LobarCybertronic v.2.0
New member
Google Kalam Cosmological Argument by Dr William Lane Craig
A simple explanation of it would be this:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
3.1 That cause would have to be transcendent of time, space, and be immaterial. Pretty much the attributes God would have. Dr William Lane Craig, who is a proponent of this argument suggests that it must be a personal creator too. How does he come to this conclusion?
And my main question would be, since this argument simply provides a (good?) argument for the existence of an uncaused eternal transcendent First Cause/god, how does Dr Craig come to the conclusion that it must be the God of the Bible?
That is a part I don't understand.
A simple explanation of it would be this:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
3.1 That cause would have to be transcendent of time, space, and be immaterial. Pretty much the attributes God would have. Dr William Lane Craig, who is a proponent of this argument suggests that it must be a personal creator too. How does he come to this conclusion?
And my main question would be, since this argument simply provides a (good?) argument for the existence of an uncaused eternal transcendent First Cause/god, how does Dr Craig come to the conclusion that it must be the God of the Bible?
That is a part I don't understand.