, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Graham Oppy on the kalām cosmological argument

  • William Lane Craig


In conclusion, then, I think that the refutations proffered by Mackie of thekalām cosmological argument were all too quick and easy. Nor do I think Oppy has succeeded in rehabilitating those refutations.


Infinite Series Successive Addition Logical Consistency World Semantic Metaphysical Possibility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Graham Oppy, “Craig, Mackie, and theKalam Cosmological Argument”,Religious Studies 27 (1991): 189–97; in response to William Lane Craig, “Prof. Mackie and theKalam Cosmological Argument”,Religious Studies 20 (1984): 367–75; itself a response to J.L. Mackie,The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 93–95; a refutation of the argument in William Lane Craig,The Kalām Cosmological Argument, Library of Philosophy and Religion (London: Macmillan, 1979).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oppy, “Kalam Cosmological Argument”: pp. 194, 195.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibid.: pp. 194, 195.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alvin Plantinga, “Is Theism Really a Miracle?”Faith and Philosophy: 3 (1986): 117.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See discussion in Michael J. Loux, “Introduction: Modality and Metaphysics”, inThe Possible and the Actual, ed. Michael J. Loux (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1979), pp. 48–49.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ludwig Wittgenstein,Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, ed. Cora Diamond (Sussex, England: Harvester Press, 1976), p. 103.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oppy, “Kalam Cosmological Argument”: pp. 195.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid.: pp. 194.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid.: pp. 195.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid. Graham Oppy, “Craig, Mackie, and theKalam Cosmological Argument”,Religious Studies 27 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saul A. Kripke,Naming and Necessity, rev. ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980), pp. 140–42.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oppy, “Kalam Cosmological Argument”: pp. 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    13.Ibid.: pp. 196.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I refer again to my account in “God, Time, and Eternity”,Religious Studies 14 (1978): 497–503 and add my “Julian Wolfe and Infinite Time”,International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (1980): 133–35. I hope to provide a fuller and more satisfactory account in a forthcoming book on divine eternity.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oppy, “Kalam Cosmological Argument”: pp. 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oppy, “Kalam Cosmological Argument”: pp. 196–97.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Craig, KalāmCosmological Argument. pp. 99–102; idem William Lane Craig, “TheKalam Cosmological Argument and the Hypothesis of a Quiescent Universe”,Faith and Philosophy 8 (1991): 104–08.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    William Lane Craig, “God and the Initial Cosmological Singularity,”Faith and Philosophy (forthcoming); idem William Lane Craig, “Theism and Big Bang Cosmology”,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69 (1991): 496–99.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See the concurrence of my atheist interlocutor Quentin Smith, “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe”,Philosophy of Science 55 (1988): 39–57. Our bone of contention is whether the originex nihilo of the universe requires a cause; see William Lane Craig, “The Caused Beginning of the Universe”,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer SBM B.V. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Lane Craig
    • 1
  1. 1.BrussellsBelgium

Personalised recommendations