Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED - William-Lane Craig
What is the STUFF surrounding God, giving him FORM, and allowing him to move and cause the creation of SPACE???
What is the STUFF surrounding the supposed UNIVERSE OBJECT and giving it shape?
Here is a reasonable illustration of William-Lane Craig's God. He is creating Craig's surrealistic UNIVERSE OBJECT. THINK: How can God move without a background??
Does space have a BOUNDARY where God can PEEK inside the Universe? Can we cut through this supposed boundary? What is on the other side??
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
INTRODUCTION
I received a request from someone challenging me to debunk William-Lane Craig’s version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. I couldn’t care less for creationist arguments since they all die at the moment of their inception – i.e. the conceptual level. But I will do a very thorough analysis so that everyone understands just how ridiculous all Creationist arguments and theories are, whether peddled by Traditional Priests, or by Contemporary Priests like Lemaitre, Hawking, Penrose, Krauss, et all.
This article will clearly demonstrate in no ambiguous terms, the reasons why GOD DOESN’T EXIST; in the form of a detailed analysis accompanied by rational explanations. It’s important to realize that the objective here is NOT to “prove” or give “evidence” for why God doesn’t exist. Such endeavours are irrational and instantly debunked because they are based on emotions and opinions. So if you are looking for such nonsense, I suggest you join an Atheist Club.
This article will use the Scientific Method to analyze and rationally explain why Creation from God is impossible. In particular, it will explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to have existed before, during, and after the supposed event of Creation, and hence conclude that God (The Creator) does not exist.
This article is not meant to convert theists from their BELIEF that God exists, just as it’s not meant to convert atheists from their BELIEF that God doesn’t exist. But if both groups are particularly sensitive to this issue, I will warn them in advance to skip this article altogether. It is not my intention to rock the foundation of people’s faith, especially the faith of theists, atheists, and agnostics alike.
WHAT IS A RATIONAL ARGUMENT?
When it comes to creation, or any argument claiming to apply to REALITY, it had better be a rational one without any ontological contradictions. An argument that is objective and rational has NO provision for knowledge, wisdom, truth, lies, proof, absolutes, right/wrong, correct/incorrect, faith, belief, experiment, observations, evidence, testimony, credentials, authority, etc....as these are all OPINIONS whose resolution is dependent upon the subjective interpretations of an observer. Any statement, argument, or Theory about reality is either rational or irrational. It is either objective or it isn’t. It either has contradictions or it doesn’t. It either makes sense or it doesn’t. It can either be understood or it can’t. That is the only reliable basis by which we can possibly judge the multitude of claims made by the opportunistic and self-serving human species.
If such arguments:
- Use ambiguous, undefined, or misunderstood KEY terms.
- Reify concepts into objects.
- Propose objects with dualities (i.e. something is both an object AND a concept).
- Perform VERBS on concepts, rather than on real objects.
- Use concepts that perform VERBS.
- Rely on surrealistic or supernatural mediators for descriptions and explanations.
- Cannot be conceptualized and visualized as a movie on the big screen.
- Cannot be understood by the audience because they violate logic, grammar, reason.
- Embody ontological contradictions.
....then such arguments are IRRATIONAL, they are not objective, and they certainly cannot be understood by anyone, not even their author. They have no purpose other than to use deception to sway mindless followers in their favour.
I promise that I will be as objective as possible in my analysis of Craig’s argument. In fact, I will be so objective and analytical, that you will hate me!
THE LEIBNIZIAN COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was searching for some type of explanation for existence. He wanted to explain why anything exists at all. What was this “anything” that Leibniz was referring to? Well, according to William-Lane Craig, it was ‘the’ Universe. Craig agrees with Leibniz that God was that reasonable explanation for the existence of ‘the’ Universe. But merely asserting that God is THE explanation doesn’t make it so. An explanation must present all the ontological details demonstrating how it is possible for a being such as God, to move and “create” out of nothing, or out of Himself.
It should also be noted that Craig is an avid supporter of mainstream science and Big Bang Cosmology, as he authoritatively references them in his arguments. He claims that the Big Bang supports the “theistic” position of God’s first-cause creation, rather than the “atheistic” position of acausal creation. After I analyze Craig’s argument, I will proceed to explain why both the “theistic” and “atheistic” positions of CREATION are not only irrational, but are also the hallmark of lunacy!
William-Lane Craig has reformulated Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument in the following manner:
P1: Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
P3: The universe exists
P4: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
P5: Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4)*
*From William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (3rd ed.), 106.
