This is my long-awaited thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). There will be a series of threads related to this argument. Why? Because there will more than likely be topics/sub-topics which relates to it, and I don't want things to get conflated.
The Cosmological argument has taken many forms over the past few centuries. I'd like to focus on the most popular formulation of the argument, namely, the Kalam version..which is Christian apologist William Lane Craig's version (or at least the one that he champions).
The argument goes a little something like this..
1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
And just so we take it one step at a time, I'd like this thread to focus on P1 of the argument..
P1: Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause
I really hope we don't get too bogged down with the truth value of P1, because the meat and potatoes is in P2. Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause? As tempting as it is to just jump to P2, I have to refrain..as I don't want to assume that everyone here agrees with P1.
That being said; I am here to defend the TRUTH value of P1, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
In other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING. We can sum it up these 3 ways..our common sense intuition tells us that..
Intuition
1. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
2. Nothing cannot create something.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.
Those three, in a nut shell, is ALL that is being stated in P1 of the argument. I'd like to know the wise guy who disagrees with any of the above 3.
If we can all agree to P1, then we can move to P2, where things tend to get a little ugly...not ugly for me, but for you guys.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)