6. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Nothing Ever Begins to Exist!

[agnostaxian]

when atheists make arguments like this or say that Jesus never existed and that he is based off pagan mythological patterns, they betray their "only led by the evidence" claim and demonstrate they are just trying to be as fringe as possible to prove their point. This stuff is a joke

[copypaper92704]

Craig did not begin to exist out of nothing he is the modification of pre-existing material that was around during the Jurassic. The examples Dr. Craig gives to support is claim of ex nihilo are really of ex materia, which does not benefit his argument because his example are material modified into something else. He still has a claim that is not supported.

[drcraigvideos]

@copypaper92704 *SIGH* Craig dealt with this idea that nothing because to exist because everything is matter rearranged. It would be helpful if you watched the video. Sorry, but mereological nihilism is not taken seriously.

[JCrownwell]

@copypaper92704

What do the terms "mereological nihilism" and "logical positivism" have in common?

They're both hallmarks of philosophically incompetent naturalism.

[hendrixonwheels]

if the objector doesn't exist and we're playing by the objector's rules, as is customary when considering an objection in an academically valid way, then you don't exist either Dr. Craig. I'm not taking a side of if the objector or Dr. Craig is right all I'm saying is that these tactics of debate are so far from the reasonable rules of academia that it does imply a desperate need to continue a pattern of denial.

[acceptjesusorburn]

This sentence never began to exist.

[MereChristianLogic]

The naturalist has no foundation in classical cosmology. The Kalam provides sufficient reason for a finite universe. Aristotle furthermore gives us sufficient reason for a moving universe. There is no room for a truly reasonable man not to believe that God is the best explanation for our ultimate reality.

[AMWOODco]

I remember beating my head against a wall with someone who upheld this view. It was frustrating to the extreme.

I realise now that someone upholding mereological nihilism doens't believe in copyright. The matter I use to make something is always just what it is, it is never something else. So, as there are no composite objects, you haven't made a copy of anything that actually exists... try upholding that in court.

[scottvska]

Send this to DasAmericanAtheist. He's vulgar and arrogant.

[keksinnot]

When people are proven wrong, and they themselves see it, they nearly always turn to relativism. Those few who don't, turn to irrational skepticism.

The ones in the hundreds of thousands take notice and think outside the box.

I am guilty, we all are.

[markderosa]

Thanks for uploading these.

[metaljacket1983123]

I think its odd how this video can get dislikes, yet no one has the guts to explain why.

[drcraigvideos]

@metaljacket1983123 The best explanations I've received in this comment section so far are something of the nature of "Craig is stupid" and that's it. No explanation whatsoever. And people wonder why I have to approve comments?

[AlanYugi9689]

@drcraigvideos

I actually thought why you approved comments instead of let them be open freely, until I saw that you actually did allow comments from atheists who raised their own objections and thoughts on the subject. Like you said, to actually filter out the really stupid comments.

[pompair]

Great series, thanks for posting

[31Uriel]

We can restructure the argement as follows:

1. p implies n

2. n is false

3. Therefore p is false

(p= nothing begins to exist, it's just matter rearranged; n = mereological nihilism)

Support for 1: Someone holding to p can only succesfully deal with the question "Did I begin to exist?" by adopting n.

Support for 2: Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum"-argument. (One can also add that n implies moral nihilism for composed things like humans don't exist.)

[hippo11222]

To deny premise 1 you essentially have to deny temporal becoming, ergo you would deny the reality of change. Unless your Parmenides, it seems to me patently absurd to deny the reality of premise one which is labeled by Craig as an apriori category of causation, not something that he would primarily infer inductively. Anyone that says otherwise, makes me really wonder how well read up that person is on Craig.

[irishbear76]

I think therefore I exist :)

[1337Jag]

good point dr,craig. No one can debunk their own existance.

[wordception]

Great video, and that last part was especially brilliant.

Now I have to go and decide between -

a. I have always existed

b. I don't exist

c. there is very good reason to think God exists

It's going to be tough to decide.

[lxAgnosticxl]

I love how pissed people get at Craig & he still pwns with a smile.

[drcraigvideos]

This is easily one of the most popular objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the youtube world. I hope they finally get how wrong mereological nihilism is. But I doubt it. Anyway, don't forget to check the description area for more info.

[Equestions]

@drcraigvideos For those that want to use this argument I'll bet they don't reply since this video apparently doesn't exist!