Craig’s third chapter of On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (my second installment) is mercifully short.  A scant ten pages.  And in that ten pages, as will become clear, Craig believes that he conclusively demonstrates that there is no way God does not exist.  Seriously.  Ten pages!

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, world-class mind who proved God's existence, or clinically retarded? Read on to find out!

Why Does Anything at All Exist?

This is an excellent question.  Why existence?  There could have been void.  No Universe.  No consciousness, no light, no matter, no stars, nothing.  I have one problem right off the bat:  Why do we always assume that ‘nothing’ is the default state?  Of course, if there were nothing, there would be no one to wonder “Why is there nothing rather than something?”  But that is neither here no there.  We do exist.  In a Universe which exists (although I’m aware of some compelling math which suggests that the internal forces of the universe all cancel each other out so, from the outside, it may appear we do not exist, but that’s a discussion that’s way over my head).  This Universe has a boundary; a furthest extent.  Now, this fact implies (it does not demand) that something lays on the other side of that boundary.  It remains to be seen whether we have the ability to even contemplate what that might be, let alone describe it, since our Universe’s laws of physics and logic are null and void beyond that boundary.

But Craig’s going to take this on anyway and manage to sew it all up in ten pages.  He’s either brilliant or making some incredibly stupid arguments.  Care to wager which?

I remember as a boy looking up at the stars, innumerable in the black night, and thinking, Where did all of this come from? It seemed to me instinctively that there had to be an explanation why all this exists.  As long as I can remember, then, I’ve always believed in a Creator of the universe.  I just never knew Him personally.
-p. 53

Oh, poor Billy.  I hate to break it to you but one doesn’t necessarily follow the other.  Just kidding.  I love to break it to you!  A ‘Creator’ implies something active, some purposeful step taken to reach an end result.  Let me ask you to consider something: Light shines everywhere.  Some of that light is in our visible spectrum.  Sometimes on the surface of this planet (and other objects) there is moisture.  A drop of that moisture scatters the visible light into its component parts and projects this light outward.  This is how rainbows happen.  Does a rainbow have a Creator?  Now, I know that you’ll take the opportunity to trace it back to your God, because you’re sort of a douche and you’ll go out of your way to miss the point, but seriously, that rainbow has a ‘reason’.  That rainbow happened.  It was not Created.  This, as I’ll show you, is the fundamental mistake you make throughout this chapter.

Leibnitz’s Argument

In case you’re wondering, William Lane Craig doesn’t bother to create his own argument for why God exists.  Instead, he grabs hold of Leibnitz’s formulation of the First Cause argument and rationalizes away:

We can put Leibnitz’s thinking into the form of a simple argument.  This has the advantage of making his logic very clear and focusing our attention on the crucial steps of his reasoning.  It also makes his argument very easy to memorize so that we can share it with others.  (You’ll find an argument map it the end of this chapter.)
-pp. 53-54

It helps Craig’s intended audience that the argument is a) simple and b) easy to memorize, because we wouldn’t want any actual thought or analysis to accidentally find its way in.  Oh, and ‘argument map’ means ‘flowchart’, which I guess he thought might be boring or smack of elitism.

There are three steps or premises in Leibnitz’s reasoning:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.

That’s it!
-p. 54

No, really.  That’s it.  And yes, he did just state that if the Universe has an explanation, whatever that explanation my be, it must be God.  By definition.  And not just any gods, not the Deist’s passive-creator god, but the capital-’G'-God of his Biblical Christianity.

But apparently that’s not it, because he goes on:

Now, what follows logically from these three premises?  [You never took a course in logic.  At least, that's what follows for me.]

