Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most dishonest theistic arguments ever made~!

This presentation is a direct response to Veritas48 and a refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument on several grounds.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Kalam Cosmological Argument
• Objectivism
• Veritas48
• Syllogisms
• timetothinkclearly
• Stuart McEwing
• Atheology
• Theology

[Falcondick69]

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....

[Dhorpatan]

@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.

[Falcondick69]

@Dhorpatan so you dont believe the big bang happened and that the universe is eternal

[Dhorpatan]

@Falcondick69

Yeah, the Big Bang happened. What does that have to do with the Universe having a beginning?

[Falcondick69]

@Dhorpatan so you think matter energy time and space was before the big bang?

[Dhorpatan]

@Falcondick69

Yep.

[devdissent]

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...

[nickmorrison111]

Good video. Well done. We must keep putting Creationists in their place.

[domokunroxj00]

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.

[ex0gen]

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.

[stallion4life]

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.

[SASSJMSCBC]

@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)

[TopBillionCMG]

as soon as he started talking i knew he was black lol

[dbes02]

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.

[crkerdreads]

@dekelt The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, if the universe were infinite it wouldn't be a closed system.

[Falcondick69]

@dbes02 well I know GOD exists as a fact, so good luck to you : ]