Counter Apologist has produced an awesome series detailing issues with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is a pet obsession of mine. This must have succeeded enough, since it warranted a response from Craig himself. Here is Counter’s response to Craig.
Back in March, William Lane Craig responded to Counter Apologist’s critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig’s main contention was that the Kalam is not circular because he believes metaphysical arguments can trump what science tells us about time.
CA has finally put out a response that shows while Craig can avoid the circular charge, he can only do so by engaging in scientific cherry picking. Effectively Craig ends up holding a double standard when it comes to alleging that “modern cosmology makes it more probable that the universe began to exist”.
CA then goes on to show why science undermines the A-Theory of time and then how Craig’s supposedly “strong metaphysical arguments” are at best inconclusive when it comes to the nature of time. He finishes up by showing how even when embracing the A-Theory of time Craig holds another double standard when it comes what he calls “metaphysical time” vs. “physical time”.
You can watch the video here:
Or you can read the transcript here: http://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2014/09/countering-kalam-5-responding-to.html
Here is an interview I gave to CA some time back:
CA is always on the money in my books.
