Deconstructing the Kalam Cosmological Fallacies

(Hey folks. Sorry I took so long to come out with a new video, but I took some time to convert one of my screenplays into a novel, plus I had a death in the family to deal with.)

This video is my take on the whole Kalam cosmological argument, deconstructing it to show how nearly every claim it makes is either a fallacy or simply an error of fact.

My thanks to SisyphusRedeemed for the term "Kalam cosmological fallacy."

REFERENCES:

Explanations of cosmological arguments:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Explanation of the Kalam cosmological argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

Mapping out the Kalam cosmological argument:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1212

Discovery of math supporting the existence of parallel universes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3307757/Parallel-universe-pro...

Mathematical models suggest that singularities may contain other universes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-...

String theory and parallel universes:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-parallel-uni...

Quantum theory and multiple universes:
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553805371

The metaverse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaverse

Arguments for the metaverse:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/07/metaverses.php

Varying the constants of the universe:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/03/11/intelligent-design-varying-the-constant...

The appearance of fine-tuning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Vacuum fluctuations:
http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm

An uncaused universe:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

Virtual world gods:
http://www.complex.com/video-games/2011/05/10-favorite-gods-in-games

Polytheistic religions of fictional game worlds:
http://arcana.wikidot.com/fantasy-religions

Do we live in a virtual world?:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• fallacy
• fallacies
• theism
• theist
• atheism
• atheist
• god
• religion
• bible
• jesus
• william
• lane
• craig
• creationism
• intelligent design
• darwin
• evolution

[Godisyourmaster]

This is by far the worst and most dishonest attempt to refute this argument that I have ever seen in my life. For one thing, it does not refute the massive ammount of evidence that points towards the big bang being creation from absolutely nothing. In addition to that, you know that nothing can create something, only something can create something. The cause must be timeless and spaceless, and only God fits that requirement. A singularity is not a thing, it is merely a boundary.

[Underlings]

@Godisyourmaster Not ONE thing I've presented is dishonest. I researched and verified each claim.

The evidence we have is that the universe apparently emerged from the quantum vacuum (which is not nothing and could be eternal) without any evident cause. Saying nothing can't create something is an "appeal to intuition" fallacy, and since we cannot observe beyond the limits of our universe, we CANNOT say the universe came from nothing. There is no need to resort to supernatural hypotheses.

[Underlings]

@Godisyourmaster Furthermore, as I point out in my video, a timeless, spaceless thing would be mindless, which better fits a simple natural phenomenon like the quantum vacuum or gravity or even mathematics than an all-powerful being who frets about what people do with their genitals.

A singularity is a location, which is a thing (i.e., a noun). If the best you can do is argue semantics, I can live with that. ;-)

[Underlings]

@Godisyourmaster There, now you can't complain that I haven't responded to your posts. ;-)

[Underlings]

@devdissent It could just be a semantics issue. In my research (sources in the crotch bar) I've seen the terms many worlds and multiverse used as one being a subset of the other. But in this video I refer to "parallel universes" and the "totality of existence" grouped together under the term "metaverse," without defining their relationship. The intent isn't to conflate the two, but to create a blanket inclusiveness for what's meant by "the universe" used in the KCA.

[devdissent]

@Underlings That's the thing, it's not a subset except in an extremely loose sense where we say "both postulate the existence of many universes". The Many worlds interpretation, has little to do with cosmology or the fundamental constants of physics;; it's postulated in order to remove the randomness and action at a distance of quantum mechanics

[Underlings]

@devdissent Thank you.

Hmm, I apologize if I made a mistake...but as I understand it the many worlds hypothesis is a subset of the multiverse hypothesis. They're not entirely synonymous, but did I imply they were? If so, could you point out where?

I used the term "metaverse" in an attempt to avoid confusion, but perhaps I didn't succeed.

[devdissent]

Excellent video, but you seem to confuse the multiverse hypothesis with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, those two are different things.

[HarshColby]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper "Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists." is not an argument.