Poor Apologetics 5: Kalam Cosmological Argument

A series of videos in which I show why the arguments which theists use
to prove God simply don't work.

This video shows the problems with the "Kalam Cosmological" argument.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• christian
• azsuperman
• atheist
• apologetics
• jesus
• kalam
• cosmological
• god
• william
• lane
• craig

[finalhaven36]

within the first minute you made a false statement. you said that Dr. Craig "everything that begins to exist has a creator" which is not true.. its actually "everything that begins has a cause" also the Kalam argument was started by Christians around 200 A.D stating the universe has a cause since it began to exist. It wasn't made into a connection to God until the Muslims made the connection.

[azsuperman01]

@finalhaven36 I misspoke, but it was actually a more honest representation of Craig's position, since he doesn't accept natural causes. The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle, the Kalam cosmological argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic philosophy. Al-Ghazali wrote one of the first versions of the argument: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."

[theBartone9119]

@mattschol "Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with each of your criticisms. However, since we only have direct knowledge of causes within the universe what makes you think that causes outside the universe are so radically different? You have no knowledge of those causes"

I don't think causes outside the universe are radically different, we don't even know if:

a) An outside the universe is possible

b) If an outside of the universe is possible, that causes can exist in it.

The KCA is baseless

[mattschol]

@theBartone9119 Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with each of your criticisms. However, since we only have direct knowledge of causes within the universe what makes you think that causes outside the universe are so radically different? You have no knowledge of those causes.

[mattschol]

@theBartone9119 1. Yes, that's what I am arguing for, do you accept the premise? 2. Yes, common sense, but do you accept the premise? 3. Yes, it does, do you accept the premise? Let me revise P2: The Universe was once a new arrangement of matter that we call the singularity. Please find fault in one of the premises or the form.

[theBartone9119]

@mattschol "This argument does not address the creation of matter but it still posits a cause for the universe so I'm happy with it"

Not really, it only posits that causes exist within the universe.

There is a huge difference between causes WITHIN the universe, and a cause OF the universe.

[theBartone9119]

@mattschol

P1: The problem with this premise is it that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trying argue that materials beginning to exist had a cause. All your argument is doing is arguing for a cause of pre-existing things being rearranged.

P2: The universe is always engaging in new rearrangements of re-existing matter, so saying it once was, is pointless.

P3: This premise only argues in favor the rearrangements of pre- existing materials having causes, not materials existence having causes.

[mattschol]

@theBartone9119 2. The Universe was once a new arrangement of matter. 3. The Universe has a cause. This argument does not address the creation of matter but it still posits a cause for the universe so I'm happy with it. If you're adopting a purely naturalistic view there are no intelligent causes at all. Our thoughts, ideas, and decisions are nothing more than electrochemical reactions(Laplace's Demon). The Kalam only proves a cause, not its characteristics.

[theBartone9119]

@mattschol *Most causes don't involve intelligence though, a wind causes the leaf to move but there is no choice/ mind involved...

(correction)