Longhorn

Have you guys discussed William Lane Craig's KCA in this forum before? Can you provide me some reference materials on the web that refute KCA? Thanks.

You can read KCA in <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html</a>

eh

It's a quite silly argument. Here's a quote from the page:

Why does something exist instead of nothing? Leibniz answered this question by arguing that something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being.

So why does God exist instead of nothing? Because he does. But really, why is there a God instead of NO God? Because he just is. Doesn't this sound similar to the atheist claim that the universe, just is? If we don't have a universe with a starting time, we run into the problem of infinite regress. God is supposed to solve this, but what did he do before the universe was created? Was he twiddling his thumbs and humming in the void?

What is more comical, is that many theologians who use this argument, do so based on an outdated version of the BB theory. Such outdated versions, are no longer supported by the scientific community. This is just an example of theists selectively using science when it suits their case. I mean, when do we ever hear a theologian using inflation theory to prove that God is all powerful?

MarkT

There's reading on this argument in the
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html" target="_blank">library</a>.

There's also <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith0.html" target="_blank">this debate</a>, but you probably already know about that.