Uploaded July 2012 | Updated September 2026, 15 hours ago
Doug Groothuis gives a lecture on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. What's interesting about this lecture is that Groothuis did not accept the Kalam Cosmological Argument at first but was later convinced by it.
Notes:
relyonchrist.com/Lecture/13.htm
relyonchrist.com/Lecture/14.htm
Kalam Cosmological Argument
(Moreland, Scaling the Secular City; see also William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith [Crossway, 1994]; Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation from Nothing [Baker, 2004]; William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist [Oxford, 2004])
Preliminary: concepts of (a) the actual infinite and (b) the potential infinite
1. The universe had a beginning
2. The impossibility of the actual infinite (distinguish from potential infinite)
3. The impossibility of traversing an actual infinite (even if it exists); forming an actual infinite through successive addition, piece by piece...
4. Scientific confirmation from Big Bang cosmology (absolute origination). See also John Jefferson Davis, "Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang Cosmology," in The Frontiers of Science and Faith (InterVarsity, 2002), 11 -- 36; and Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (revised ed., 1992).
5. Scientific confirmation from second law of thermodynamics.
6. Astronomer Fred Hoyle (who once advanced the steady state cosmology) argues against the universe being infinitely old in virtue of its hydrogen consumption. The argument can be stated as a modus tolens deduction (denying the consequent).
7. Can everything come from nothing without a cause? The "pop theory" (biting the metaphysical bullet)
8. Philosophical critique of everything from nothing...
9. God and time (see Greg Gansell, editor, God and Time: Four Views [InterVarsity, 2001])
10. Argument against an impersonal cause
11. Argument against God needing a cause (Bertrand Russell)
12. Quentin Smith's acceptance of Big Bang cosmology and denial of God's existence.
13. Unitary: Ockham's razor
14. Incorrigible, inextinguishable (having existed, God cannot fail to exist)
15. Personal, volitional ("personal explanation"—R. Swinburne)
16. Omnipotent: nothing is a greater expenditure of power than exnihilating the entire cosmos. This is rational to hold, given the argument.
17. Supplies the necessary conditions for impeccable and omnipotent goodness: (1) - (4). Need (5) moral argument and (6) the Incarnation for the final necessary condition, which, with (1) - (4), make for necessary and sufficient conditions.
Doug Groothuis gives a lecture on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. What's interesting about this lecture is that Groothuis did not accept the Kalam Cosmological Argument at first but was later convinced by it.
Notes:
relyonchrist.com/Lecture/13.htm
relyonchrist.com/Lecture/14.htm
Kalam Cosmological Argument
(Moreland, Scaling the Secular City; see also William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith [Crossway, 1994]; Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation from Nothing [Baker, 2004]; William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist [Oxford, 2004])
Preliminary: concepts of (a) the actual infinite and (b) the potential infinite
1. The universe had a beginning
2. The impossibility of the actual infinite (distinguish from potential infinite)
3. The impossibility of traversing an actual infinite (even if it exists); forming an actual infinite through successive addition, piece by piece...
4. Scientific confirmation from Big Bang cosmology (absolute origination). See also John Jefferson Davis, "Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang Cosmology," in The Frontiers of Science and Faith (InterVarsity, 2002), 11 -- 36; and Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (revised ed., 1992).
5. Scientific confirmation from second law of thermodynamics.
6. Astronomer Fred Hoyle (who once advanced the steady state cosmology) argues against the universe being infinitely old in virtue of its hydrogen consumption. The argument can be stated as a modus tolens deduction (denying the consequent).
7. Can everything come from nothing without a cause? The "pop theory" (biting the metaphysical bullet)
8. Philosophical critique of everything from nothing...
9. God and time (see Greg Gansell, editor, God and Time: Four Views [InterVarsity, 2001])
10. Argument against an impersonal cause
11. Argument against God needing a cause (Bertrand Russell)
12. Quentin Smith's acceptance of Big Bang cosmology and denial of God's existence.
13. Unitary: Ockham's razor
14. Incorrigible, inextinguishable (having existed, God cannot fail to exist)
15. Personal, volitional ("personal explanation"—R. Swinburne)
16. Omnipotent: nothing is a greater expenditure of power than exnihilating the entire cosmos. This is rational to hold, given the argument.
17. Supplies the necessary conditions for impeccable and omnipotent goodness: (1) - (4). Need (5) moral argument and (6) the Incarnation for the final necessary condition, which, with (1) - (4), make for necessary and sufficient conditions.

![How NOT to Argue Against the Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig, PhD
This is probably one of the most entertaining lectures [titled Objections So Bad I Couldnt Have Made Them Up (or, the Worlds Ten Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument)] Dr. William Lane Craig has given. He deals with the top 10 worst objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Many of these arguments were made by unsophisticated and uneducated (at least uneducated in philosophy or science) people on the Internet and youtube. Heres the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the unvierse has a cause.
Heres the list of the worst objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Craig says that he believes in God on the basis of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart, not on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument. In fact, he says that even if the argument were refuted, he would still believe in God. This is blatant hypocrisy on Craigs part.
2. The kalam cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle.
3. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the first premise cause means material cause, while in the conclusion it does not.
4. The first premise is based upon the fallacy of composition. It fallaciously infers that because everything in the universe has a acause, therefore the whole universe has a cause.
5. If the universe began to exist, then it must have come from nothing. That is quite plausible, since there are no constraints on nothing, and so nothing can do anything, including producing the universe.
6. Nothing ever begins to exist! For the material of which something consists precedes it. So it is not true that the universe began to exist.
7. 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.
8. The argument is logically self-contradictory. For it says that everything has a cause, yet concludes that there is a first uncaused cause..
9. The cause mentioned in the arguments conclusion is not different from nothing. For timelessness, changelessness, spacelessness, etc. are all purely negative attributions which are also true of nothingness. Thus, the argument might as well be taken to prove that the universe came into being from nothing.
10. (From Richard Dawkins:) If god is the terminator of an infinite regress, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. How NOT to Argue Against the Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig, PhD](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BX1Nihh3KCY/mqdefault.jpg)