Well, look at premises 1 and 3.  (Read them out loud if that helps. [Why in the hell would that help?!  Is he talking to third graders?  "Sound it out if you come to a word you don't know."])  If everything that exists has an explanation of its existence and the universe exists, then it logically follows that:

4.  The universe has an explanation of its existence.

Now notice that premise 2 says that if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.  [Yeah, believe it or not, that one did manage to catch my eye.]  And premise 4 says the universe does have an explanation of its existence.  So from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:

5.  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Now this is a logically airtight argument.
-p. 54

Um, no.  No, it’s not.  Craig clearly knows nothing about a logical proof.  This argument may be valid but it is in no way sound.  Premise 2 is clearly not a given.  Our universe might have been caused by a mad scientist in another universe.  (After all, is it so hard to imagine us one day, perhaps not too distant from now, creating little microverses?  Maybe without even knowing we’re doing it?)  Our universe might have sprung into existence when, in a kind of nature-soup of constantly shifting physical laws and in which chaos reigns, a small part of it lined up four different dimensions, the three spacial dimensions and time, creating our universe.

To have a sound argument, the premises, all of them, must first be true and I do not grant your second premise.

To his credit, he does raise as objections most of the arguments I can make against his logic.  This pleased me until I discovered that he actually deals with them in the dumbest ways I can think of.

Premise 1

An Objection to Premise 1:  God Must Have an Explanation of His Existence

At first blush premise 1 might seem vulnerable in an obvious way.  If everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, and God exists, then God must have an explanation of his existence!
-p. 55

Now I’m intrigued.  Has Craig found a way around the special pleading that theists constantly fall into when they make this argument?

Not so fast!  This obvious objection to premise 1 is based on a misunderstanding of what Leibnitz meant by an “explanation.”  In Leibnitz’s view there are two kinds of things: (a) things that exist necessarily and (b) things that are produced by some external cause.  Let me explain.
-p. 55

Please do.  Because so far this sounds a lot like special pleading.

(a) Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature.  It’s impossible for them not to exist.  Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way.  They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature.

(b) By contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don’t exist necessarily.
-pp. 55-56

So let me get this straight: some things have to exist, no matter what, because it is in their nature.  Okay, two questions come to mind.  First, how do we determine their nature?  Second, can you imagine a scenario in which there is nothing but numbers?  You say they exist necessarily, so I want you to imagine no Universe, no God, no matter, no light.  Just numbers.

You can’t.  Wanna know why?  Because numbers cannot exist without two things: stuff to count and someone to do the counting.  Numbers, and any other abstract concepts, are contingent on there being a consciousness to apply them to something else.  Take morality.  I covered this last time.  There is objective morality because a) there is a universe of matter to be acted upon and b) there exists something to act willfully upon that matter.  Namely, us.  Morality, numbers, sets and anything else you want to pick, cannot exist in a void.

Now, if you want to reduce your God to an abstract concept that exists within the human mind, I’m all for that.  I encourage it.  In fact, I think that’s actually true.  But I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say, because:

So premise 1 could be more fully stated in the following way:

1:  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

But now the objection falls to the ground.  The explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of His own nature.  As even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to have a cause.
-p. 56

Okay, I for one recognize no such thing.  Why is it impossible for the Christian God to have a cause?  Because it would suck to be you?  That’s not a good reason.

Also, why is it a necessity of His own nature?  This is never explained.  Can you define this nature for me?  Is it ’cause the bible says so?  Because, if so, then I can come up with any concept I want and design it such that it cannot have a cause.  Therefore, by your argument, it must exist!  Even though I made it up!  Here:  There’s a diamond the size of Plymouth Rock under my backyard.  I didn’t bury it there or anything.  It’s always been there.  The matter that now makes up the Universe came from within its walls.  I don’t know how deep down it is, though.  You might have to dig for a while.

My diamond must exist.  It is in its nature to do so.

Defense of Premise 1: Size Doesn’t Matter

Yes, that is his actual sub-heading.

Here, Craig argues that if you find a translucent ball on the ground while hiking, you know it must have some explanation, and whether that ball is the size of a house cat or the entire Universe doesn’t matter.  You still want an explanation.

Which is true.  I do want an explanation.  Plenty of people are looking for an explanation.  But I’d want an explanation for any god, too, since that’s not really an explanation in and of itself.

