Simply, by inserting "who are born", you implicitly assume there are humans who are unborn, thus forcing the conclusion. Remove it, and you end with the conclusion "Humanity had parents", which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. In the same exact way, by saying "whatever begins to exist", you assume that there are thing which don't begin to exist...
The Kalam cosmological argument is to refute every single scientific "theory" claiming there is an infinite past or some odd mechanism to begin in a non personal way.
As a deductive argument, it concludes that the cause of the universe MUST BE personal. I don't care if you think its begging the question (it isn't). As long as you recognize that single uncaused first cause of he universe, we don't care. Call it Allah or space aliens for all I care.
This video itself is dishonest. William Lane Craig has said that the Kalam argument is only to show the universe has a cause. He then argues why that cause must be personal, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Craig has explicitly stated this in MANY debates. He even said this at the debate where Dawkins never showed up at Oxford. Again, this video is dishonest because Craig NEVER fallaciously concludes from the Kalam alone, that God exists.
The intuitive leap involved in the Kalam has been admitted by Craig himself, and he has a separate argument arguing why this 'cuase' must be a personal force.
You suck at philosophy. Give it up. Your voice is unspeakably irritating. At least back up off the microphone a little bit. If I heard you say "Sorry!" one more time, I might have had to punch a kitten.
Well that's what believers in the whole range of gods and goddesses and fairies and spirits say - they know for a fact that theirs is true. Pretty useless criterion.
@dekelt I was being a little facetious. .This argument has to many extrapolations , presumptions and assumptions to even consider seriously.Science only states that everything was a singularity not that it had a begining. And no serious science states the universe could not be infinite .
@crkerdreads Well, I don't think it is a really strong argument for God per se, but in its commonly stated form it has no presumption or assumptions at all, besides the premises.
And that the universe is not eternal can be proven (e.g.) simply by the second law of thermodynamics. The total entropy always increases, so if the universe were infinitely old, entropy would have to be maximally great, which it isn't.
@dekelt I completely agree with you. A LOT OF people forgot this. A maximun entropy implies the incapacity of the interchange of matter and energy(i.e death of the universe)
lol....i see a massive fail on the atheist rager here....what craig said is whatever began to exist has a cause and the universe exists so therefore it has a cause. people fail to see that because the universe had to begin to exist and the only being that fits the category of not having to begin is GOD, so craig just says that its rational to believe GOD was the cause....
There is no scientific evidence that the Universe began to exist. So the second premise is false. Since the second premise is not scientifically confirmed.
@Falcondick69 Or not, the reply to that question is irrelevant. The cosmological argument is ambiguous and that makes it fail regardless of what really happened.
@Falcondick69 You cannot smuggle in that "the only being that fits the category of having to beign is GOD". "God" is a concept, a definition. It begs the question to say that it fits. Where is the evidence for this concept being real?
@Falcondick69 Where did i say "natural"? You're the one saying a god is "a being". So how are you going to avoid begging the question about it's existence?
It's like saying: 1. Fairies take things, 2. I have lost something, 3. a fairy took it. So this doesn't beg the question about the existence of fairies?
@Falcondick69 In any case, we don't have any experience of things beginning to exist. We only have experience of matter/energy changing form. So neither the first or second premises have any basis in reality. When there was no matter, there was no time, so ther is no appeal to infinite time in the past.
@dbes02 so you are saying that nothing ever began to exist? and that the universe has always existed. and there is an appeal to an infinite time in the past on your view because you think everything has existed forever.
@Falcondick69 Where is there a beginning? All we see are changes in states. Meanwhile, bringing up a supernatural critter is question begging -- the pitiful god fo the gaps.
@dbes02 well you said there was a beggining, but then you said there isn't, so pick a side, and there is no GOD of the gaps, proof of GOD is everywhere
How do they come to the conclusion that god is intelligent and sentient? Or omnipotent? What if the "cause" was a multitude of uncaused and unintelligent forces that created the universe and exhausted all of it's power in the process? The Kalam argument doesn't give any information about the nature of god.
Even if we grant the first two premises, all WLC has done is demonstrated that the universe exists. He then has to make a gigantic (excuse the pun) leap of faith to assert that a god (and conveniently, HIS version of the Christian god) exists and is the cause of the universe.
Further, (again, granting the two premises) even if we accept his conclusion, then we are forced to ask: "What caused his god?" For, if EVERYTHING requires a cause, then his god is not excluded from that premise.
@wuphat Are you serious? The conclusion to KCA is "the universe has a cause", not the universe exists. And its not a leap of faith to concluse that the cause of the universe is God. This comes from conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe (eg. the universe is material, therefore the cause of the unviverse must be immaterial, etc.). And no, you are not forced to ask what caused God, for the first premise is what ever BEGINS to exist has a cause. Grab a clue dude.
Why is the Universe just material, when Laws of Science exist in the Universe. Math, which is not material, exists in the Universe. As well as abstractions like ideas or Hobgoblins.
Craig's conclusion to the Kalam is that a timeless, space less mind had to create the universe. To rebut this, why doesn't anyone ever argue that mind is a product of the brain? If this is the case (which it is in light of neuroscience) then a timeless, space less, changeless mind cannot exist. God would have to have a brain. A brain has to function in a material universe. (furthermore a brain has to evolve)
@japonizieify But Craig never provides any evidence that his God superceeds time or space, just asserts it as any other theist does. When reading the text he defends, God is very much constrained by time and space. Not only that, he contradicts his own argument by granting privileges to his own belief. The universe needs a creator because it's so complex, oh yeah, except for this even more complex being. Argument from complexity, Kalam Cosm. in a different suit, fails when pushed further.
@SSJAzzhole4 "The universe needs a creator because it's so complex, oh yeah, except for this even more complex being."
This is just another way of phrasing my objection. Mind is a product of brain. Brain is Complex. Brain is an endproduct of evolution. God must have evolved. (Of course, we have absolutely no evidence for such a proposition). To conclude - a timeless, spaceless, changeless mind cannot exist. Mind is a product of brain and it has to function in a material world
The most ridiculous thing is that even if one takes it to be true it does not prove any kind of god or gods. It just states that the universe was caused by something, but causation requires time to already exist. If time is absent then causality cannot exist. The universe has always existed.
You can't say all of matter and spacetime could not have begon to exist because creation ex-nihilo is impossible, for we have independent evidence for the beginning of the universe which then falsifies the claim that creation ex-nihilo is impossible.
@GGDFan777 The universe has always existed as you cannot have a cause with the absence of time. It takes time to initiate a cause then time for the effect to take place. The universe has always been here but it has a definite end. Existence as a whole has always been. God (non existence) is an impossibility.
You seem to presume that causes must always precede their effects in time. But that's patently false, u can have simultaneous causation. The proponent of the KCA maintains that God is timeless, and his act to create the universe, is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe. There is no contradiction at all.
@GGDFan777 But if he is eternal then there has to be a point in time before his action to create it. It is not just about his act in creation, but in deciding to do so. If he is mind then it is also about the process of thinking.
As the atheist philosopher Richard Carrier writes: "Time... ...can have a timeless cause. Indeed, by definition time can only have a timeless cause, since unless time has existed forever, or can begin without a cause, the only kind of cause it could ever possibly have had is a timeless cause." So the question is whether or not the universe (including space and time) in fact had a beginning or not.
Notice u merely assert that the universe has always existed forever, but the point is that scientific evidence now indicates that the universe has not existed for ever but rather came in to being at some point in the finite past. Cosmologists Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin writes in his book "Many worlds in One":
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
@GGDFan777 And did God have a beginning? And arguments don't provide evidence, if it did, lawyers would be the first thing to grab in a scientific setting.
