Doubting Marcus

I’ve never been to that site before but it became immediately obvious that this is simply is a reworded version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and you can read my rather detailed rebuttal to it here.

What makes this site interesting, if not ironic, is they essentially grantsthat Kant was right when criticizing all cosmological arguments as ontological arguments in disguise. By stressing the idea that god didn’t have a beginning and that’s what makes it acceptable to not have a cause, and hence exist eternally, this argument seems to have attempted to define a being into existence. To follow the original point of the page the dialogue would go like this:

Skeptic: Who created god?

Believer: God doesn’t need a creator?

Skeptic: Why not?

Believer: Because god is by definition the uncreated creator of the universe.

The last line is their words not mine and with a claim like that I’m tempted to ask why even bother making an argument if you’re going to just assert what you are trying to prove. However, whether this is just an impression I’m getting of this particular wording or not this argument fails on multiple levels and, among many other problems, frequently abuses the difference between the beginning of our time, which began at the Big Bang, with the beginning of all time, which may or may not have begun with the Big Bang.

Thanks for the question.