In 1979 Craig published the Kalam Cosmlogical Argument (below), which is considered by theologians all over the world as one of, if not, the BEST Cosmological Argument. In fact, Craig has boasted that nobody has been able to refute his argument from the countless debates he has had over the years. But what Craig doesn’t boast about, is that he always turns down MY requests for a debate!
P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P(2): The universe began to exist.
P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Kalam and Leibnizian arguments are similar in that they make the same irrational claim: objects BEGIN to exist, and in particular....the word “Universe” refers to an object that began to exist.
Why did Craig reformulate Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument? He wanted to formulate it into a logically sound and airtight deductive argument, where each premise logically follows from the previous one. He is delusional if he thinks that any logical argument, whether it is sound, valid, airtight or otherwise; somehow applies to nature’s reality. But what Craig hasn’t learned all those years as a Scholar, Logician, and Philosopher, is that logical arguments have nothing to do with nature’s reality. Nothing!!
Here is Craig himself boasting that his Leibnizian argument is so airtight, that it is unavoidable and MUST be accepted:
“Now this is a logically AIRTIGHT argument. That is to say, if the 3 premises are true, then the conclusion is UNAVOIDABLE. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if you have other objections to God’s existence. So long as you grant the premises, you HAVE TO ACCEPT the conclusion.” -- William-Lane Craig
You can view his presentation here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36cKSRVojRE
Well Dr. Craig.....here is another example of a logically airtight deductive argument that you HAVE TO ACCEPT, even if you don’t like the conclusion:
P1: The human body is made up of cells.
P2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
C: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.
P1 is true, and P2 is true.
Does the conclusion make sense even though this is a scholarly argument that is logically “airtight” according to Dr. Craig? YEAH RIGHT!!
In fact, almost ALL, if not all, logical arguments, no matter how logically airtight and logically unavoidable they are claimed to be,....have inherent fallacies built into them. These fallacies are “unavoidable” due to the artificial nature of logic, especially when rigging-up premises in order to obtain your desired conclusion. My argument above, and Craig’s cosmological arguments are no exception. Can you spot the fallacies in both? Keep reading and you’ll see how I expose the major fallacies and ontological contradictions built into Craig’s cosmological arguments.
REMEMBER: Nature is not based on systems of logic. Nature is NOT asserted axiomatically. Nature never went to school, never managed to acquire a Ph.D, and couldn’t care less about the petty logical, philosophical, religious, and mathematical arguments that humans prove to each other. Nature’s job is to perpetually move atoms from one location to another. As such, we can only rationally EXPLAIN nature’s events, and NOT inject our OPINIONS and EMOTIONS into nature.
As humans, we can only conceptualize nature’s reality. Then we must use language to exemplify reality into an objective, unambiguous, contradiction-free, and rational discourse that we can comprehend. If we cannot objectively comprehend Craig’s argument, or if it is based on contradictions, then it has nothing to do with reality.
As we unravel Craig’s argument, you will be SHOCKED to discover his irrationality in the most basic fundamental areas of Physics 101, especially the Scientific Method. You will be SHOCKED to discover that he doesn’t even understand that ‘cause’ is a verb, and that an object (wrapped by space) is necessary to mediate a causal action upon another object. You will be SHOCKED to discover that Craig is peddling irrational arguments which even “he” doesn’t understand. So how can YOU possibly understand them?
So let’s analyze Craig’s Leibnizian argument line-by-line, and as you shall see, we will refute not only the Leibnizian, the Kalam, and all cosmological arguments, ....but we will summarily refute ALL Creation arguments, including the Big Bang theory, in one fell swoop! Sounds too good to be “true”? Just keep reading....
DEFINITIONS:
We first start by defining the key terms which exemplify nature’s reality. We understand that nature is composed of objects (matter) and space (nothing). Without objects and their background of space, we can’t even begin to talk about reality. But ever since humans came on board and started communicating with formal language, they have also conceived of and expressed their concepts as “noun terms” in ordinary speech. Since we are trying to analyze Craig’s argument as objectively as possible, Craig will appreciate that we will avoid ordinary speech and focus instead on unambiguous scientific language. The following are unambiguous definitions for the key terms that will be referenced in this analysis.
Object: That which has shape.
Concept: A relation between objects;
Space: That which lacks shape; (synonym: nothing, void, vacuum).
Universe: A concept that relates objects (matter i.e. atoms) and space (nothing).
Location: The set of static distances to all other objects.
Exist: Physical presence (referring to an object that has location; synonym: real).
