. . . Providing an Articulate, Intelligent Voice in

Defending Biblical Christianity

in the Public Square

Q: I was wondering whether a plausible reason why naturalists reject the causal premiss of the kalam argument is that many of them hold a concept of causation in terms of "events", not of things.

Dr. Craig: Mary, this problem was recently brought to my attention by my friend Chris Weaver. Contemporary theories of causation do not think of things as standing in causal relations, but events or states of affairs. For example, the brick’s hitting the window is the cause of the window’s shattering. So contrary to medieval analyses, things like people or horses or even God are not causes of other things. The kalam argument, as I’ve stated it, speaks of things’ having causes, specifically things that begin to exist, like the universe.

The Defense Never Rests