If the evidence indicates that all of matter and spacetime did come into being then we just have to accept that creation ex-nihilo is possible, the whole point of providing evidence for the beginning of the universe is to show that creation ex-nihilo isn't impossible.
Either way even if u think the universe is all of reality, the theist might easily replace the word 'universe' with 'all of matter and spacetime' and still conclude that all of matter and spacetime had a cause.
If you say that the universe is by definition all of reality you are presupposing atheism and thus begging the question yourself. In any case the proponent of the kalam argument only maintains that the universe is all of matter and spacetime, not all of reality. You have to consider the argument on what is meant with those words by the one making the argument.
The maker of the video clearly confuses a natural law with a metaphysical principle. The law of causality is NOT a natural law that would be different if physical parameters were different, rather it's a meta-physical law that holds in all possible worlds, that something cannot come into being uncaused out of nothing. The maker of the video says nothing that makes it more plausible that things can come into being without a cause.
It's not dishonest, it doesn't claim to argue for the existence of God as you have rightly pointed out. It argues for the existence of a caused universe. END ARGUMENT.
The conclusion doesn't have to be "Therefore God exists" for it to be a valuable argument in advancing the philosophy of religion.
@HonestTechnoAtheist : there was a fairly well made video...sorry...there was a series of 5 videos that go through about 10-15 writings. Not just Josephus or Tacitus either. Other authors that criticize authors because of lack of legitimacy. He may not have been divine, but he definitely walked the earth. Do the research. It's out there. You gotta follow the smoke to find a fire.
@jordankriese There are also videos and books that say he didn't walk the earth. I am agnostic about a historical Jesus but I want actual evidence for any of his miracles. Show me someone who walks on water or brings people back to life and that will be really good evidence.
@HonestTechnoAtheist : someone throwing a gold chariot wheel off of a ship seems highly unlikely, and having the tides sweep a large number of them into the water also seems unlikey due to how well they have been scattered. And a sandstorm would have merely covered such a dense object. I don't know if the bible is 100% accurate. Not afraid to admit that some portions are wrong.
@jordankriese First of all there is zero archaeological evidence for anything in the exodus story. But the most unlikely explanation of all is that of a supernatural force holding back a trillion tons of water for X ammount of time.
@HonestTechnoAtheist : and of course you can think of a natural explanation. But the fact is...the bible says that the waters were separated, then the walls "collapsed", killing quite a few egyptian soldiers. And well...the chariot wheels could have been from some drunk egyptian riding a chariot into the dead see. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
@jordankriese So you just throw out the someone threw a chariot wheel off of a ship or that a huge sand storm blew one in. Also it is possible that some chariots did try and cross as low tide but unless you can show evidence for it being anything like what the bible describes I am afraid it is simply your opinion.
@HonestTechnoAtheist : Hercules wasn't a Demi-god. Demi-god requires a god and mortal. Who were his parents? You should have said someone like...Achilles. But hey. Jesus walked the earth, and like I said, there is a difference between knowledge and belief.
@Dhorpatan : what I was stating (on the comment that you commented on) was hardly abusive. Didn't know that relationship was an abusive word...wait. Sorry. GOD was the word that was abusive. I'll try to censor it next time :)
Hahaha! That's what I thought. That's not me saying I'm a direct realist. That's me reiterating my position, which is that the senses are mans direct contact with reality, and is one of the foundations of rational thought and knowledge. Looks like you've been refuted, as I also provided an explicit account of the Objectivist position on my comment section so as to head off your constant strawmanning, and you have not interacted with that, or defeated it.
Just so I can know you are not using a strawman argument against Objectivism again, could you point out on what video, or where is the comment that I said I'm a direct realist? Thanks.
I'm not changing my epistemology. I just don't desire to use my time going back and forth with you on something I have already logically interacted with and given a treatment on. I already told you, perception does not happen in a vacuum. For your attack on Objectivism to hold water, Objectivism would have to hold that perception happens in a vacuum. But Objectivism does not, so your position does not hold water. See my channel for a treatment of your Moon example.
Since you decided to hurl verbal abuse at me(unprovoked), it proves to me even more that the Kalam is a really dishonest argument. It's time for you to move on from my video Jordan. You have no substance or value to impart, and I don't need to put up with verbally abusive people.
@Dhorpatan : well calling something "intellectually dishonest" without even attempting to examine in detail (DETAIL) what it is really about...doesn't that make you the dishonest one? Intellectually speaking. And this just goes to show exactly how ignorant you are. And I didn't see any substance or value in this video either. Oh. More crap out of your mouth. Hmmm. I'll apply the same logic...you are a moron, which proves to me even more that scientific cosmology argument is a dishonest one.
I asked you very maturely Jordan to move on from my video, and you return to hurl more verbal abuse and childish insults. I don't want to take away your free speech. I'm asking you to not post on my video anymore, because of all your verbally abusive spewing.
I don't understand this. So when we perceive the moon DIRECTLY with our eyes, this is not directly perceived, but indirectly? That doesn't make sense. Can you explain why our direct perception of say...the Moon, with our eyes, is really indirect?
"What we perceive to be the case we do not do so in a direct way"? So, if we do not perceive things in a direct way, then in what way are things perceived? Indirectly or some other?
This is just silly. What part of that didn't you understand? Perception does not happen in a vacuum. It's that simple. So since Objectivism does not hold that perception happens in a vacuum, there is no Naive realism that you claim. Did you need me to define the word integrated for you?
Who was this greatest mind of the 20th century who converted to Theism because of the Teleological Argument. Anthony Flew? Hahaha! No, but who was it?
It's simple. All you're saying is I don't understand how the Universe could be fine tuned naturally, so God did it. The fine tuning argument for God is a joke. It's nothing but Venomfangx, Kent Hovind thinking. I don't understand how life could arise naturally, so God did it. You have no arguments for the existennce of God that are worth chicken scratch. They only work on people who already believe, or wanted to believe in God.
I didn't say arguments CAN'T be made without syllogisms. You simply evaded my response. I said the argument would not have a conclusion that is inescapable unless the conclusion is forced by modus ponens, etc.
You failed all across the board to back up your boasting and arrogance. You failed to refute Objectivism, and you failed to follow simple instructions if you decided to take up my challenge.
It's not about giving orders. I issued you a challenge because of your arrogant insolence towards Matt Dillahunty. You were free to accept the challenge or decline.But if you accept, I had my stipulations and directions. There's a reason why it needed to be in syllogistic form. Your best argument for the existence of God would only hold up if the premises force the conclusion by modus ponens, modus tollens, deduction, etc. You failed to follow the directions you were given.
Objectivism teaches that Perception does not happen in a vacuum, but is married to context, and must be integrated with the sum of knowledge, logic, and reason. This obviates your naive realism nonsense, as that seems to ignorantly presuppose that perception is not married to logic and reason, but subsists alone. You have failed to refute Objectivism and you can't even follow simple directions. I said put your best argument for theism in SYLLOGISTIC form on my page.
@CartesianTheist : Do you understand that the reasons justifying my non belief are separate from what the word "atheism" means? I have grounds for non-belief; but they don't affect the definition of the word "atheism." Micheal Martin would have no problem accepting that I, as an atheist ,do not believe in a god or gods. He wouldn't trip up on that simple definition. He would be able to accept it;then proceed in asking me to justify it-&that's another issue.Can you accept it & or no?
@CartesianTheist : I have the book, and I don't believe in a god or gods.That's what an atheist is. Your ideas about fideism are baseless. I've asked several times if you were asking for a justification for my non belief, or if you were just bent on calling me agnostic when that's simply not true. Now, are you a Muslim?