Theologians, Philosophers, Logicians, and Mathematicians are always under the impression that they have communicated their ideas effectively when in fact nothing of the sort has occurred. The presenter cannot have any idea of what he is talking about if he takes the KEY terms of his argument for granted. When he extrapolates the definitions of ordinary speech into a context, which he claims, applies to reality, he doesn’t even realize that a rigorous definition of the same key terms destroys his entire argument. Those who peddle such petty logical arguments have no idea what their terms mean, or how they apply to reality, or how important they are for an objective and rational discourse.
The reason why ordinary speech pervades all logical arguments, is because these people depend on poetry, euphemisms, metaphors, colloquialisms, emotion,....along with the deliberately-injected confusion of multiple ambiguous definitions. And all for the purposes of peddling their logical wares and proving everything under the Sun. But I will NOT let them get away with murder.....that I promise you! I am setting a criterion of utmost objectivity so that all of us can understand what we are talking about when we use such key terms as: ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘space’.
Nonetheless, if the reader feels that the definitions of these key terms are too rigorous for their tastes, the onus is on them to provide their own unambiguous definitions that can be used consistently within their argument. In that case it would be extremely easy to identify any inconsistencies or contradictions associated with my terms above. A definition doesn't just become ambiguous or inconsistent because you or I say so. If it can be used in more than ONE context, it is ambiguous no matter what I or anyone else claims. If a term is ambiguous, inconsistent, irrational or contradictory, then it has no use in a rational argument, especially one that exemplifies nature’s reality.
WHAT IS GOD?
God is a Hypothesis: Let us “assume” God exists.
Without exception, this is what all theologians assume whenever they reference the word God. God cannot be proven to exist as it is impossible to prove that anything exists, like your right arm for instance, much less an assumed object, like God.
Since Craig makes vacuous reference to the word ‘God’, we must first unambiguously resolve whether God is an object or a concept. The big 3 Monotheistic Religions purport an ETERNAL anthropomorphic intelligent BEING which they have named God. God is assumed to be “The Creator” in an ontological situation where there was NO space, atoms or time before His Creation.
Since God is a ‘being’, He must necessarily have some type of structure. Without a doubt, He has the intrinsic property of ‘shape’ to give him,.....what else.....but FORM! Without form, God cannot possibly exist, as existence without form is impossible in ANY context. Why? Because He would otherwise be inseparable from the background that surrounds Him. He would blend and become continuous with, and actually “be” the background!
Regardless, God is often illustrated (see attached image) to have ‘shape’, so we will assume that for the purposes of Craig’s argument, that the above image is a “reasonable” illustration of God. So God is clearly an object, but this does not imply that God is visible. God can most certainly be invisible and extremely elusive, like the many real existing things in nature which are invisible and elusive to us. The issue here is: Can we conceive whether God is an anthropomorphic being, a rock, a cube, liquid, gas, etc. We can certainly conceive how an invisible atom looks like, right? So there is no reason whatsoever not to conceive of a reasonable depiction of God. Accuracy is irrelevant for our purposes, as God can be female for all we care.
The bottom line is that most theologians will tell you that God IS an anthropomorphic being; and that we are made in His image i.e. form. No complaints there.
Yet many others prefer to hide and protect their God in a veil of mystery, and thus will claim that God is one of the following concepts: spirit, infinite entity, transcendent being, dimensionless being, transcendent mind, incorporeal mind, intelligence, absolute truth, love, energy, force, force-field, quantum particle, space-time, etc. God CANNOT ontologically be ‘a’ concept. All concepts are artificial as they were conceived by man, and they do not exist in nature. No matter how hard He and His followers try.....God cannot elude being an entity with form i.e. an OBJECT!
For those who disagree that God is an ‘object’, then by necessity they concede that God is either ‘space’ or a ‘concept’ (both nothing), and doesn’t exist. Otherwise the onus is on them to rationally explain their position or provide a positively-predicated definition for God. And I am all ears if they wish to go this route.
Since we are able to point to, and conceptualize the God object (a necessary requirement for all objects), then we have reasonably enunciated Craig’s Hypothesis. This is effectively what Craig “assumes” or “hypothesizes” whenever he uses the word ‘God’. Note that the specific details and attributes of God are of no significance for the purposes of this presentation. The issue at hand is whether God is an object or a concept. And God MUST be an object for the purposes of Craig’s argument otherwise it he has no argument. So I am being very generous by elucidating Craig’s God Hypothesis, and avoiding, what could have been an instant self-refutation for Craig’s argument.
