Kalam or Thomistic Cosmological Argument?

I tend to advocate Aquinas’ cosmological argument over Craig’s, although I still recognize some merits to the latter. What reasons would you give to say that Craig’s argument is more powerful (or “better,” to use a vague qualitative term)? I would be interested in addressing some objections/criticisms of the Thomistic argument in future posts.

Comment below or even email hellenisticchristendom@yahoo.com for something extensive!


2 responses to “Kalam or Thomistic Cosmological Argument?

  1. I find that Craig’s argument often ends up in specialised physics talk I.e. the various multiverse ideas, Hawkings no boundary model, quantum tunnelling etc. Because of this, I find it harder to pin atheists down as they can always try to resort to some new and exotic theory. Also it is harder to get to the classical attributes of God in this argument. In saying that, it is the most immediately accessible of the two arguments.
    Alternatively I think the first and second ways of Aquinas are more powerful and better grounded in metaphysical ideas, however at the same time this reduces their accessibility, especially for atheists who have a disdain for metaphysics (while being oblivious that they are engaging in it). Nevertheless, I probably lean more towards Aquinas as I think his arguments are the more powerful

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s