@CartesianTheist :Further more, I already told you that it means "without." Even if you used the word "no," in that sense it would be saying "no" to a theistic claim. So why is it so difficult for you to get what an atheist is? I know what I am.
@CartesianTheist :If you did, then you wouldn't keep calling me agnostic. If you can't grasp that an atheis is "without belief in a god or gods," then how can we move any further? Are you a christian? How would you like it if I kept calling you a Muslim?
@Cartesian:And in spite of your objections continued to misstate what you were? It's a dishonest tactic to do that.The definition of atheism isn't a personal one I 've constructed; anyone from the late BC Johnson to Matt Dillahunty use it. If you ask me why I'm atheist I 'll tell you; so your fidelism claim is invalid.So why do you keep calling me an agnostic when I 'm atheist?
Objectivism teaches that Perception does not happen in a vacuum, but is married to context, and must be integrated with the sum of knowledge, logic, and reason. This obviates your naive realism nonsense, as that seems to ignorantly presuppose that perception is not married to logic and reason, but subsists alone. You have failed to refute Objectivism and you can't even follow simple directions. I said put your best argument for theism in SYLLOGISTIC form on my page.
@CartesianTheist :What you can't seem to get through your thick head is that atheism is simply without a belief in god or gods.All of your silliness about making a stronger statement is just that.Do you know the difference between "positive" atheism and "negative" atheism?Do understand degrees of varying belief or disbelief? Justification for disbelief is another issue entirely. Were you asking for justification, or do you still not understand what the word "atheism" means?
@CartesianTheist :You need to learn how to read and stop watching videos, then.That's part of the issue there.I know Hitchens personally, but that's neither here nor there. I don't care what he says in a video, but I know what I believe, now are you asking or not? Because otherwise you're being obtuse. All I did was explain to you what the word"atheism" meant and why I am as such.I said nothing about me NOT having ANY worldviews on various subjects otherwise.That's another topic. Get it?
@CartesianTheist :I don't think you're interested in having a REAL discussion. I explained to you that atheism is NOT A WORLDVIEW! That doesn't mean I don't have a worldview of my own personally regarding THIS and many other things. Are you purposely being thick?I told you over and over WHAT atheism IS-Now are you asking what my beliefs are beyond what I 've told you? I explained that I am an atheist, now if you don't know what that is, what else can I tell you?
I tried to post my comment on Birdieupon's video three times. But each time I refreshed the page just recently to see if the comment took, the comment was erased. So I had to post it here. So again I state (Nah. I was occupied answering your questions about Objectivisms Theory of Perception. Get on with it.)
@CartesianTheist : I also hope you're not intentionally trying to misrepresent a philosophical position, because if so, you're not being very intellectually honest. Do you really not know the difference between a "theist" and an "a-theist?" Fideism has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH MY DISBELIEF IN THIS SINGULAR CLAIM. Keep it simple.
@confluential :We may disagree all day long with reasons for and against, but that has nothing to do with the essence. Your screen name contains the word "theist" in it, so I assume that means you believe in a god or gods. I don't, and that makes me an "a-theist." Get it? Or..... do you still think I have to say to you "There is no god," or something in order to be an atheist? I know what I believe and what I do NOT and why, just as I am sure you do as well.
@CartesianTheist : If you'd stop watching William Craig Lane then you'd know what an atheist was. I am just that. I am without a belief in a god or gods. You're really making it harder than it needs to be, and you should read MORE philosophy rather than theology to get that.
@CartesianTheist :Okay, guy, I can give you reason as to WHY I don't believe; but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION WHATSOEVER.My reasons are beside the point. Let's start again: Do you believe in a god or gods? Yes.Okay so you're a theist. Do you believe in a god or gods? No, okay so you're an atheist. Do you believe in a god or gods? I don't know.Oh, so you're an agnostic. It's really that simple.Okay?
@CartesianTheist :No, you're speaking about "positive atheism" An agnostic=agnos=Greek="not to know." Atheism= a="without theism,"that's the belief in a god or gods.I'm an atheist. I do not believe in a god or gods. There are varying degrees, but I only USED to be agnostic. I'm an atheist NOW, however.
Logic gives me a headache . If I got it right ."The universe had a cause so therefor Big Magic Guy did it" .It makes the assumption that the so called absolute logic arguments are valid beyond the expanding framework of the 3D we are part of
@CartesianTheist :Also take note that belief in evolution is not an atheistic requirement either.It's the rejection of a singular claim. I am not sure you understood what is meant by "response," because you put "grrr" &"uh hu,"but "rejection" is another word for an "answer to" or "respond to".Sometimes theists get it mixed up with something else, & sometimes atheists over-state what it means, assuming too much.It's the absence of belief to a singular claim of god-belief.Thanks.
@CartesianTheist : Exactly.It's not a worldview, & it's not an actual claim.It's a RESPONSE to one. You as a theist claim there is a"god" or "gods", right? Atheism=a- theism, is one possible response to that claim.Let me make it simple: I have a purple elf down my pants. You: I don't believe you. See? Simple as that. You're not claiming to KNOW I don't have an elf down my pants, you're not DENYING I have an elf down my pants, or offering an alternative. You just don't believe my claim. Simple.
@Funkyflorist : It's actually "a"(without) or "no gods", but English translates differently.Consider a-moral= without morals.. The "no gods" is just a rejection of the theistic claim. It doesn't mean the same thing as an assertion of a claim. I have also seen the Greek 'Atheos' mean "without." Where did you find it meant "no?"
I don't think I've shifted the burden of proof in any of my statements.
Even with a question like "How does God create something out of nothing?"
I and anyone else would have to say, "I don't know, that happened about 12 billion years ago." Admittedly there are many well established theories in science that are not 'fully known'.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask for justification from any point of view that is authoritatively stated.
@CartesianTheist : I don't see eternal metaphysical laws outside of space-time, as an atheist, that's correct. I don't see evidence for ANYTHING REAL existing outside of time and space.
The Universe is made up of material. You assert that this material began to exist due to a reconfiguration of preexisting material. How was that material reconfigured and what scientific theories support it?
I laid down a challenge to you on my channel and Atheismisthetruth's channel, because I was frankly floored at your laughing disrespect of Matt Dillahunty. If you accept, get it done. If you back down, I'll understand(*cough cowardice cough*). You talk big against Atheism. Can you back it up?
Your assertions sound faulty, correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like this;
1-The Universe could only have a beginning in the sense of a reconfiguration of pre-existing material.
2-Therefore it does NOT necessitate God....
Honestly its completely bizarre, The Big Bang Theory, Entropy, and Accelerated Expansion of the Universe all soundly DENY your assertion (in every sense we know about the beginning of existing material...)
2-If the Universe had no beginning, it would not had been created.
3-Therefore God does not exist...
The universe needs to have a beginning for God to have created it.
The Kalam argument would HAVE to be true for God to exist, if it is not true, then there is no reason to worship any entity 'claiming' to have created it.
This was actually a CENTRAL argument for atheism for many generations.
"The Universe has always existed, God didnt create it!"
I'm actually more convinced that the Kalam argument supports the existence of God after watching this video.
You have not disproven the Premises, you have only used ad hominem remarks to claim them to be false, you have not addressed them directly.
You should have raised a better issue such as; "We don't know what caused the Universe." or "How do you know that God existed before the Universe?" (answer to that is actually it would require an infinite series of events to cause the Big Bang)
What part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for the existence of God, don't you understand? So asking me to disprove the premises of the Kalam, and if I DON'T, that's supposed to prove God.....is DISHONEST. The syllogisms don't not have anything to do with proving God exists. So it's dishonest to present it as such, and if an Atheist fails to refute the premises, you're supposed to win. Nope. Sorry, that fails.
