The Cosmological argument, in its various forms, is a common line of evidence that points to the existence of God. The idea is simple; the universe is the kind of thing that needs an explanation and God is the most plausible candidate to explain it. An incredibly common objection to hear is the idea that if the universe needs a cause then so does God! During William Lane Craig’s presentation on March 7 at the University of Calgary he made the claim, as he often has, that the explanation for one effect does not, itself, need an explanation. This claim was greeted, as it usually is, with snide chuckles. It sounds as though it is a diversion, I’ll grant that first impression, but the question is whether or not it truly is a diversion? Is it true that explanations do not need to be explained?
View original post 925 more words