an argument against the existence of God on his website (I will reproduce it here on this website), and then I'll write a response here. We'll go back and forth like this until one of us gets tired and wants to move on to another subject.

I think this experience will teach both of us, and perhaps you, many things about respecting those who think differently than you, and how to communicate and dialogue with others. Within the next few weeks, I will be writing a response to a recent article my friend has written giving an argument against the existence of God based on general relativity. I will reproduce the article here shortly.

Here we go!