RE: Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fails (a response to antybu86)

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
459 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Oct 4, 2011

http://antybu86.blogspot.com - Antybu86 (aka Andy Tyler Burke) lies about the fact that Dr. William Lane Craig did not mention the quantum vacuum fluctuation model... when he did!

  • likes, 22 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Video Responses

This video is a response to Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fails
see all

All Comments (20)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996

  • WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.

  • How about Craig admitting that the Cosmological Argument is incoherent?

  • where does nothing come from?!?!!?

  • The KCA fails on the basic premise that if there were ever 'nothing' there would also be no philosophical or scientific principles such as causality. So it's egregious taxicabbing "These principles break down, but only in so far as it allows me to arbitrarily put my god at the beginning"

  • @lxAgnosticxl youre mixing ontological with kalam. epic fail

  • @theBartone9119

    your kinda begging the question p1) is false God is the greatest possible being he exists necessarily he can't have a beginning p2) controdicts p)1 & the conclusion doesn't follow its a terriable argument. P1) is also false because that would imply infinte regress which can't be true.

  • @lxAgnosticxl Everything that exists, has a beginning though.

    So if your theory is God doesn't have a beginning, then he cannot exist moron.

  • @theBartone9119

    what ever BEGINS TO EXIST moron

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more