This is the equiv­a­lent of the back of the book.


1. Espe­cially rel­e­vant to some of Mike D’s objec­tions are William Lane Craig, “The Ulti­mate Ques­tion of Ori­gins: God and the Begin­ning of the Uni­verse”. Astro­physics and Space Sci­ence 269–270 (1999): 723–740. Avail­able online., and William Lane Craig, “What Place, Then, for a Cre­ator?: Hawk­ing on God and Cre­ation”. The British Jour­nal for the Phi­los­o­phy of Sci­ence, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 473– 491. Avail­able on JSTOR.

2. Addi­tion­ally it should be noted that even if one holds to B-​​series time, a Leib­niz­ian ver­sion of the cos­mo­log­i­cal argu­ment may still be argued to be sound, which argues for an ulti­mate cause based on the Prin­ci­ple of Suf­fi­cient Reason.

3. Mr. D enter­tains the notion that “Super-​​intelligent aliens from another dimen­sion” could be claimed as the cause of the uni­verse instead of God. But Ockham’s razor would have us keep from mul­ti­ply­ing the num­ber of aliens beyond one. Then reflec­tion upon the fact that such an alien would have to be respon­si­ble for the cre­ation of all mat­ter and energy would tell us that the alien couldn’t have a body (or at least not one made out of mat­ter and energy), and a robust onto­log­i­cal argu­ment would demon­strate that the sin­gle dis­em­bod­ied alien must be per­fect in every way. Finally a sim­ple argu­ment about this alien’s rela­tion­ship to time would tell us of his agency as well [4]. So the cause of the uni­verse would be a sin­gle super-​​intelligent dis­em­bod­ied per­sonal alien from another dimen­sion who is per­fect in every way. Lastly, if every­thing derives its exis­tence from such an alien, can it really be described as being “alien” to us? Per­haps we can assign a shorter title to such a being… maybe some­thing with just two or three letters….

4. Eg. William Lane Craig, “Must the Begin­ning of the Uni­verse Have a Per­sonal Cause?: A Rejoin­der”. Faith and Phi­los­o­phy 19 (2002): 94–105. Avail­able online.

5. Harry G. Frank­furt, “Alter­nate Pos­si­bil­i­ties and Moral Respon­si­bil­ity”. The Jour­nal of Phi­los­o­phy, Vol. 66, No. 23 (Dec. 4, 1969), pp. 829–839. Avail­able on JSTOR.

6. Craig’s remix of Kant’s first the­sis is found in William Lane Craig, “The Kalam Cos­mo­log­i­cal Argu­ment”. Wipf and Stock Pub­lish­ers (1979), pp. 102–110., and an explicit analy­sis of Kant’s the­sis is done in an appen­dix begin­ning on p. 189. Craig inter­prets Kant as only argu­ing for a begin­ning of the uni­verse in time, and not for a begin­ning of time itself. I per­son­ally think Kant is clear in affirm­ing both, but I don’t have two doc­tor­ate degrees.

7. These include at least Karl Pop­per, “On the Pos­si­bil­ity of an Infi­nite Past: A Reply to Whitrow” The British Jour­nal for the Phi­los­o­phy of Sci­ence, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 47– 48 (who actu­ally cri­tiques Kant), J.L. Mackie, “The Mir­a­cle of The­ism” (Oxford: Claren­don Press, 1982), pp. 92–95. (whose objec­tion is writ­ten against Craig), and the philoso­pher whose actual word­ing of the objec­tion is cited in this blog, Charles W. Cobb, whose for­mu­la­tion of the objec­tion is the clear­est in my opin­ion (and whose objec­tion is also writ­ten in direct response to Kant).

8. Charles W. Cobb, “The First Antin­omy of Kant”. The Jour­nal of Phi­los­o­phy, Psy­chol­ogy and Sci­en­tific Meth­ods, Vol. 14, No. 25 (Dec. 6, 1917), pp. 688–690.

9. We have to remem­ber that in our rope anal­ogy, the qual­ity of “elaps­ing” is illus­trated by mov­ing our grip from one tick mark to the other every moment, ter­mi­nat­ing in the present at “0”. From there we could rea­son that we could have only been advanc­ing our grip on the rope for a finite amount of time. Since, obvi­ously, even if the rope were infi­nitely long, we couldn’t ever fin­ish stroking it’s length if we were only doing so one tick mark at a time. (Per­haps a clearer way to put this is that nobody thinks you could count up from zero to infin­ity, so why think that you could count down from neg­a­tive infin­ity to zero? Where would you start? Accord­ing to Cobb, et al., you couldn’t start. But that just makes the prob­lem worse! How could you make any progress if you couldn’t even get started!)

Per­haps this would be sim­i­lar to how Craig takes Kant: that there is an infi­nitely long time­line, but any­thing that exists on it must begin to exist on it at some point. Thus, our uni­verse at least began to exist, if not time itself. This would be suf­fi­cient I think to ground a cos­mo­log­i­cal argu­ment, but Craig seems like he couldn’t be sat­is­fied leav­ing it there, due to con­cerns per­haps beyond the scope of this blog.

10. Quentin Smith, “Infin­ity and the Past”. Phi­los­o­phy of Sci­ence, Vol. 54, No. 3, (1987), pp. 63–74.

11. G. J. Whitrow, “Time and the Uni­verse”. The Voices of Time, J. T. Fraser (ed). George Braziller (1966), p. 567.

12. Pamela M. Huby, “Kant or Can­tor: That the Uni­verse, if Real, Must Be Finite in Both Space and Time”, Phi­los­o­phy, Vol. 46 (1971), pp. 121–32.

13. William Lane Craig, “The Kalam Cos­mo­log­i­cal Argu­ment”. Wipf and Stock Pub­lish­ers (1979), p. 200.

14. See also Luke 10:6, John 3:15, 5:29, 18, 36, 8:49, 51, 12:44, 15:23, 20:31, 1 John 2:23, & 5:9–13.

15. Hebrews 1:6 is believed by many to be a direct quo­ta­tion of Deuteron­omy 32:43, because the Greek in the Hebrews pas­sage is con­gru­ent with very ancient Greek trans­la­tions of the Deuteron­omy pas­sage (LXX). The object that the angels or gods (same Hebrew word) are being com­manded to wor­ship in Deut. is Jeho­vah. So if that verse is being quoted by the author of Hebrews to com­mand wor­ship of Jesus, then…

Also com­pare Psalm 97:7, & 110:1.

16. We know from Rev­e­la­tion 22:16 that Jesus sent the angel to speak to John, so the speaker that is refus­ing wor­ship here can­not be Jesus. Also ref­er­ence the last chap­ter in Rev­e­la­tion, when the Alpha and Omega says “Behold, I am com­ing!” and John replies “Amen! Come quickly, Lord Jesus!”.

17. Iron­i­cally the other major world reli­gion that calls itself “Chris­t­ian” but denies the deity of Christ has been so suf­fi­ciently con­vinced that Jesus is Jeho­vah that they make the exact oppo­site error (not believ­ing the Father is Jehovah).

18. In fact, the Sep­tu­agint word for “swear” used in Isa­iah accord­ing to Rahlf is ἐξομολογήσεται, which is the same word Paul uses in Philip­i­ans accord­ing to West­cott and Hort.

19. Cf. also John 3:13 (NWT), “More­over, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.”.