Q&A: The Metaphysics of Time and the Kalam Argument

by Max Andrews

Question: Hi Max,I watched a debate between Phil Fernandes v Jeffrey Lowder. Lowder rebuts the cosmological argument saying that indeed it is only in space and time that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, but that out of the realm of space and time we do not know. He therefore argues that the universe is just there. About the beginning of the universe, Lowder says that naturalists who believe in the big bang model do not believe that the universe popped out of nothing. They believe that there was no time at which the universe did not exist, and there is no place the universe came from. On naturalism, the universe just is, and that’s all. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the universe had a cause. He says the argument that everything that begins to exist (in space and time) is correct. However, when the universe came to exist, it was not in space and

‘Like’ The Poached Egg on Facebook!

Follow @ThePoachedEgg

Donate to TPE!

time. The origin of the universe is the very origin of space and time itself.Similarly, Peter Millican in his debate with Craig asked Bill, where the evidence was that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. All we have in the universe are rearrangements of already existing materials. I do not recall if Craig answered this argument directly.What are your thoughts on the above arguments? Kind regards, Jimmy

Answer: Jimmy, Though I haven’t seen the Fernandes-Lowder debate I’m familiar with the objection being made against Craig here. I think this objection on existing with or existing in time is a crucial distinction. Paul Draper has done a lot of work in this area. He claims that Craig seems to elide over a distinction, and a very important one at the heart of the debate…

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>