Did you not comprehend the arguments in my video? You are wasting my time. The Universe could have a beginning, but only in the sense of everything we know having a beginning, which is reconfiguration of pre-existing material. So the Universe could have a beginning, and it still would NOT deductively or otherwise, necessitate God.
You make the assumption that the universe is/ is not like existence in how we think of it metaphysically.
Lets work with your statement; "everything we know having a beginning, which is reconfiguration of pre-existing material."
I assume you mean material on the atomic level regarding neutrons, electrons, etc. From the study of the Big Bang we KNOW (real, objectively) that all 'material' in the universe receded to a concentrated...
...concentrated point in space. This is further corroborated by Edwin Hubble. Research in atomic physics also shows that this material IS NOT ETERNAL. The atomic structure will degrade in trillions of years. Meaning that the 'material' our universe / reality is composed of is not continual.
I also find it odd that you completely ignore entropy and the accelerated expansion of the universe. I'm getting even more convinced that the Kalam argument is true...
@Funkyflorist "Meaning that the 'material' our universe / reality is composed of is not continual."
Except that our universe is not composed of material. Even in the absence of matter you have spacetime, which is the median in which matter-energy exists. Space-time itself potentially resides in another median. The totality of existence is a hypothetical median that always existed. It would also include any hypothetical gods.
Exactly. If a person has warrant to deny that the Universe is by definition all of space-time reality, then the Kalam is useless, and trying to argue it to prove God is useless. You got it~!
Exactly. If a person has warrant to deny that the Universe is by definition all of space-time reality, then the Kalam is useless, and trying to argue it to prove God is useless. You got it~!
There is no need to disprove the premises. The premises have nothing to do with proving God or theism. That's the main point of the video. That the Kalam is a dishonest argument, since theists like you dishonestly ask Atheists to disprove the Premises, and if they don't, that's supposed to mean God exists or some other theistic conclusion. But that's dishonest since the premises of the Kalam are not theistic. Also, your constant refrain that I use Ad Hominem is getting tiring.
@Dhorpatan : we are asking you to answer the premises, mostly because we want to see your take on "believing that you have a cause". Do you have a cause? Was it just to die? Why are you here? The cause of the Universe was to support life. Simple. This ties into one of the other arguments (shown in this video actually) based upon the improbability of the Universe being able to sustain life. Which DOES come to the conclusion that God exists.
@jordankriese Why does everything have to have a purpose with theists? Can't stuff just exist for no reason. That is all it is with theists they want their to be a higher purpose in life. I am simply content to go through life and then die at the end.
@HonestTechnoAtheist : lousy excuse for a life (sorry if the truth hurts). The argument states that things that begin to exist have a cause. Can you refute it? And to be honest, I've seen plenty of atheists that believe that they have a purpose in life. Your answer is probably the laziest answer that I have ever seen.
Anti-Kalam Cosmological Argument:
P1: There are causes within the universe.
P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.
P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.
P4: There is no logical reason to claim the universe had a cause.
theBartone9119 2 days ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 3 days ago
The Kalam in a nutshell:
1- Humans who are born have parents
2- The sum Total of Humanity was born
3- Humanity had parents, who are unborn
Simply, by inserting "who are born", you implicitly assume there are humans who are unborn, thus forcing the conclusion. Remove it, and you end with the conclusion "Humanity had parents", which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. In the same exact way, by saying "whatever begins to exist", you assume that there are thing which don't begin to exist...
devdissent 3 weeks ago
Good video. Well done. We must keep putting Creationists in their place.
nickmorrison111 1 month ago
What the hell is this guy talking about?
The Kalam cosmological argument is to refute every single scientific "theory" claiming there is an infinite past or some odd mechanism to begin in a non personal way.
As a deductive argument, it concludes that the cause of the universe MUST BE personal. I don't care if you think its begging the question (it isn't). As long as you recognize that single uncaused first cause of he universe, we don't care. Call it Allah or space aliens for all I care.
domokunroxj00 1 month ago
This video itself is dishonest. William Lane Craig has said that the Kalam argument is only to show the universe has a cause. He then argues why that cause must be personal, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Craig has explicitly stated this in MANY debates. He even said this at the debate where Dawkins never showed up at Oxford. Again, this video is dishonest because Craig NEVER fallaciously concludes from the Kalam alone, that God exists.
ex0gen 1 month ago
The intuitive leap involved in the Kalam has been admitted by Craig himself, and he has a separate argument arguing why this 'cuase' must be a personal force.
You suck at philosophy. Give it up. Your voice is unspeakably irritating. At least back up off the microphone a little bit. If I heard you say "Sorry!" one more time, I might have had to punch a kitten.
stallion4life 2 months ago
as soon as he started talking i knew he was black lol
TopBillionCMG 4 months ago
Well that's what believers in the whole range of gods and goddesses and fairies and spirits say - they know for a fact that theirs is true. Pretty useless criterion.
dbes02 4 months ago
What I always thought was funny is theist use this argument as proof of God when you follow the line of reasoning it would prove God does NOT exist.
P1:Everything that exists had a cause.
P2:God did not have a cause.
C:Therefore God does not exist.
crkerdreads 4 months ago 2
@crkerdreads You changed the first premise.
Noone has argued that "Everything that exists had a cause"
it should be "Everything that BEGINS TO exists had a cause"
please note that the argument only applies to temporal things not to eternal things.
It does not apply to God, because God is eternal.
It also wouldn't apply to the universe if it were eternal; problem is, science indicates that the universe cannot be eternal.
dekelt 4 months ago
@dekelt I was being a little facetious. .This argument has to many extrapolations , presumptions and assumptions to even consider seriously.Science only states that everything was a singularity not that it had a begining. And no serious science states the universe could not be infinite .
crkerdreads 4 months ago
@crkerdreads Well, I don't think it is a really strong argument for God per se, but in its commonly stated form it has no presumption or assumptions at all, besides the premises.
And that the universe is not eternal can be proven (e.g.) simply by the second law of thermodynamics. The total entropy always increases, so if the universe were infinitely old, entropy would have to be maximally great, which it isn't.
dekelt 4 months ago
@dekelt The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, if the universe were infinite it wouldn't be a closed system.
crkerdreads 4 months ago
@dekelt I completely agree with you. A LOT OF people forgot this. A maximun entropy implies the incapacity of the interchange of matter and energy(i.e death of the universe)
SASSJMSCBC 3 months ago
lol....i see a massive fail on the atheist rager here....what craig said is whatever began to exist has a cause and the universe exists so therefore it has a cause. people fail to see that because the universe had to begin to exist and the only being that fits the category of not having to begin is GOD, so craig just says that its rational to believe GOD was the cause....
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69
There is no scientific evidence that the Universe began to exist. So the second premise is false. Since the second premise is not scientifically confirmed.
Dhorpatan 4 months ago
@Dhorpatan so you dont believe the big bang happened and that the universe is eternal
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69
Yeah, the Big Bang happened. What does that have to do with the Universe having a beginning?
Dhorpatan 4 months ago
@Dhorpatan so you think matter energy time and space was before the big bang?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69
Yep.
Dhorpatan 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 Or not, the reply to that question is irrelevant. The cosmological argument is ambiguous and that makes it fail regardless of what really happened.
foroparapente 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 You cannot smuggle in that "the only being that fits the category of having to beign is GOD". "God" is a concept, a definition. It begs the question to say that it fits. Where is the evidence for this concept being real?
dbes02 4 months ago
@dbes02 so you are asking for natural evidence of a supernatural being?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 Where did i say "natural"? You're the one saying a god is "a being". So how are you going to avoid begging the question about it's existence?
