Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

This is William Lane Craig's Kalam argument for a personal creator God -

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Next argument:

The universe has a cause;

If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;


An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

The Kalam Argument is no good to science for there is no way to test anything it says to any extent.  Science cannot prove that there was a beginning.  Perhaps one day we will be able to show through science that it all really did have a beginning. But we have to avoid a wait and see attitude for that would lead you to waiting to see something that is proven true proven false.


It is only an argument for belief and not a proof so Craig is not saying it is necessarily true. It could be that God is too big or great to be simply believed in and we need proof. Belief is too much about me and what I think. That is the problem with belief. If there is a God then how do we make it about God? Worshipping the God I believe in and the God that is there is two separate things.
It assumes the universe began to exist. What if something eternal was turned into the universe meaning that the universe in a sense always existed?
It assumes that we know all about logic. We do not. There could be a logical reason we cannot think of why a creator cannot be personal.
It assumes creation is coherent. Creation leaves God unchanged. All that is changed is that where there was not anything at all now there is something. God simply tells it to exist. That is magic. Creation is the worst theory about the origins of all things. Because the terminology is that God made all things from nothing it doesn't seem so bad. But in fact where there is nothing to make from there is no making at all.
It assumes that a timeless God can do things. What if there is some logical reason why he can not? What if there is a logical reason why he cannot make anything other than personal beings? In that case, the existence of stones would refute God. The Christian God expects us to believe there is some logical reason we cannot even guess at why he lets so much innocent suffering happen. The notion then that there are unknown logical reasons for things is not a problem for a believer.
It assumes that the creator is personal which is cheating for even the classical Christian view of God does not give us anything like another person though it is called a person. For example, God knows all things past and present and future so he cannot be surprised or have a sense of humour. That is nothing we can relate to. It is not a person in any way that can appeal to us.
If you have a choice, what will you go for? The personality of God or his power to create? The personality if you value love and feel God is a loving being. A person loving you is more important than a person looking after your interests mechanically without love. The creator thing will matter to you if you just care about existing and what you are going to get out of the creator. How do these principles affect the kalam? If you want love then it does not matter that God is God but all that matters is that there is a loving person there. God being God does not matter. To say he does not matter is to contradict the definition of God which is a being that matters totally and ultimately. The creator thing would
God is that which alone matters. But if you had a choice and it had to be one or the other, would you save a dying baby for his own sake or for God's? If you are human it will be about the baby. This is the easiest way to prove that even if there is a creator he cannot be God to you. Proving a creator and proving God then is not the same thing.
And it assumes that there is one creator. Craig says if you use Occam's Razor one God would do. You don't need to wonder if there is a pile of Gods when one would explain. But there is more to it trying to explain the origin of the universe. People have other concerns as well that call for explanation which means that there is no reason why everybody has to accept that the Razor decrees there is one God. Maybe there is two!
Maybe there was no beginning?
Before now was there an infinity of moments?
Religion says no and that there must be a first cause of all causes that causes itself.
But why can’t there be an infinity of causes and no first cause?
It is reckoned we would not even have a now for you cannot cross an infinity of present moments to get to this one or any one. But that argument is a contradiction. It says there are countless moments which means there is a now for all of them used to be a now. The believers are so anxious to make faith in God as first cause reasonable that they would resort to contradictions to do it.
Numbers are infinite in both ways: there is no end to the negative minus numbers and no end to the positive ones and yet we can have five or whatever items. Infinite and non-infinite are compatible. This is the answer to those who say that if there is an infinity of events before us then it would follow that for the present moment to happen infinity would be completed and that is not possible.
They might answer that numbers are just concepts not things and they are talking about things such as time. Numbers are more than concepts for nothing would exist without them and they are about moments and things. So for this moment to exist would mean that that an infinity was completed which seems impossible. Think of it this way, there are minus numbers like –1 and –2 and so on and positive numbers like 1+2+3. If you start with a positive one you can count on forever and ever for there is no end. But say you have to start not with –1 which is the last minus number but the first minus number. You will have nowhere to start for the series at both the negative end is infinite - the same as it is with the positive end. So the question is how can there be a beginning? But infinity can be understood as an infinity of finities - an infinity of beginnings. It would be just like having an infinity of marbles would not mean that each individual marble was infinite or the first one. There is no beginning but there is beginnings.
They will say that that positive numbers like one two and three and so on exist but negative numbers of things do not. You do not have minus-5 cats. But you do in the same way you have minus-100 cats for you could have these cats and don’t so its minus. No matter what number you pick, there is countless numbers before it and after. There could be literally countless moments before the present moment.
Infinite numbers in maths or whatever means that there can be an infinity of moments in time or an infinity of events for an event is a number. It may be event number 1000 or whatever but it couldn’t happen without being a number. But the set is numberless. Also, you can see from temperature that there can be an infinity of causes when there could be different levels of cold ad infinitum and infinite levels of heat ad infinitum.
Numbers are positive or negative. Then you have the infinite set …-2,-1, and the infinite set 1,2… going away from each other in opposite directions and they meet at point zero. Or do you? They are the one set. Two opposite infinites cancel. If you have a yes infinite and a no infinite you have nothing but 0. Because they are different, one being negative and the other being positive, they are mistaken for two sets.
That is numbers so we can ask if there positive time and negative time? Negative time could be going backwards but be engineered to appear to be going forwards. But how could reversing time seem to go forward? It is no sillier than making a person think five minutes is a day long. Time could be going backwards but reality is going backwards too and starting at the end. That can happen as easily as it can start at the beginning. This does make sense. It would explain the illusion of time going forward if that is what is happening now.
The alleged absurdity of an infinity of moments being past us is grasped by Turton in his The Truth of Christianity (page 5). But he is wrong. It seems absurd if you imagine time going in the one direction – forward and forever. But what if there is time that goes forward like our time seems to and there is time that goes backward but in such a way that it seems to go forward? Time could be going backward though our perception thinks not. Our perception is not relevant to the question because if time were going backwards and meant to look forward that illusion is what you would expect. I am thinking of the same scenario as with negative and positive numbers. Time is an infinite set.
Also, you could say that evil is minus good and then there is good meaning that there is an infinity of levels of minus good and an infinity of levels of good. Or you could say that good is minus evil and then there is positive evil just like there are negative and positive numbers. There are countless levels of good you could choose and yet you are able to choose something. Picking one level does not mean there has to be a beginning.
Many Christians use the Kalam argument to show that there had to have been a beginning. They argue that in order to get to some place in time, an infinity of steps as in moments, had to precede it which raises the question could the end ever be reached? They think or pretend to think that no is the answer. They think that if time always existed then we would not have a present moment for an infinite number of moments came before and you cannot get to the end of an infinite number. It has no beginning and no end. You are from point A to point B. You can make any number of midpoints. In theory you are going through an infinity of midpoints. So you should be unable to get from A to B. But you are able. There is something wrong then with the Kalam argument but what? It can be proven false by demonstration and by logic. Walk from one end of the room to the other and you refute it. What does mathematics say about it? Consider calculus. Calculus says that just because the way from A to B is infinitely divisible does not mean it is infinitely divided. Imagine there is an infinity of midpoints. Calculus says, "The reason the infinite summation of midpoints converges to a limit is that each successive distance between midpoints is smaller than the previous."
There is no such thing as the number infinite. Infinity is not an actual number. Thus if there is an infinity of past events you cannot count them. Infinite means countless. To say there is an infinity of past events/moments makes sense. Saying there is an infinite number of them does not. They cannot be counted because they are infinite. But the point is that there might not have been a beginning and so no need for a first cause or God as in first cause.
The fact of the matter is, the present moment is here no matter what we think of the idea of infinite moments leading up to it. That is another reason to regard the first cause as a mere guess if not absurd.
The Kalam argument for God is based on errors in mathematics and logic. It is really at best an assumption posing as an argument.  The argument treats infinity as a number and says that if events go back to infinity so that there is no first event then that is an actual infinity and that is not possible. There can be no second second if there was no first. So there was a beginning for an actual infinity cannot be possible.  But then they say that God is actually infinite and thus contradict themselves. Arguments for God are based on the notion than an actual infinity in creation is impossible. There is a total infinite difference between something and nothing. Is creation then not guilty of assuming an actual infinite after all?  Yes! So the Kalam actually is self-refuting and despite itself attempts to refute God.




