The Kalam Cosmological Argument [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

In part one, Dr. Craig gives a historical account of the Kalam argument. He first talks about the history of Arabic philosophy and it's relation to the Kalam argument. After this, Dr. Craig explains the Kalam models used by three Arabic theologians. They are, in order: al-Kindi, Saadia, and al-Ghazali. Some of thier aruments are, of course, a bit outdated and crude, but not all.

In the second part of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Craig gives a modern defense. He formulates the argument as so:

1.)Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence
2.)The universe began to exist
3.)Therefore, the universe has a cause

Since the second premis of the argument is obviously the most important, Dr. Craig defends this first in two ways. First, with two philosophical arguments, and second, with empirical evidence. In regards to the former, Dr. Craig argues that an actual infinite composed of definte and distinct finite members cannot exist in reality. He does this by showing the various paradoxes and absurdities that arise in inifite set theory (which may be fine for the realm of mathmatics but the results for the real world are too unbeliveable). He also gives "real life" examples such as Hilberts Hotel and Tristram Shandy. Since actual infinites cannot exist in reality, Dr. Craig reasons that an actual infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite and therefore an actual infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. He then gives a second argument that has two do with actual infinites and time. Here he argues that an actual infinite cannot be reach by successive addition. Since an actual infinite cannot be reached by successive addition, and a temporal series of events is a collection formed by succssive addition, then the series of temporal events cannot be infinite. In both cases, since the series if temporal events cannot be infinte, time and the universe must of had a beginning a fintie time ago(he also exaplains why time couldn't of been preceded by an eternal quiescent universe).

Now on to the emprical evidence. Here Dr. Craig argues for truth of the standard big bang model for evidence as to the beginnig of the universe, and also the second law of thermodymanics as evidence for the beginning of the universe. As far as the Big Bang goes, that is pretty self-explanitory. As for the secong law of thermodynamics though, Dr. Craig says that if the universe did not have a beginning, then all the energy would in it would of been used an eternity ago. However, we still have usable energy, so the universe must not be infinitely old.

Dr. Craig goes on then to defend the first premis, and in the final chapter of the modern defense of the Kalam argument, he puts it all together. For if this argument is indeed sound, then we come to a timeless, changless, immaterial, and most importantly, a personal creator of the universe. The first three attributes you may be able to figure out from what I have described here, but if not, I will leave those and the reason why the creator must be personal for when you read the book.

Finally, the last part of the book is two appendixes concerning Zeno's Paradoxes and Kant's First Antimony. In closing, I would also like to note that you should be sure not to miss out on the notes sections. There is information in there that can be of value.

I have seen Craig in debate numerous times, read one of his other books ("Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics) and he is the best intellectually respectable defenders of Christianity alive today. Comparing his debates to this book shows that Craig has a wide range and knows how to argue at a level appropriate to his audience. Craig can talk to the interested public and academic philosophers alike. This book definitely falls into the second category (Craig did his first Ph. D on it) and it is aimed at those who want a comprehensive defense of this one particular argument for God's existence.

The book is divided into two main sections. A historical review of the argument as it was originally presented by various Islamic philosophers about a thousand years ago starts the book. I found most of the arguments here comprehensible because Craig had the foresight to put the arguments into a chart, so that you can visually see the progression of the ideas. For most readers, this material will be completely new. Islamic philosophers are rarely covered in first year university and courses on such topics are few and far between.

The second section is the modern defense of the kalam cosmological argument. Craig arguments are of two types; philosophical (using mathematics as his evidence) and scientific or empirical (using astronomy and physics as his evidence). The mathematics arguments are extremely difficult to follow and I think most readers will only understand parts of it. Some of his observations are as follows; even if an actual infinite exists in mathematics, it is generally thought that mathematical concepts have no concrete existence (this is something of a simplification, but that is unavoidable in the space available), that an infinite cannot be formed by addition and so on. I get the impression that the mathematics Craig uses (primarily set theory) is a simply a modern presentation of the Islamic arguments, which I founder easier to comprehend. The basic conclusion offered is that an actual infinite is mired in contradictions and thus cannot exist.

The second part of his evidence deals with astronomy, the Big Bang, thermodynamics and so on. Craig refutes the non-Big Bang models of the universe. The Big Bang model of the universe asserts that the universe began to exist approximately 15 billion years ago. The steady state model (which asserts that the universe is eternal) was refuted by empirical evidence in the 1960's while the oscillating model is confronted by major physical problems that make it quite implausible. Craig prefaces this section with a comment that some people find abstract philosophical argumentation too difficult and thus prefer the "concrete" sciences. Personally, I think that philosophy is better equipped, as a discipline, to address questions such as: Is the universe eternal? Did the Universe have a cause?

Briefly, near the end of the book, Craig defends what he rightly regards as the causality principle. The principle holds that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Craig presents the arguments of some other philosophers who attempt to show that this principle is self-evident or otherwise inescapable.

This is, without a doubt, the most difficult book I have read this year. Yet, it is quite rewarding. Craig successfully argues against all those who disagree with him and it is challenging to imagine a refutation of his position. If you have taken "Philosophy of religion" courses at the university level, you would definitely appreciate the book although some of the math-based arguments may be difficult to follow. I would only recommend it to people with a broad understanding of philosophy and or apologetics. If you would like an beginner's introduction on how to defend the Christian faith, I recommend, "The Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel (very readable and easy to understand), "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis (a classic defense of Christianity, but it is quite short and not quite as rigorous as I would like). For a more in-depth defense of Christianity that covers both the existence of God, miracles, and Jesus Christ, J.P. Moreland's book, "Scaling the Secular City" (which I have reviewed) is bar none the best. Craig's book, "Reasonable faith," is also fairly good.

P.S. If you intend to offer a substantive critique of the argument, you must undermine the philosophical and scientific arguments for both of them independently establish the beginning of the universe, one of the key elements of the argument. One of the reviewers, George Tucker, "refuted" the argument in less than 100 words without addressing any of Craig's evidence. This is a poor attempt to refute an brilliantly argued book.