The Taxicab Fallacy

Craig’s never heard of the difference between logically valid and logically sound, but he feels free to make up his own fallacies when he feels the need:

Premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a hack once you’ve arrived at your desired destination!
-p. 57

Nevermind the fact that he just did that with God by claiming that it’s in his nature to exist without cause.  But I’m not allowed to do the same with the Universe because that’s falling pray to the infamous Taxicab Fallacy.

But the whole thing is beside the point because what William Lane Craig is arguing against is not at all what I’m arguing for.  When I say to someone who throws the First Cause Argument at me, “Why not just stop at the Universe itself?” what’s meant is, “If you’re going to make that mistake, why not make it one step sooner?!  What’s the difference?  You still aren’t explaining anything!”  But that’s longer and more cumbersome.

It would be arbitrary for the atheist to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule.  (Recall that Leibnitz does not make God an exception to premise 1. [Oh that's nice and convenient for you isn't it?])  Our illustration of the ball in the woods showed that merely increasing the size of the object to be explained, even until it becomes the universe itself, does nothing to remove the need for some explanation of its existence.
-p. 57

Doesn’t that also mean that numbers, no matter how big, demand an explanation for their existence?  I’ve actually provided you with that explanation earlier, though.  But doesn’t taking the ball outside the forest in which you found it and arbitrarily giving it special powers also not remove the demand for an explanation?

So Craig’s argument is special pleading plain and simple.  Everything must conform to his rules.  Oh, except for the very entity he is trying to prove the existence of! Ass!

Notice, too, how unscientific this atheist response is.  For modern cosmology (the study of the universe) is devoted to the search for an explanation of the universe’s existence.  The atheist attitude would cripple science.
-p. 57

No shit!  That’s why no atheist who has ever given any serious thought to their beliefs would ever argue that the Universe began to exist without cause.  News flash, Sherlock!  Most cosmologists–far and away the vast majority of cosmologists–are atheists! That statement is self-contradicting!

Now, there are those who argue that the Universe has always existed in some form or another, a theory being pursued by some cosmologists.  I think that argument is subject to its own flaws, namely that expansion is accelerating rather than slowing, which would suggest against any argument for a perpetual, cyclical Universe.  However, that scenario cannot be entirely ruled out.  The forces which began the acceleration may still be acting on the Universe, causing it to continue accelerating.  Imagine a pitcher.  Before the pitch, the ball’s speed is essentially zero.  During the act of throwing the ball, the acceleration is not constant.  It increases as the pitcher’s arm acts on the ball, then slows until it hits zero at the moment the pitcher’s fingers leave the ball.  Then deceleration begins as friction acts on the ball, which would eventually roll to a stop.  While I think it unlikely, it is entirely possible that, in this analogy, our universe is still part-way through the pitch.

Anyway, back to Craig:

Another Atheist Fallacy: It is Impossible for the Universe to Have an Explanation

Here Criag outlines exactly what I’ve just said is the argument no atheist is making:

They say that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence.  Why?  Because the explanation of the universe would have to be some prior state of affairs in which the universe didn’t yet exist.  But that would be nothingness, and nothingness can’t be the explanation of anything.  So the universe must just exist inexplicably.
-pp. 57-58

Again, no one argues that outside the Universe there is an endless void.  I am arguing that, outside of the Universe, there exists a state of affairs which we do now, and may forever, lack the ability to imagine or describe.  Now, I guess you can call that God if you want to, but it isn’t conscious.  It isn’t transcendent.  It certainly isn’t listening to our prayers.

This line of reasoning is obviously fallacious.  For it assumes that the universe is all there is, so that if there were no universe there would be nothing.  In other words, the objection assumes that atheism is true!  The atheist is thus begging the question, arguing in a circle.
-p. 58

No.  I’m sorry, but you have it exactly backwards.  The theist is making a claim: God exists.  So our objection assumes that the claim is false; not that another claim is true but that God is false.  And anyway, that’s not what I’m arguing.