It's like saying: 1. Fairies take things, 2. I have lost something, 3. a fairy took it. So this doesn't beg the question about the existence of fairies?
dbes02 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 In any case, we don't have any experience of things beginning to exist. We only have experience of matter/energy changing form. So neither the first or second premises have any basis in reality. When there was no matter, there was no time, so ther is no appeal to infinite time in the past.
dbes02 4 months ago
@dbes02 so you are saying that nothing ever began to exist? and that the universe has always existed. and there is an appeal to an infinite time in the past on your view because you think everything has existed forever.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 No matter, no time, no appeal to infinite time. Give up on your straw man.
dbes02 4 months ago
@dbes02 no matter, no time? so the universe did have a beggining under you view?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 Where is there a beginning? All we see are changes in states. Meanwhile, bringing up a supernatural critter is question begging -- the pitiful god fo the gaps.
dbes02 4 months ago
@dbes02 well you said there was a beggining, but then you said there isn't, so pick a side, and there is no GOD of the gaps, proof of GOD is everywhere
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 I didn't say anything about beginning. All we see are changes of state. Again all you do is beg the question about gods.
dbes02 4 months ago
@dbes02 scroll down and you mentioned the world had an origin, what question am i begging by saying that GOD exists?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 If we look at where things are derived from other things -- where do we get back to absolutely nothing?
Begging the question, as in assuming the initial point, as in fairies explain how my sock disappeared.
dbes02 4 months ago
@dbes02 so you believe in faries?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
Comment removed
dbes02 4 months ago
Comment removed
dbes02 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 That's what "proof for god is everywhere" boils down to -- beggin the question
dbes02 4 months ago
@dbes02 well I know GOD exists as a fact, so good luck to you : ]
Falcondick69 4 months ago
Very good video! Right to the point!
ToisanWC 5 months ago
"Yup", to the channel owner, this is a well written/spoken clarification, "I hope people 'get it'."
doceigen 6 months ago
How do they come to the conclusion that god is intelligent and sentient? Or omnipotent? What if the "cause" was a multitude of uncaused and unintelligent forces that created the universe and exhausted all of it's power in the process? The Kalam argument doesn't give any information about the nature of god.
HorrorIllogium 8 months ago in playlist Theistic Argument Refutations
Excellent Video. Very well argued. Thumbs up!
TheCelticChimp 8 months ago
You put dictionary definitions as support for your argument ?
How much veracity is in that?
vicachcoup 10 months ago
Even if we grant the first two premises, all WLC has done is demonstrated that the universe exists. He then has to make a gigantic (excuse the pun) leap of faith to assert that a god (and conveniently, HIS version of the Christian god) exists and is the cause of the universe.
Further, (again, granting the two premises) even if we accept his conclusion, then we are forced to ask: "What caused his god?" For, if EVERYTHING requires a cause, then his god is not excluded from that premise.
wuphat 10 months ago
@wuphat
It's not EVERYTHING require a cause; but Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. God is conceived as not having a beginning.
Dhorpatan 10 months ago
@Dhorpatan I see the distinction he makes, now.
Well, since he can use a non-sequitur, so can I, right?
The universe needs no cause.
wuphat 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dhorpatan
"Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause"
this is relevant to things In existence, it does not follow that it's relevant to existence itself, which the universe may well be.
the kalam argument assumes existence goes beyond the universe, meaning it's a circular argument - it assumes what it argues right from the start.
as such, I don't accept premises 1 or 2, for numerous reasons.
gavsmith1980 10 months ago
@wuphat Are you serious? The conclusion to KCA is "the universe has a cause", not the universe exists. And its not a leap of faith to concluse that the cause of the universe is God. This comes from conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe (eg. the universe is material, therefore the cause of the unviverse must be immaterial, etc.). And no, you are not forced to ask what caused God, for the first premise is what ever BEGINS to exist has a cause. Grab a clue dude.
StuartsIdeas 6 months ago
@StuartsIdeas
Why is the Universe just material, when Laws of Science exist in the Universe. Math, which is not material, exists in the Universe. As well as abstractions like ideas or Hobgoblins.
Dhorpatan 6 months ago
Craig's conclusion to the Kalam is that a timeless, space less mind had to create the universe. To rebut this, why doesn't anyone ever argue that mind is a product of the brain? If this is the case (which it is in light of neuroscience) then a timeless, space less, changeless mind cannot exist. God would have to have a brain. A brain has to function in a material universe. (furthermore a brain has to evolve)
japonizieify 11 months ago
@japonizieify But Craig never provides any evidence that his God superceeds time or space, just asserts it as any other theist does. When reading the text he defends, God is very much constrained by time and space. Not only that, he contradicts his own argument by granting privileges to his own belief. The universe needs a creator because it's so complex, oh yeah, except for this even more complex being. Argument from complexity, Kalam Cosm. in a different suit, fails when pushed further.
SSJAzzhole4 11 months ago
@SSJAzzhole4 "The universe needs a creator because it's so complex, oh yeah, except for this even more complex being."
This is just another way of phrasing my objection. Mind is a product of brain. Brain is Complex. Brain is an endproduct of evolution. God must have evolved. (Of course, we have absolutely no evidence for such a proposition). To conclude - a timeless, spaceless, changeless mind cannot exist. Mind is a product of brain and it has to function in a material world
japonizieify 11 months ago
but what was god doing before he felt like creating something? chilling up there in space for awhile? ahah! gotcha, i win
SlutSmasher66 1 year ago
why does premise 1 have to be true? this is the problem with the Kalam argument.
philaboston 1 year ago
The most ridiculous thing is that even if one takes it to be true it does not prove any kind of god or gods. It just states that the universe was caused by something, but causation requires time to already exist. If time is absent then causality cannot exist. The universe has always existed.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Are you suggesting that the KCA proves the universe has a cause?
benwantstosk8 1 year ago
You can't say all of matter and spacetime could not have begon to exist because creation ex-nihilo is impossible, for we have independent evidence for the beginning of the universe which then falsifies the claim that creation ex-nihilo is impossible.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
@GGDFan777
Most of what you wrote was bunk. But specifically, what independent evidence do you have that all of matter and space-time had an ABSOLUTE beginning?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
Comment removed
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
@GGDFan777 The universe has always existed as you cannot have a cause with the absence of time. It takes time to initiate a cause then time for the effect to take place. The universe has always been here but it has a definite end. Existence as a whole has always been. God (non existence) is an impossibility.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289
You seem to presume that causes must always precede their effects in time. But that's patently false, u can have simultaneous causation. The proponent of the KCA maintains that God is timeless, and his act to create the universe, is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe. There is no contradiction at all.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
@GGDFan777 But if he is eternal then there has to be a point in time before his action to create it. It is not just about his act in creation, but in deciding to do so. If he is mind then it is also about the process of thinking.
Fishqueen1972 9 months ago
As the atheist philosopher Richard Carrier writes: "Time... ...can have a timeless cause. Indeed, by definition time can only have a timeless cause, since unless time has existed forever, or can begin without a cause, the only kind of cause it could ever possibly have had is a timeless cause." So the question is whether or not the universe (including space and time) in fact had a beginning or not.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
Notice u merely assert that the universe has always existed forever, but the point is that scientific evidence now indicates that the universe has not existed for ever but rather came in to being at some point in the finite past. Cosmologists Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin writes in his book "Many worlds in One":
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
GGDFan777 1 year ago
@GGDFan777 And did God have a beginning? And arguments don't provide evidence, if it did, lawyers would be the first thing to grab in a scientific setting.
