Equivocation in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (William Lane Craig, PhD) @firstcauseargument
Equivocation in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (William Lane Craig, PhD)  @firstcauseargument
Uploaded June 2012 | Updated September 2026, 3 days ago
William Lane Craig refutes the claim that the Kalam Cosmological argument* makes the equivocation fallacy on the word 'cause' and on the phrase 'begins to exist':

i. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the first premise 'cause' means 'material cause,' while in the conclusion it does not.
ii. The argument equivocates on 'begins to exist.' In (1) it means to begin 'from a previous material state,' but in (2) it means 'not from a material state.'


* - The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Equivocation in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (William Lane Craig, PhD)Can the Universe Come from Nothing? - Kalam Cosmological ArgumentBig Bang TheologyGrounding the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Chris Morrison)If God created the universe who created God? - Andrew WilsonRichard Dawkins: Literally Nothing is SomethingCreation out of Nothing (Books on Kalam Cosmological Argument)Defending the BGV TheoremEvidence for the Big Bang (Robert Newman)The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Books on Kalam Cosmological Argument)The Cosmological Argument - J. Warner WallaceDid William Lane Craig Misrepresent Roger Penrose (or Is skydivephil a Liar)?
firstcauseargument |

Equivocation in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (William Lane Craig, PhD)

SHARE TO X SHARE TO REDDIT SHARE TO FACEBOOK WALLPAPER