Leibnitz would agree that the explanation of the universe must be a prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist.  But that state of affairs is God and His will, not nothingness.
-p. 58

Why?  Why, why why!  You cannot simply state that the only two choices are nothingness or an all-powerful, all-loving god who sent his only son to die on a cross thereby removing us from the burden of our sins.  That is patently ridiculous and you are either a stupid or incredibly dishonest man for saying it!

So it seems to me that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false, which is all we need for a good argument.
-p. 58

That statement isn’t a joke.  He actually wrote that.  In concluding a supposedly logical argument.  Ahem.  YOUR PREMISES NEED TO BE TRUE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE SOUND!  Not plausibly true.  Not more likely true than false.  Jesus Fucking Christ!  Do I really need to demonstrate?  Fine:

1. Typically, murderers are Christian.
2. Murder is a frequent form of violent crime.
3. Many prisoners are guilty of committing violent crimes.
4. The United States imprisons more people than any other country.
5. Therefore, everyone in the United States is a violent, murdering Christian.

How’s that sit?  Ass.

Premise 2

Atheists Agree with Premise 2

So what does the atheist almost always say in response to Leibnitz’s argument?  As we’ve just seen, the atheist typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

This is precisely what the atheist says in response to premise 1.  The universe just exists inexplicably.  But this is logically equivalent to saying:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B).
-p. 59

I’m sorry, but I feel this is necessary:  I’M NOT SAYING ANYTHING LIKE THAT WHATSOEVER!!!

Another Argument for premise 2: The Cause of the Universe: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind?

Here’s where Craig really starts to go a little nuts.

…Premise 2 is very plausible in its own right.  For think of what the universe is:  all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy.  It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a nonphysical, immaterial being beyond space and time.  Amazing!
-p. 59

Amazing indeed.  Yes, outside the Universe there is no such thing as time.  Or if there is it could be so vastly different that it’s unrecognizable to humans.  Therefore, the idea of ’cause’ inside the Universe is also likely to be vastly different that ’cause’ outside the Universe.  It is worth searching for answers to the question of how our universe came to be.  But we must accept with that investigation the possibility (I think, the probability) that we will be wholly unable to answer that question.  And that goes for Mr. Craig, too.  Just because we might not be able to ever know the answer, doesn’t mean it must be your particular god.

Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind.
-p. 59

No, it cannot be a number.  I’ve already explained why.  And why is ‘unembodied mind’ the only other option available to us to solve this problem.  I posited earlier an entirely bodied scientist creating our universe in a lab within another universe.  Prove me wrong.  Prove to me that those are your only two choices.  I know you’ve been trying, but you’ve failed at it miserably.

So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.
-p. 59

Did you see what he did there?  Right there he added the word ‘transcendent’ entirely devoid of justification.  In fact, the laws of physics would suggest that whatever lies outside the Universe must remain outside the Universe.  It is a closed system.  By definition.  By observation.  By the laws of physics.  Even if you do accept the idea of a God-Creator as Deists do, it cannot be transcendent.

Then, in the very next paragraph:

I hope you begin to grasp the power of [the Dark Side!  Oh, no wait...] Leibnitz’s argument.  [Lacks the umph when you put it that way, doesn't it?]  If successful [a big 'if'], it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe.  This is not some ill-conceived entity like the Flying Spaghetti monster but an ultramundane being with many of the traditional properties of God.  This is truly mind-blowing!
-p. 60

First off, all of a sudden he’s tossed ‘personal’ into the mix as well, again entirely devoid of justification.  Plus, God is an ill-conceived entity, a fact quite ably pointed out by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which Mr. Craig also must accept as a possibility.

Um, also, is ‘ultramundane’ really what you want to be calling the guy who’s going to decide whether you roast in a lake of fire for all eternity?  I would not take run-of-the-mill mundane as a compliment, so how is ultramundane any better?  (Yes, yes.  I understand the meaning that Craig is using is different from the meaning of mundane than I am using, but it proves my point.)