SSJAzzhole4 11 months ago
@Luigi84289
U then say that God is an impossibility, again without any argument. I challenge u to provide any logically valid and sound argument for this claim.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
@GGDFan777 Which God? All powerful, all knowing, AND all loving?
SSJAzzhole4 11 months ago
If the evidence indicates that all of matter and spacetime did come into being then we just have to accept that creation ex-nihilo is possible, the whole point of providing evidence for the beginning of the universe is to show that creation ex-nihilo isn't impossible.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
Either way even if u think the universe is all of reality, the theist might easily replace the word 'universe' with 'all of matter and spacetime' and still conclude that all of matter and spacetime had a cause.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
If you say that the universe is by definition all of reality you are presupposing atheism and thus begging the question yourself. In any case the proponent of the kalam argument only maintains that the universe is all of matter and spacetime, not all of reality. You have to consider the argument on what is meant with those words by the one making the argument.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
The maker of the video clearly confuses a natural law with a metaphysical principle. The law of causality is NOT a natural law that would be different if physical parameters were different, rather it's a meta-physical law that holds in all possible worlds, that something cannot come into being uncaused out of nothing. The maker of the video says nothing that makes it more plausible that things can come into being without a cause.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
It's not dishonest, it doesn't claim to argue for the existence of God as you have rightly pointed out. It argues for the existence of a caused universe. END ARGUMENT.
The conclusion doesn't have to be "Therefore God exists" for it to be a valuable argument in advancing the philosophy of religion.
othellopiano 1 year ago
he first premise is just so obviously false! How can people continue to think that way in a world with both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
HConstantine 1 year ago
Maybe you are just assuming that the argument is to prove god exists, it is evidence for a creator.
2VAproductions 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist : there was a fairly well made video...sorry...there was a series of 5 videos that go through about 10-15 writings. Not just Josephus or Tacitus either. Other authors that criticize authors because of lack of legitimacy. He may not have been divine, but he definitely walked the earth. Do the research. It's out there. You gotta follow the smoke to find a fire.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese There are also videos and books that say he didn't walk the earth. I am agnostic about a historical Jesus but I want actual evidence for any of his miracles. Show me someone who walks on water or brings people back to life and that will be really good evidence.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist : someone throwing a gold chariot wheel off of a ship seems highly unlikely, and having the tides sweep a large number of them into the water also seems unlikey due to how well they have been scattered. And a sandstorm would have merely covered such a dense object. I don't know if the bible is 100% accurate. Not afraid to admit that some portions are wrong.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese First of all there is zero archaeological evidence for anything in the exodus story. But the most unlikely explanation of all is that of a supernatural force holding back a trillion tons of water for X ammount of time.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Whoops. Mistake. He was a demigod. My bad
jordankriese 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist : and of course you can think of a natural explanation. But the fact is...the bible says that the waters were separated, then the walls "collapsed", killing quite a few egyptian soldiers. And well...the chariot wheels could have been from some drunk egyptian riding a chariot into the dead see. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese So you just throw out the someone threw a chariot wheel off of a ship or that a huge sand storm blew one in. Also it is possible that some chariots did try and cross as low tide but unless you can show evidence for it being anything like what the bible describes I am afraid it is simply your opinion.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist : Hercules wasn't a Demi-god. Demi-god requires a god and mortal. Who were his parents? You should have said someone like...Achilles. But hey. Jesus walked the earth, and like I said, there is a difference between knowledge and belief.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese I thought Herc was a product of Zeus and a mortal woman named Alcmene. At least that was my understanding...
matchu4444 1 year ago
@matchu4444 :yeah. I said it was a mistake just afterwards. My bad lol.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese Do you have evidence that Jesus walked the earth. Evidence that hasn't been tampered with preferably.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan : what I was stating (on the comment that you commented on) was hardly abusive. Didn't know that relationship was an abusive word...wait. Sorry. GOD was the word that was abusive. I'll try to censor it next time :)
jordankriese 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Hahaha! That's what I thought. That's not me saying I'm a direct realist. That's me reiterating my position, which is that the senses are mans direct contact with reality, and is one of the foundations of rational thought and knowledge. Looks like you've been refuted, as I also provided an explicit account of the Objectivist position on my comment section so as to head off your constant strawmanning, and you have not interacted with that, or defeated it.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Just so I can know you are not using a strawman argument against Objectivism again, could you point out on what video, or where is the comment that I said I'm a direct realist? Thanks.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I'm not changing my epistemology. I just don't desire to use my time going back and forth with you on something I have already logically interacted with and given a treatment on. I already told you, perception does not happen in a vacuum. For your attack on Objectivism to hold water, Objectivism would have to hold that perception happens in a vacuum. But Objectivism does not, so your position does not hold water. See my channel for a treatment of your Moon example.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Objectivism does not entail Naive realism. Stop using strawman arguments.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
'When did he tear down his strawman?'
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan : wow. You are ignorant. REALLY ignorant aren't you? Read the rest of the comment.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese
Since you decided to hurl verbal abuse at me(unprovoked), it proves to me even more that the Kalam is a really dishonest argument. It's time for you to move on from my video Jordan. You have no substance or value to impart, and I don't need to put up with verbally abusive people.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan : well calling something "intellectually dishonest" without even attempting to examine in detail (DETAIL) what it is really about...doesn't that make you the dishonest one? Intellectually speaking. And this just goes to show exactly how ignorant you are. And I didn't see any substance or value in this video either. Oh. More crap out of your mouth. Hmmm. I'll apply the same logic...you are a moron, which proves to me even more that scientific cosmology argument is a dishonest one.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese
I asked you very maturely Jordan to move on from my video, and you return to hurl more verbal abuse and childish insults. I don't want to take away your free speech. I'm asking you to not post on my video anymore, because of all your verbally abusive spewing.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I don't understand this. So when we perceive the moon DIRECTLY with our eyes, this is not directly perceived, but indirectly? That doesn't make sense. Can you explain why our direct perception of say...the Moon, with our eyes, is really indirect?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
"What we perceive to be the case we do not do so in a direct way"? So, if we do not perceive things in a direct way, then in what way are things perceived? Indirectly or some other?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
"What we perceive we clearly do not perceive directly at all."? That didn't make much sense.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
This is just silly. What part of that didn't you understand? Perception does not happen in a vacuum. It's that simple. So since Objectivism does not hold that perception happens in a vacuum, there is no Naive realism that you claim. Did you need me to define the word integrated for you?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
(Irritated sigh) What are these questions I have not answered from you about Objectivism again?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
So it was Anthony Flew you were talking about?? Hahahaha!
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Who was this greatest mind of the 20th century who converted to Theism because of the Teleological Argument. Anthony Flew? Hahaha! No, but who was it?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
It's simple. All you're saying is I don't understand how the Universe could be fine tuned naturally, so God did it. The fine tuning argument for God is a joke. It's nothing but Venomfangx, Kent Hovind thinking. I don't understand how life could arise naturally, so God did it. You have no arguments for the existennce of God that are worth chicken scratch. They only work on people who already believe, or wanted to believe in God.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
You think the Teleological Argument is a legitimate argument? All it is, is an argument from ignorance and incredulity on your part. LOL!
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I didn't say arguments CAN'T be made without syllogisms. You simply evaded my response. I said the argument would not have a conclusion that is inescapable unless the conclusion is forced by modus ponens, etc.
You failed all across the board to back up your boasting and arrogance. You failed to refute Objectivism, and you failed to follow simple instructions if you decided to take up my challenge.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
It's not about giving orders. I issued you a challenge because of your arrogant insolence towards Matt Dillahunty. You were free to accept the challenge or decline.But if you accept, I had my stipulations and directions. There's a reason why it needed to be in syllogistic form. Your best argument for the existence of God would only hold up if the premises force the conclusion by modus ponens, modus tollens, deduction, etc. You failed to follow the directions you were given.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Objectivism teaches that Perception does not happen in a vacuum, but is married to context, and must be integrated with the sum of knowledge, logic, and reason. This obviates your naive realism nonsense, as that seems to ignorantly presuppose that perception is not married to logic and reason, but subsists alone. You have failed to refute Objectivism and you can't even follow simple directions. I said put your best argument for theism in SYLLOGISTIC form on my page.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist : Do you understand that the reasons justifying my non belief are separate from what the word "atheism" means? I have grounds for non-belief; but they don't affect the definition of the word "atheism." Micheal Martin would have no problem accepting that I, as an atheist ,do not believe in a god or gods. He wouldn't trip up on that simple definition. He would be able to accept it;then proceed in asking me to justify it-&that's another issue.Can you accept it & or no?
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist : I have the book, and I don't believe in a god or gods.That's what an atheist is. Your ideas about fideism are baseless. I've asked several times if you were asking for a justification for my non belief, or if you were just bent on calling me agnostic when that's simply not true. Now, are you a Muslim?
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :Further more, I already told you that it means "without." Even if you used the word "no," in that sense it would be saying "no" to a theistic claim. So why is it so difficult for you to get what an atheist is? I know what I am.
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :If you did, then you wouldn't keep calling me agnostic. If you can't grasp that an atheis is "without belief in a god or gods," then how can we move any further? Are you a christian? How would you like it if I kept calling you a Muslim?
confluential 1 year ago
@Cartesian:And in spite of your objections continued to misstate what you were? It's a dishonest tactic to do that.The definition of atheism isn't a personal one I 've constructed; anyone from the late BC Johnson to Matt Dillahunty use it. If you ask me why I'm atheist I 'll tell you; so your fidelism claim is invalid.So why do you keep calling me an agnostic when I 'm atheist?
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Objectivism teaches that Perception does not happen in a vacuum, but is married to context, and must be integrated with the sum of knowledge, logic, and reason. This obviates your naive realism nonsense, as that seems to ignorantly presuppose that perception is not married to logic and reason, but subsists alone. You have failed to refute Objectivism and you can't even follow simple directions. I said put your best argument for theism in SYLLOGISTIC form on my page.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
Your comment also contains logical fallacies of Flamboyance and Interrogation.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :What you can't seem to get through your thick head is that atheism is simply without a belief in god or gods.All of your silliness about making a stronger statement is just that.Do you know the difference between "positive" atheism and "negative" atheism?Do understand degrees of varying belief or disbelief? Justification for disbelief is another issue entirely. Were you asking for justification, or do you still not understand what the word "atheism" means?
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :You need to learn how to read and stop watching videos, then.That's part of the issue there.I know Hitchens personally, but that's neither here nor there. I don't care what he says in a video, but I know what I believe, now are you asking or not? Because otherwise you're being obtuse. All I did was explain to you what the word"atheism" meant and why I am as such.I said nothing about me NOT having ANY worldviews on various subjects otherwise.That's another topic. Get it?
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :I don't think you're interested in having a REAL discussion. I explained to you that atheism is NOT A WORLDVIEW! That doesn't mean I don't have a worldview of my own personally regarding THIS and many other things. Are you purposely being thick?I told you over and over WHAT atheism IS-Now are you asking what my beliefs are beyond what I 've told you? I explained that I am an atheist, now if you don't know what that is, what else can I tell you?
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I tried to post my comment on Birdieupon's video three times. But each time I refreshed the page just recently to see if the comment took, the comment was erased. So I had to post it here. So again I state (Nah. I was occupied answering your questions about Objectivisms Theory of Perception. Get on with it.)
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Nah. I was occupied answering your questions about Objectivisms Theory of Perception. Get on with it.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist : I also hope you're not intentionally trying to misrepresent a philosophical position, because if so, you're not being very intellectually honest. Do you really not know the difference between a "theist" and an "a-theist?" Fideism has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH MY DISBELIEF IN THIS SINGULAR CLAIM. Keep it simple.
confluential 1 year ago
@confluential :We may disagree all day long with reasons for and against, but that has nothing to do with the essence. Your screen name contains the word "theist" in it, so I assume that means you believe in a god or gods. I don't, and that makes me an "a-theist." Get it? Or..... do you still think I have to say to you "There is no god," or something in order to be an atheist? I know what I believe and what I do NOT and why, just as I am sure you do as well.
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :Further more atheism is NOT A BELIEF. IT'S THE ABSENCE OF BELIEF. Thanks.
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist : If you'd stop watching William Craig Lane then you'd know what an atheist was. I am just that. I am without a belief in a god or gods. You're really making it harder than it needs to be, and you should read MORE philosophy rather than theology to get that.
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :Okay, guy, I can give you reason as to WHY I don't believe; but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION WHATSOEVER.My reasons are beside the point. Let's start again: Do you believe in a god or gods? Yes.Okay so you're a theist. Do you believe in a god or gods? No, okay so you're an atheist. Do you believe in a god or gods? I don't know.Oh, so you're an agnostic. It's really that simple.Okay?
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :No, you're speaking about "positive atheism" An agnostic=agnos=Greek="not to know." Atheism= a="without theism,"that's the belief in a god or gods.I'm an atheist. I do not believe in a god or gods. There are varying degrees, but I only USED to be agnostic. I'm an atheist NOW, however.
confluential 1 year ago
Logic gives me a headache . If I got it right ."The universe had a cause so therefor Big Magic Guy did it" .It makes the assumption that the so called absolute logic arguments are valid beyond the expanding framework of the 3D we are part of
Should they be ?
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist :Also take note that belief in evolution is not an atheistic requirement either.It's the rejection of a singular claim. I am not sure you understood what is meant by "response," because you put "grrr" &"uh hu,"but "rejection" is another word for an "answer to" or "respond to".Sometimes theists get it mixed up with something else, & sometimes atheists over-state what it means, assuming too much.It's the absence of belief to a singular claim of god-belief.Thanks.
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist : Exactly.It's not a worldview, & it's not an actual claim.It's a RESPONSE to one. You as a theist claim there is a"god" or "gods", right? Atheism=a- theism, is one possible response to that claim.Let me make it simple: I have a purple elf down my pants. You: I don't believe you. See? Simple as that. You're not claiming to KNOW I don't have an elf down my pants, you're not DENYING I have an elf down my pants, or offering an alternative. You just don't believe my claim. Simple.
confluential 1 year ago
@confluential
Actually Atheism comes from the Greek; 'Atheos' or 'No Gods'. 'ism' is the following of that 'belief'.
If it is supposed to be a 'rejection of a belief' then it would be written 'The-A-ism'.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist : It's actually "a"(without) or "no gods", but English translates differently.Consider a-moral= without morals.. The "no gods" is just a rejection of the theistic claim. It doesn't mean the same thing as an assertion of a claim. I have also seen the Greek 'Atheos' mean "without." Where did you find it meant "no?"
Thanks,
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist : Now let's be intellectually honest, here at what atheism is:A response to a claim.Simple as that.
confluential 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I don't think I've shifted the burden of proof in any of my statements.
Even with a question like "How does God create something out of nothing?"
I and anyone else would have to say, "I don't know, that happened about 12 billion years ago." Admittedly there are many well established theories in science that are not 'fully known'.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask for justification from any point of view that is authoritatively stated.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist : I don't see eternal metaphysical laws outside of space-time, as an atheist, that's correct. I don't see evidence for ANYTHING REAL existing outside of time and space.
confluential 1 year ago
@confluential
It for some reason will not let me post the link. I will pm it to you though if you would like.
chris62008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how you STILL avoid the premises and the argument itself, you use a bad Ad Hominem fallacy!
Example:
Veritas48 asserts the Kalam Argument.
Dhorpatan says the Kalam Argument is dishonest.
Therefore the Kalam Argument is false!?!?
It's a cookie cutter of an Ad Hominem!
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
The Universe is made up of material. You assert that this material began to exist due to a reconfiguration of preexisting material. How was that material reconfigured and what scientific theories support it?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
I don't define the Universe as being made up of Material. I define the Universe as everything that exists.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
And isn't 'everything that exists' made up of *MATERIAL*!?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I laid down a challenge to you on my channel and Atheismisthetruth's channel, because I was frankly floored at your laughing disrespect of Matt Dillahunty. If you accept, get it done. If you back down, I'll understand(*cough cowardice cough*). You talk big against Atheism. Can you back it up?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your assertions sound faulty, correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like this;
1-The Universe could only have a beginning in the sense of a reconfiguration of pre-existing material.
2-Therefore it does NOT necessitate God....
Honestly its completely bizarre, The Big Bang Theory, Entropy, and Accelerated Expansion of the Universe all soundly DENY your assertion (in every sense we know about the beginning of existing material...)
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
1-Theists assert that God created the Universe.
2-If the Universe had no beginning, it would not had been created.
3-Therefore God does not exist...
The universe needs to have a beginning for God to have created it.
The Kalam argument would HAVE to be true for God to exist, if it is not true, then there is no reason to worship any entity 'claiming' to have created it.
This was actually a CENTRAL argument for atheism for many generations.
"The Universe has always existed, God didnt create it!"
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
"The syllogisms [] have anything to do with proving God exists." -Dhorpatan
I removed your double negative.
I love how you STILL avoid the premises and the argument itself, you use a bad Ad Hominem fallacy!
Example:
Veritas48 asserts the Kalam Argument.
Dhorpatan says the Kalam Argument is dishonest.
Therefore the Kalam Argument is false!?!?
It's a cookie cutter of an Ad Hominem!
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
I'm actually more convinced that the Kalam argument supports the existence of God after watching this video.
You have not disproven the Premises, you have only used ad hominem remarks to claim them to be false, you have not addressed them directly.
You should have raised a better issue such as; "We don't know what caused the Universe." or "How do you know that God existed before the Universe?" (answer to that is actually it would require an infinite series of events to cause the Big Bang)
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
What part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for the existence of God, don't you understand? So asking me to disprove the premises of the Kalam, and if I DON'T, that's supposed to prove God.....is DISHONEST. The syllogisms don't not have anything to do with proving God exists. So it's dishonest to present it as such, and if an Atheist fails to refute the premises, you're supposed to win. Nope. Sorry, that fails.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
"The syllogisms have anything to do with proving God exists..."
I removed your double negative....
Ok, back to the argument, no more bullshit ad hom.
Your main complaint is 'it does not end with "therefore God exists." '
But let us suppose that the Kalam argument is proven FALSE. It would then be an argument AGAINST the existence of God.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
First of all, watch your cursing. Secondly, it wasn't a double negative(intentionally); I just forgot to delete the word (not).
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
Are you going to continue shirking the issue? I've actually found EARLIER versions of the Kalam argument...
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
Now you'd say; "Hey, 4 makes no connection between God and the Universe!"
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
cont.d
You would be right, there is no logical connection in the statement between God and the Universe, it is implied...
But guess what? Veritas48 did not include those last two lines (4) and (5).
So lets look at the connection deductively.
1-Theists assert that God created the Universe.
2-If the Universe had no beginning, it would not had been created.
3-Therefore God does not exist...
The universe needs to have a beginning for God to have created it.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
Did you not comprehend the arguments in my video? You are wasting my time. The Universe could have a beginning, but only in the sense of everything we know having a beginning, which is reconfiguration of pre-existing material. So the Universe could have a beginning, and it still would NOT deductively or otherwise, necessitate God.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
You've ironically begged the question yourself.
You make the assumption that the universe is/ is not like existence in how we think of it metaphysically.
Lets work with your statement; "everything we know having a beginning, which is reconfiguration of pre-existing material."
I assume you mean material on the atomic level regarding neutrons, electrons, etc. From the study of the Big Bang we KNOW (real, objectively) that all 'material' in the universe receded to a concentrated...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
cont.d
...concentrated point in space. This is further corroborated by Edwin Hubble. Research in atomic physics also shows that this material IS NOT ETERNAL. The atomic structure will degrade in trillions of years. Meaning that the 'material' our universe / reality is composed of is not continual.
I also find it odd that you completely ignore entropy and the accelerated expansion of the universe. I'm getting even more convinced that the Kalam argument is true...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist "Meaning that the 'material' our universe / reality is composed of is not continual."
Except that our universe is not composed of material. Even in the absence of matter you have spacetime, which is the median in which matter-energy exists. Space-time itself potentially resides in another median. The totality of existence is a hypothetical median that always existed. It would also include any hypothetical gods.
Raptor302 1 year ago
@Raptor302
I'm not going to break into another tangent that quivers over semantics...
If we cannot come up with a definition of 'universe' that we can all agree on, then its useless to argue over the Kalam argument.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist The universe by definition is everything that exists anywhere.
Raptor302 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
Exactly. If a person has warrant to deny that the Universe is by definition all of space-time reality, then the Kalam is useless, and trying to argue it to prove God is useless. You got it~!
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
Exactly. If a person has warrant to deny that the Universe is by definition all of space-time reality, then the Kalam is useless, and trying to argue it to prove God is useless. You got it~!
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
I'm sorry, but you construe the comments to what you want them to mean.
If we cannot come to a reasonable definition, then it is useless to 'argue or discuss' the Kalam Assertion.
It is still not fallacious, and you have not disproven its premises. You REFUSE to discuss the premises.
Dhorpatan, you use bad ad hominem, begging the question and circular reasoning.
NEVER ONCE have you disproven the premises.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
There is no need to disprove the premises. The premises have nothing to do with proving God or theism. That's the main point of the video. That the Kalam is a dishonest argument, since theists like you dishonestly ask Atheists to disprove the Premises, and if they don't, that's supposed to mean God exists or some other theistic conclusion. But that's dishonest since the premises of the Kalam are not theistic. Also, your constant refrain that I use Ad Hominem is getting tiring.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan : we are asking you to answer the premises, mostly because we want to see your take on "believing that you have a cause". Do you have a cause? Was it just to die? Why are you here? The cause of the Universe was to support life. Simple. This ties into one of the other arguments (shown in this video actually) based upon the improbability of the Universe being able to sustain life. Which DOES come to the conclusion that God exists.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese Why does everything have to have a purpose with theists? Can't stuff just exist for no reason. That is all it is with theists they want their to be a higher purpose in life. I am simply content to go through life and then die at the end.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist : lousy excuse for a life (sorry if the truth hurts). The argument states that things that begin to exist have a cause. Can you refute it? And to be honest, I've seen plenty of atheists that believe that they have a purpose in life. Your answer is probably the laziest answer that I have ever seen.
jordankriese 1 year ago