3. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Fallacy of Equivocation

[Floortjahh]

but... not all things that begin to exist have an efficient cause..

[Autumn6]

Youtube Atheists are absolutely some of the worst critics of religion on the planet. They rely on the ignorance of their followers....or people like ZOMGitsCriss and GoGreen18 rely on their looks...

[Fattycrows]

Its funny cause i dont really understand any of this but practice makes perfect... Right? :)

[sirhorsechoker]

Websites like listverse have smart-er, more articulate atheists. I'm christian but I feel like somebody has got to defend the sincere people who really are trying the best they can, who happen to be atheist at this time. Not all atheist are as lame as youtube commenters make it seem. A few of them are really listening and watching, I think....

[FALCO64125]

Craig has no idea what was happening all those billions of years ago when the universe is presumed to have began expanding with a big bang. The best picture we have of it is based on what we observe in our expanding universe which tells us that at some point in the distant past the universe must have been unimaginably small, hot and dense. We simply don't know what it was like, what/if was before, or why it expanded. Neither does WLC.

[narutardtedr]

@FALCO64125 He's arguing it's the most logical, not that he knows. I don't think you understand what deductive logic is. Now if you claim the universe always existed just in a smaller form, then your argument is void, because that means for an unaccounted time it remained intact, small, without growth, with nothing outside of it to bother it Then it suddenly exploded into everything without rhyme, reason or cause. Logically that can't happen, something must cause and be outside it.

[fatrob1711]

John Leonard you are a legend

[drcraigvideos]

@fatrob1711 LOL! I think thunderfart had something to do with it. But honestly, I would rather Craig be the legend.

[iMentieth]

@drcraigvideos I would rather Jesus...

[drcraigvideos]

@iMentieth LOL. You got me there!

[fatrob1711]

@drcraigvideos oh yes, Craig sets the standard.... but what you did...sheer quality!

[Jones103103]

@iMentieth The first premise is assuming an efficient cause not a material cause. That's what this video is about.

[iMentieth]

@Jones103103 I know... My point was that the first premise in talking about causality - it could be claimed - can only be said to apply to material things. Of course the final premise isn't about causality in terms of material things. (I think it's still a bad argument, but perhaps it is misread in this video.)

[Randomicity912]

I had a hilarious conversation with some retard called johnnyp76, who claimed that Kalam commits equivocation. Despite the fact I quoted Craig specifying what he meant by cause (i.e. efficient cause), the idiot kept on. Eventually, he changed his objection to "Kalam uses equivocal language, not the fallacy of equivocation." So, he was equivocally using two different definitions of the word equivocation, whilst complaining about equivocating! That's three levels of irony right there.

[TheSeanWilson]

@Randomicity912 INCEPTION

[CettoTheCesco]

Are you going to put one a day? :)

[drcraigvideos]

@CettoTheCesco Something like that, yeah.

[AMWOODco]

...Just when I thought the elementary logic lessons were done, someone had to prove me wrong. Then again, I've seen someone use this, though they took it one step further in something I'm sure we'll see later.

[ParadoxEternal]

It seems that some atheists have a hard time understanding a transcendent God yes. In many videoes I see an idol representing God. Surely they MUST have heard the bibles "thou shall have no image of me". Ofcourse the idol is not the cause we are talking about. We are talking about a transcendent infinite immaterial/dimensionless/nothi­ng cause. And that is what the argument in full understanding, MUST refer to aswell.

[CrashTestAuto]

@ParadoxEternal That would be why the cause referred to in the first premise is different to that in the second premise. None of the causes on which the first premise could possibly be based are transcendent, infinite, immaterial, dimensionless, or nothing. It isn't equivocation over material and efficient causes in an Aristotelian sense, but the word cause is still being used to describe two completely different things.

[LittleSn00py]

Paul Draper also made this objection.

[SaintsEdified]

Youtube atheists....smh.

[iMentieth]

I think the questioner was trying to say that the first premise tacitly assumes materiality of causality, but the conclusion does not. Still not a good critique, but I think that's what he's getting at.

*crosses fingers hoping my comment will be deemed worthy*

John, I think you're an attractive man.

[TheEuropeanWarrior]

I thought the Big Bang theory said the universe eternally existed in an incredibly dense form, and suddenly exploded several billion years ago.

[AMWOODco]

@TheEuropeanWarrior No, that's just how people sometimes interpret it, all be it incorrectly. The Big Bang theory is like the discovery of absolute zero; tracing back the expansion of the universe, we eventually reach a point in time where we get matter in a volume of zero, an impossibility. Even if we stop at the point where we get a black hole (ie escape velocity exceeding light speed), we still have the issue of time literally beginning then. Creation ex nihilo is the accepted view.