In a critique of Lawrence Krauss’s book A Universe from Nothing, William Lane Craig made the following claim, “The question is, if the universe began to exist and there was not anything before it then how did the universe come into being? It seems to me you have to postulate some sort of a transcendent, immaterial, non-physical reality to bring the universe into existence”. Actually, this is not merely a claim; Craig would like this statement to function as an argument for a particular worldview. Specifically, Craig uses this argument as a proof for the existence of God.
Ignoring Craig’s second sentence, I have crudely taken his argument arranged it in the form of a syllogism to better analyze the structure of his argument. It goes as follows:
Major: Something that begins to exist has a cause.
Minor: Our universe is something that began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, our universe has a cause.
This …show more content…
In this case, it is much more difficult to identify each of the terms. Like the first syllogism, Craig would like the first two premises to function as self-evident, but, as you can see, the conclusion is conspicuously different. This conclusion falls prey to the fourth term fallacy. While the major term of the first premise is ‘the physical laws of our universe’, Craig slightly changes this term in the conclusion to ‘something above physical laws’, which changes the structure of the syllogism completely – making it invalid. Not only would Craig like to postulate something above physical laws, he would like to specifically hypothesize this mysterious something to be God. (And specifically the Judeo-Christian God!) This is evidenced by the fact that he mentions his first phrase “transcendent, immaterial, non-physical reality” only once or twice in his critique – instead, for the rest of the interview, substituting what he really means, i.e.
Ignoring Craig’s second sentence, I have crudely taken his argument arranged it in the form of a syllogism to better analyze the structure of his argument. It goes as follows:
Major: Something that begins to exist has a cause.
Minor: Our universe is something that began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, our universe has a cause.
This …show more content…
In this case, it is much more difficult to identify each of the terms. Like the first syllogism, Craig would like the first two premises to function as self-evident, but, as you can see, the conclusion is conspicuously different. This conclusion falls prey to the fourth term fallacy. While the major term of the first premise is ‘the physical laws of our universe’, Craig slightly changes this term in the conclusion to ‘something above physical laws’, which changes the structure of the syllogism completely – making it invalid. Not only would Craig like to postulate something above physical laws, he would like to specifically hypothesize this mysterious something to be God. (And specifically the Judeo-Christian God!) This is evidenced by the fact that he mentions his first phrase “transcendent, immaterial, non-physical reality” only once or twice in his critique – instead, for the rest of the interview, substituting what he really means, i.e.