By CZAR
Added: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:20:19 UTC

In reading The God Delusion, I do not think I recall Dr. Dawkins refuting this argument. It certainly is one of the better known theistic argument for the existence of God. So I ask if someone here can give a reasoned response to it:

Here is the argument as formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig:

1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Brief theistic support:

Premise one seems intuitively obvious. The alternative is that something can come from nothing, which is contradicted in our everyday experience. Should be no real debater on this premise.

Premise two is supported by both philosophical and scientific evidence and argument. -Philosophical: if the universe never began to exist, that means the number of past events is actually infinite. But an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. -Scientific: Hubble's discovery of cosmic expansion, Second Law of Thermodynamics (we are not in a state of "heat death," if the universe were eternal we would be), Big Bang cosmology etc.

From which it follows that the universe has a cause. The cause of space and time, must exist outside of space, time and matter (God or not) because these things only came into being after the Big Bang. Thus, the cause must be transcendent and immaterial and powerful. There are two things that fit this description: abstract things or intelligent minds. Abstract things cannot cause anything, therefore the cause is an intelligent mind (or god).

A response from Dawkins would be great.

TAGGED: PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION