RE: Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig (a Response to skydivephil)

This is GGDFan777 refutation to skydivephil's video (Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig): 5m8sE" target="_blank" title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE" rel="nofollow" dir="ltr" class="yt-uix-redirect-link">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

Atheists (like skydivephil) continue to underestimate the Kalam Cosmological argument over and over again.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• skydivephil
• GGDFan
• 777
• theism
• Christianity
• atheism
• Islam
• God
• Kalam
• Adam
• Deen
• Frank
• Turek
• Hamza
• Andreas
• Tzortzis
• Michale
• Corey
• Alan
• Guth
• Alex
• Vilenkin
• Roger
• Penrose
• cosmology
• Stephen
• Hawking
• Loop
• Quantum
• Gravity
• inflation
• BVG
• Theorem

[skydivephil]

I have posted a response . If you want to continue the discussion google "rational skepticism debunking kalam" thanks

[exposedatheists]

@skydivephil Well, in your response did you admit that you took Craig out of context? Do you admit that you were wrong about many of his points too? What about Guth and Vilenkin? Did you make any apologies them, too?

[travlr3000x]

theists (like you) continue to overestimate the Kalam Cosmological argument over and over again.

[RestrictThis5]

@ThinkerResearcher I agree. Assuming that there IS a god, is it not possible that this god created the universe unintentionally? Of course, the theists will say no, because in their minds, God is perfect and cannot make mistakes. But then, the only basis they have for saying that God is perfect is the Bible. 

[ThinkerResearcher]

Kalam is not a valid argument. I don't know why craig keeps using it. The fourth statement, "This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe", is an argument from ignorance that is impossible to prove OR disprove, which makes the argument not usable in formal logic. Same thing for "an actual infinite cannot exist". It is not provable nor disprovable, and we have no mean to know if it applies to the void of space.

[LittleSn00py]

@travlr3000x We're very scared of your empty assertions.

[brucegrenehan1]

This whole debate about the KCA just seems plain silly. It is all about arguing in the absurd. First of all, the singularity is based upon relativity physics which breaks down at the quantum level.  Nevertheless, the present community of physicists do not claim the universe had a beginning, which is the teat that Craig and his groupies suckle (to the point of collapse). The Craigians assume far too many givens (including the concept of God) without following through. Intuitive but wrong.

[LittleSn00py]

@Sweddude Thank you.

[Sweddude]

@LittleSn00py .... bravo.

[LittleSn00py]

@Sweddude Ask your mom; I gave it to her.

[Sweddude]

@LittleSn00py Then show it, i have evidence on the contrary.

[LittleSn00py]

@Sweddude Then I would say that I do.

[Stairc]

You gotta love people claiming BGV proves there was a cause.

Yeah... No.

It proves the universe's EXPANSION had to occur at some point. It doesn't prove that all matter had to pop into being. It's completely compatible with Hawking.