Skip to main content

Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED - William-Lane Craig

  • Author:
  • Updated date:
leibniz-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 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?

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??

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??

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??

leibniz-kalam-cosmological-argument-refuted-william-lane-craig
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!  Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you?  If so, then WHAT is outside the box?  WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

leibniz-kalam-cosmological-argument-refuted-william-lane-craig

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?


Scroll to Continue

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.