The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

The Cosmological Argument

Christian apologist William Lane Craig sets up a false dilemma--given the Big Bang, either (1) the universe came out of nothing or (2) the universe had a cause, which Craig believes must be God. As the argument goes, for something to come out of nothing is a logical contradiction; therefore, something caused the universe, something timeless, spaceless, immaterial. Keep in mind that we don't know enough about cosmology to make these kinds of assertions. The Big Bang theory applies to the beginning of the expansion of the universe; there may have been a contraction phase before the Big Bang, but let's leave that for another time. Craig gets to God by setting up another false dilemma--there are only two things that fit the criteria of being both timeless and spaceless, and these are (a) abstract objects, e.g., numbers, and (b) a "disembodied mind." He tries to railroad us into option (b) because he needs the "disembodied mind" to support his desired conclusion of a "personal creator," i.e., God. He asserts that (a), abstract objects, can not cause anything; therefore, we are left with (b), a "disembodied mind," as the "inference to the best possible explanation." But this is absurd. A timeless, spaceless "disembodied mind" is incoherent. Minds depend on brains. We have no evidence for minds outside of nervous systems. A "disembodied mind" is incomprehensible gibberish. As such, it is inadmissible as part of a premise. Incoherent premises do not yield sound arguments. I would reject disembodied minds along with unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. Again, a valid logical inference is only as sound as its premises. An unscrupulous logician can begin with his desired conclusion and then work backwards to a set of premises that would render the conclusion valid. You can obtain all manner of wacky but valid inferences if your premises are not constrained by empirical data. In the end, one may posit disembodied minds, fairies, unicorns, or, name fantasy superhero of choice, but it's a matter of wishful thinking, not sound logic.

3 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Paul Monroe on November 2, 2012 at 9:02am: Just because science is still working on how the big bang started isn't a reason to cop out and say God did it. The laws of physics as an explanation are self contained, whereas a God is not; just like you said, Tonya, where did God come from? I love how Christians assume it was THEIR God in this argument. They can NEVER prove that only one God and not multiple made the Universe. The Cosmological Argument is a false dichotomy.

Comment by Wyatt on October 19, 2012 at 8:20pm: Because the faithful are politically muscular fools. Imagine an audience of angry five-year-olds wielding loaded shotguns. The nice man on stage says, "Well I certainly believe that the Big Bang means that Santa exists and will bring us all presents at Christmas!" The nontheist's job is to disarm the apologist's argument before the audience decides to recreate the Big Bang.

Comment by Tonya Wynn on October 19, 2012 at 2:28pm: The Big Bang theory only means that something (not nothing) blew up. So where did God come from. No Christian can answer that one. An atheist nor a believer can answer where the first 'spark' came from! If God always was then so can energy have always been! The argument is a waste of time. Why do you atheists bother arguing with fools? They suck the life force out of you.

Comment by JP Carey on October 18, 2012 at 9:12pm: Agreed. To assume a reason for something, intention in some phenomena, is a human fallacy. There doesn't have to be a reason at all. Not to mention dreaming up an even more complex super being that apparently came before. Who created this creator then? Well done indeed.