Does modern cosmology prove the existence of God?

It has no evidentiary input. It’s not founded upon evidence in any sense. It’s purely a philosophical argument and not an empirical one. The good news: in that domain you can “prove” things. The bad news: none of the things you can “prove” in that domain have any relevance to what actually is real.

“Still” work?



  1. As I already stated, the title was merely employing the vernicular of those making such arguments, not “demonstrating” anything about that usage.

  2. In spite of your repeated use of the phrase, as far as I can ascertain, there is no well-defined or prominent definition of a “labeling fallacy”. The term apparently can be used to describe certain forms/variants of ad hominem or begging the question fallacies, or certain forms of magical thinking. This renders “labeling fallacy” itself a less-than-useful label. It would save confusion if you could use more widely-recognised designations for fallacies.

1 Like

This argument has been indeed popularized by William Lane Craig. The empirical evidence of the Big Bang supports this argument. Again if the universe is eternal then Craig would not have an argument.

From Wikipedia

The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:[4]

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]

  1. The universe has a cause.
  2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
  3. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
1 Like

From Wikipedia

In context of argumentation and debate, labelling a debater or position is often (whether consciously or unconsciously) used as a “red herring” to divert or dismiss the argument, instead of valid argumentation. … - Using labelling in argumentation this way constitute an informal fallacy.

You have failed to establish that the Big Bang is evidence that “the universe began to exist”.

1 Like

Yes, that’s one strike against it, but better to look at the merits. There aren’t any.

No, not really. The argument is just a bit of wordplay around “cause.” The Big Bang is an event of which the cause is unknown, so the argument does the usual shuffle and argues that the cause is a god. But it doesn’t matter whether one has a Big Bang or some other unknown cause; so long as one can say that there must be some cause or other for there being something instead of nothing, this word-shuffling thing can be done in exactly the same way. But as it is word-shuffling and does not depend in any sense upon the weight of evidence for its conclusions, it is an argument in pure reason, and a very bad one at that.


No, it does not. The premise that the universe began to exist has no empirical support in big bang cosmology.

  1. You failed to cite what Wikipedia article you were quoting from.

  2. Your ellipsis omits an important part of the quote:

In context of argumentation and debate, labelling a debater or position is often (whether consciously or unconsciously) used as a “red herring” to divert or dismiss the argument, instead of valid argumentation. Often in the form of ad hominem association fallacy aiming at accrediting or discrediting the argument or the debater by associating them with an emotionally charged label. Typically negatively; labelling it as ridiculous or despicable, though it can also go the other way round; attempting to gain sympathy for example by promoting the debater or position as authoritative, or by appealing to pity. - Using labelling in argumentation this way constitute an informal fallacy.

The omitted passage clearly demonstrates that the article is not claiming that there exists a class of fallacies called a “label fallacy”, but that labeling can play into a range of recognised classes of fallacies, including:

  • Argumentum Ad Hominem
  • Appeal to Ridicule
  • Appeal to Spite
  • Argument from Authority
  • Appeal to Pity

Given that labeling a purported fallacy a “labeling fallacy” fails to provide any information as to what recognised class of fallacy you are claiming it fall under, and therefore how it is purported to be fallacious, it provides your reader with no information useful in evaluating the claim that the statement is fallacious.

1 Like

But that’d be just like some earnest cosmetologist to try to paint a pretty face on the Kalam argument.


And no one has ever supported either premise, so…


Labeling is a weak form of argument as indicated above. Donald Trump was the master of this form of argument. All that being said I appreciate your clarification but I will continue to call out this weak form of argument.

If you are using labels in your arguments you should consider if there is really strength to your position.

All philosophical (and probably most other) arguments involve abstractions and/or generalisations, and thus labels of some sort: “universe”, “God”, “beginning”, “cause”, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Thus “labeling” is neither “a form of argument”, nor a well-defined category of fallacy.

Unless you are able to describe how the employment of a label is fallacious, claiming that a statement is a “labeling fallacy” provides no useful information.

This is certainly the case of your earlier statement:

This provided me with no information on how “proof of God” might be considered fallacious. Labels are both so ubiquitous in arguments and can be abused in such a wide variety of ways that your statement tells me nothing. It is functionally equivalent to:

So this article is about demonstrating “proof of God” is a fallacy?


You denies premise 1, right? So why scientists bother to find an explanation (a cause) to say, the origin of life or the ATP synthase or etc…Do you realize that by denying premise 1, you are abandoning science itself.

I’m denying that either premise has been demonstrated.

Nothing in my experience has begun to exist, so I have no empirical evidence for whether or not those things that did begin to exist were caused or not. Of course, even having such evidence would still not make a deductive argument, which is what would be required here.

Do you realize that by saying this, you’re demonstrating you don’t understand science?


He didn’t deny anything. He just says there is no evidence to support either premise.

You are exceptionally confused.


This is a burden shift fallacy.

I simply need to show that the use of a label was not supported.

When Trump called Hillary Clinton Crooked Hillary he was using a labeling fallacy unless he supported the label with evidence. In my mind he never did.

I would say that he was using insults and innuendo. He was not making a logic argument, so I would not call it a fallacy.

By the way, we are far off topic.


No. I’m merely pointing out that your statements of “labeling fallacy” lack sufficient information to be meaningful to your readers.

(Parenthetically, to the extent that ‘Burden Shifting’ is acknowledged as a fallacy, it is a subset of an Argument from Ignorance. As I was not making an Argument from Ignorance, I was clearly not engaging in a “burden shift fallacy”.)

That a label is not supported does not demonstrate it is a fallacy. A fallacy is an error of logic, not of fact. An unsupported label can be used as part of a logically correct argument – it just means that one of the argument’s premises is false. A supported label can be used as part of a fallacious argument.

Let us take “not a physicist” as a label, and “WLC is not a physicist” as a premise.

WLC is not a physicist, therefore KCA is incorrect

… is fallacious – an ad hominem fallacy.

WLC is not a physicist, therefore we should be very cautious about whether the physics he cites in support of KCA premises does in fact support his premises

… is not fallacious, it is a rebuttal to an implicit argument from authority (given that it is not self-evident that the evidence he cites supports his premises, and so we would need to take his word for the claim).

The fallacy does not exist in the label, only in the employment of that label.

As @nwrickert points out, calling Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” is not a logical argument, and therefore it is not a logical fallacy.


Also, it’s difficult to support the first premise without the conclusion.

This circularity is easier to see if the premises are swapped:

  1. The universe began to exist.
  2. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Your claim that I am exceptionally confused is unsupported. Please explain why you think so.