Bible Maps Plus
Bible Maps & Resources                
               In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
                  and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.    John 1:1-2

HOME      Maps      Booklets      Teaching Resources      Stable to Throne      Classified Ads      Bible Games      Articles      Store     
Articles Index

Creation versus Evolution
2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Page 4

Craig also tells us that the state at which the space time curvature, along with the temperature, density, and pressure, becomes infinite is the beginning point. It's the point at which the Big Bang occurred.

Stephen Hawkins has said that it's the standard of contemporary cosmology, that its broad framework is very securely established as a scientific fact. Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."

Stephen L. Craig continues to explain that it is obvious that if there was a beginning, then something had to bring the univese into existence.

According to Thomas Aquinas: "But now, modern astrophysics and astronomy have dropped into the lap of Christians precisely the premise that makes God's existence virtually undeniable. Given that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the universe began to exist, there must be some sort of transcendent cause for the origin of the universe."

Even atheist Kai Nielsen said, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang...and you ask me, 'What made that bang? and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that...and if a cause is needed for a small bang like that, then it's needed for the Big Bang as well."

Stephen L. Craig, "This is an inescapable conclusion--and it's a stunning confirmation of the millennia-old Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation out of nothing."

Lee Strobel " much logic can also tell us about its identity...what specifically can you deduce about this cause?"

Back to Stephen L. Craig. He tells us that there are several qualities we can identify...a cause of space and time must be uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, a personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power...and that is a core concept of God.

The first premise of the Kalam argument, which is not that everything has a cause, but that whatever begins to exist has a cause. I don't know of any reputable philosopher who would say everything has a cause which means they're simply not dealing with a correct formulation of the Kalam argument.

This is not meant to be a special pleading in the case of God. After all, atheists have long maintained that the universe doesn't need a cause, because it's eternal, but how can they possibly maintain that the universe can be eternal and uncaused, yet continue to insist that God cannot be timeless and uncaused?

They prefer to believe that there is a multiple number of gods or creators? Does this make sense to you?

Craig L. Stephen: "Ockham's razor would shave away any additional's a principal that says we should not multiply causes beyond what's necessary to explain the effect. Since one Creator is sufficient to explain the effect, you would be unwarranted in going beyond the evidence to posit a plurality. One of the most remarkable features of the Kalam argument is that it gives us more than just a transcendent cause of the universe. It also implies a personal Creator."