Whatever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.


The Kalam is a wordplay. It says that everything that began to exist has a cause and that includes the universe.  The following argument follows how it thinks and shows it is unintelligible.  Kalam errs in treating the universe as a unit when it is a collection.  Thus you cannot say that all of it came from the same creator or God.

Everything that falls from the orange tree is an orange.

The branch fell from the tree.

Therefore the branch is an orange.
A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Mandarin, London, 1994
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image, New York, 1964
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
AN INTELLIGENT PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum, London and New York, 1997
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, & Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, London, 1950
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
ARGUING WITH GOD, Hugh Sylvester, IVP, London, 1971
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books, London, 1971
CRITIQUES OF GOD, Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1907
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1982
DOES GOD EXIST? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1972
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY, Antony Flew, Hutchinson, London, 1966
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
GOD THE PROBLEM, Gordon D Kaufman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1973
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ Westminster, Maryland, Newman, 1962
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V. Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
SALVIFICI DOLORIS, Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1980
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007
THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984
THE CONCEPT OF GOD, Ronald H Nash, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
The Future of Atheism, Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett, SPCK, London , 2008
THE HONEST TO GOD DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963
THE KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press, Cork, 1965
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New York, 2006
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982
WHAT DO EXISTENTIALISTS BELIEVE? Richard Appignanesi, Granta Books, London, 2006
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992
WHY DOES GOD? Domenico Grasso, St Paul, Bucks, 1970