Dr. Craig Debates on Why God Can’t Be a Computer
A classic clip of Dr. Craig refuting biologist Dr. Lewis Wolpert and providing some simple teaching on Kalam 101.
INTERVIEWER: There is one clip that I wanted to share just from one debate that you had with a British biologist whose name was Dr. Lewis Wolpert. And this is Dr. Wolpert's response to what is commonly known as the kalam cosmological argument which is an argument that I'll ask you to explain in just a moment. But this is an argument for the idea that the universe must have had a beginning and therefore a beginner. And Dr. Wolpert argued in response that, “Well, that beginner doesn't need to be God.” And this is what happened next.
DR. CRAIG: I was simply saying that this is not a mere matter of speculation; that there is more than a tiny bit of evidence on the table.
DR. WOLPERT: Evidence for what?
DR. CRAIG: Evidence for a beginning of the universe.
DR. WOLPERT: Yes.
MODERATOR: We know that.
DR. CRAIG: Well, that is what I am offering in this first argument.
DR. WOLPERT: But because there is a beginning doesn’t imply a God.
DR. CRAIG: It does if the first premise is true; that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It logically follows.
DR. WOLPERT: Yeah, but the cause doesn’t have to be God.
DR. CRAIG: Well, remember I gave an argument for thinking that this cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.
DR. WOLPERT: I think it is a computer.
DR. CRAIG: Well, computers are designed by people.
DR. WOLPERT: No, no. This is a self-designing computer.
DR. CRAIG: Ah-ha.
MODERATOR: Timeless!
DR. WOLPERT: Timeless!
DR. CRAIG: Well, that is a contradiction in terms.
DR. WOLPERT: Why? What is contradictory about it?
DR. CRAIG: A computer has to function. It takes time.
DR. WOLPERT: No, this is a special computer.
DR. CRAIG: Yeah, but it has to be logically coherent.
DR. WOLPERT: Oh, it is logically coherent.
DR. CRAIG: Yes, you have to be logically coherent.
DR. WOLPERT: Oh, no, this computer is amazing!
DR. CRAIG: No. Besides, it would have to be, as I said, a personal being.
DR. WOLPERT: No.
DR. CRAIG: A computer is a physical object.
DR. WOLPERT: Not this computer, oh no!
DR. CRAIG: OK, see what you are doing is you are actually, what you are calling a computer is really God. A non-physical . . . it is just another word if you rob it of all the attributes that make it a computer.
INTERVIEWER: Teach me your ways, Dr. Craig. So good. One of the important notes is that I have from watching you is that the last part of Peter's passage about this – it says “always with respect and gentleness.” That's always your way. You're never disrespectful. You are always a good listener to your opponent in these debates, and that actually helps you to make your points more clearly. One of the most, I would say, devastating arguments that you make as far as the other side of the atheist argument being that there's no rhyme or reason to the universe. We're all just here out of nothing, or maybe the universe has always existed and whatever the case there's no pattern to it. There's no reason or rationale or purpose. And you have argued a sort of a refreshed take of what I mentioned earlier – the kalam cosmological argument. But it's the idea of the first cause. The three premises – could you just sort of briefly walk us through that?
DR. CRAIG: Yes. It's very simple and easy to memorize and share with your non-believing friends. Premise one is, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Things don't just pop into being out of nothing. Premise two is, “The universe began to exist.” Here you can appeal to philosophical arguments and powerful scientific evidence from contemporary cosmology to show that the universe is not past eternal but began to exist. From those two premises it follows logically, “Therefore, the universe has a cause.” And then you can deduce a number of theologically striking properties that a cause of the universe must have. It must be non-physical, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and I would argue personal as well. And that is a core concept of what we mean by “God.”