In the comments section of a previous post, here is what was written:
Not really. In fact, nothing can be drawn from your theory about the nature of God. There is no particular reason to assume that the universe was created for loving reasons, it just as easily could be done for malicious reasons or indifferent reasons or without thought at all.
I have read and watched Craig and generally found him to be a disingenuous speaker.
Here is how I respond to these comments:
“Leaving aside your last sentence, which is a value judgment which probably says more about you than Craig, your point is not carried. Your own writing on the matter reveals how you have not thought through the issue.
The argument from creation is generally formulated in one of two ways: the form from Leibniz and the form which is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Both of these are very strong arguments for the need of the universe for a Creator. For now, maybe I can use this word rather than God as that seems to cause you some difficulty.
You have said, “Religious people argue that the universe couldn’t possibly come from nothing. Why not?” The answer to this is simple. Nothing comes from nothing. Period. The Leibniz form of the argument is based on contingency. This means that everything in the universe contains no explanation for its own existence but is instead contingent on something else to explain its existence. Thus, in order for their to be anything then there must be something which exists which is not contingent. This is a logical requirement and is not easily avoided. The Kalam argument relies on the principle of causality. This states that everything which begins to exist has a cause for its beginning. Again, the universe has a beginning and so the universe has a cause. To ask “what caused the cause?” and decide that this question is unanswerable is silly. Logically speaking, in order to avoid trying to rely on an infinite regression of causes (which is both impossible and absurd), we can understand that there must be a First Cause which is not itself caused by anything else.
Thus far, what can be said about the Creator is here:
- The Creator is distinct from the universe as required by the ideas of cause and effect as well as contingency.
- The Creator did not need to create the universe as required by the Creator’s non-contingency.
- The Creator was not caused by something else as required by the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes and the principle of a First Cause.
Do you disagree with any of the above statements? If so then please explain why they are incorrect.
If these are all true then much more can be said about the nature of the Creator. I will pause for now and see what you say about these three points.”
So that is my response.