ANALYSIS of P1:
In reference to “Anything that exists”, we must understand that only real objects which have the intrinsic property of ‘shape’, and the extrinsic property of ‘location’, can be said to ‘exist’. This is what gives them ‘form’ and ‘presence’ to perform causal actions in nature. There is nothing else in nature which can be said to ‘exist’. Those who disagree, should be able to conceptualize and demonstrate just one example of something which doesn’t have shape and location, but can rationally be said to exist.
Now this doesn’t mean that objects invisible to the human eye cannot exist. Air atoms exist and are invisible, even though they have shape and location, which allows the aggregated SURFACE of the atoms to come in contact with a tree and push it to the ground during a hurricane. Similarly, nature is composed of many invisible objects which are the mediators of phenomena such as: light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.
So clearly, existence has no dependency on what we can see or touch. Existence is observer-independent. Either something exists or it doesn’t, all on its own, and pursuant to the definition of ‘exist’; irrespective of what anybody claims. This is a black or white issue. There is no grey area, no probabilities, no experiments, no evidence, and no axiomatic systems of logic when it comes to the reality of nature. Existence is not a predicate, and not a property of real objects, as real objects already exist. The only intrinsic observer-independent property that objects have all on their own, is ‘shape’ – nothing else.
In reference to “has an explanation for its existence”, it is irrational to claim that an object, any object, has an explanation for its existence. Existence and objects have nothing to do with explanations. We point to objects and name them. We formulate explanations of consummated events by using the objects as ACTORS in the explanation. Craig is definitely not a Scientist! He confuses a Hypothesis (assumption) with a Theory (explanation). Existence can never be a “Theory” in the Scientific Method; it can only be an assumption in the “Hypothesis” stage.
Existence can only be conceptualized by us humans; it can never be explained nor proven by any mechanism. It is IMPOSSIBE to prove that an object exists, as any such attempt will lead to observer-dependent subjectivity, absurdities, and contradictions. This is why existence can only be DEFINED, and NEVER PROVEN – because it is observer-independent!
If we can conceive of objects and illustrate them, then they certainly “can” exist in nature; as long as they are not embodied with ontological contradictions. Such hypothetical objects, like God for instance, will comprise the assumptions of the Hypothesis stage. Then the Theory will use these objects to rationally explain the claim of Creation, or Noah’s Flood, for example.
In reference to “either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause”, it is irrational to claim that existence is “caused”, externally or otherwise. Objects exist by the very nature of their atoms. Existence, and in particular, atoms, have no beginning and no end. Existence cannot be caused. Those who disagree are welcome to explain their grievances.
There is no such thing as ‘a’ CAUSE. Cause is a verb, it necessarily alludes to the motion of an already existing object. Cause is what ‘something’ does, not what something is. All verbs (creation, motion, cause, action) are predicated upon the existence of objects in space.
In order to CAUSE an event, there must necessarily be a real object which “mediates” causal action upon another real object. There are NO object-independent or even space-independent causal actions. Only real objects in space can possibly perform/mediate their causal actions upon other real objects by way of physical surface-to-surface contact. Without physical contact, it is impossible to mediate causes.
Craig is irrationally reifying the word “cause” from a concept (verb) into an object (noun) by referencing it as: ‘an’ external cause, all on its own....like ‘an’ apple. Concepts like “love” don’t move mountains or mediate actions, only objects like “bulldozers” can move mountains. He is introducing surrealism by treating “cause” as an independent thing/object which runs around the Universe performing events.
So clearly, in the present context of “external cause”, it is only possible for an object acting as a mediator, to physically ASSEMBLE a new object from other pre-existing objects (matter). Absolutely ALL verbs (causes/actions) require a physical object to mediate their action. This means that existence is a definite necessity and it precedes any cause/action.
It is impossible to realize any scenario where an object A, imparts causal action upon another object B, without at least 2 real objects, A and B, existing. Such notions are ontological impossibilities.
This means that in order for God to be able to perform an external causal activity, one or more objects MUST be present in addition to God. God cannot perform motion (cause) on nothing. The only option available to God is that He performs causal action on Himself! We will discuss this option below.
First and foremost, creation is a metaphysical contradiction. It defies rational thought. It's not a matter of "knowing" or “proving”. It is a matter of conceptualizing a rational mechanism by which an ontological scenario of no space and no matter, gives rise to space and matter. But since creation means “something from nothing” or a Universe from nothing, then it is an ontological contradiction as well, and as we shall see, it’s impossible.