Atheist Alternative: The Universe Exists Necessarily!

I kind of thought he already covered this, but I guess not:

The universe exists of its own nature.  For the atheist, the universe could serve as a sort of God-substitute that exists necessarily.
-p. 60

Sure.  When we’re demonstrating how stupid your argument is.

Now this would be a very radical step for the atheist to take, and I can’t think of any contemporary atheist who has in fact adopted this line.
-p. 60

That’s ’cause it’s a stupid argument to make.  And yes, it was quite a radical step for you to take when you decided, based on nothing, that God exists necessarily, especially since that step led directly off a cliff.

As we look about the universe, none of the things that make it up, whether stars, planets, galaxies, dust, radiation, or what have you, seems to exist necessarily.  They could all fail to exist; indeed, at some point in the past, when the universe was very dense, none of them did exist.
-p. 60

Except numbers, right?  You said numbers exist necessarily, even though there’s no matter to count and no one to do the counting?  Numbers only exist without the Universe if there is a god, which is the element you are trying to prove so it is in fact you, sir, who is begging the question.

This ‘necessarily’ distinction is just plain stupid.  As he has defined it, it applies to his Christian, biblical God and to nothing else.  I said good day!

He next goes into a discussion of sub-atomic particles being essential to matter that somehow is related to the necessary/contingent thing he’s got going.  It doesn’t matter, though, because his distinction is fallacious.

Now it seems obvious that a different collection of fundamental particles could have existed instead of the collection that does exist.  But if that were the case, then a different universe would have existed.
-p. 61

..And probably does!  Oh my God.  Dude.  Have you seriously never heard the one about the puddle?  The puddle is sitting in a pothole in the street, and it thinks to itself, “Imagine!  This hole is perfectly shaped for me.  It must have been created just for me.  This means there’s a supernatural digger who cares about my life and how well I manage to fill this puddle!”

Something tells me Mr. Craig doesn’t get it.

To see the point, think about your desk.  Could your desk have been made of ice?  Notice that I’m not asking if you could have had an ice desk in the place of your wooden desk that had the same size and shape.  Rather I’m asking if your very desk, the one made of wood, if that desk could have been made of ice.  The answer seems to be obviously, no.  The ice desk would be a different desk, not the same desk.

Similarly, a universe made up of different particles, even if they were identically arranged as in this universe, would be a different universe.  It follows, then, that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.
-p. 62

See what I mean?

Analogously, someone might say, various possible universes could be identical even though they’re composed of wholly different collections of particles.
-p. 62

Only if they resorted to as terrible an analogy as you have.

No one thinks that every particle in the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature.  It follows that neither does the universe composed of such particles exist by a necessity of its own nature.
-p. 62

Correct!  Dingdingdingding!  No one says that!

So atheists have not been so bold as to deny premise 2 and say that the universe exists necessarily.
-p. 63

Oh, I’m sorry.  Wrong answer.  You lose everything!

Here.  I’ll be so bold:  I deny premise 2!  Not because the universe exists necessarily, though.  For a refresher, here’s premise 2: “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.”  Denied.  The Universe has an explanation.  However, the odds of it being God are vanishingly small, not “plausibly true.”

Conclusion

Since no one seriously denies premise 3 (that the Universe exists), Craig doesn’t deal with it.  I’m fine with that.  God only knows what he’d say if he did.  What he does say is this:

Given the truth of the three premises, the conclusion is logically inescapable:  God is the explanation of the existence of the universe. Moreover, the argument implies that God is an uncaused, unembodied Mind who transcends the physical universe and even space and time themselves and who exists necessarily.
-p. 63

No.  Two of the premises (the only ones he explicates) are patently false and the argument doesn’t imply any goddamned thing about what the nature of the cause might be.

Leibnitz has expanded our minds far beyond the mundane affairs of daily life [and into the realm of the ultramundane!].
-p. 63

Okay, I honestly think Leibnitz might have actually been clinically retarded if these were his arguments.  Plus there’s that hair!