Paper detail

A Mathematician Reads the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Some Christian apologists, notably William Lane Craig, have championed something called the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. One version of the argument leans heavily on the claim that the existence of an actual infinite in the physical world is a metaphysical impossibility. We strongly criticize this claim, showing that it involves dogmatically insisting that certain metaphysical premises are absolutely inviolable, when in fact said premises are not only optional, but are far flimsier than other metaphysical claims (eventually shown to be untenable) that great thinkers of the past, including Einstein, have misguidedly clung to. While our criticisms strike most mathematicians and physicists as straightforward and uncontroversial, they have encountered resistance from philosophers, suggesting that there is a communication gap between the scientific and philosophical communities. We hope this paper will help bridge that gap.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.