Refuting the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jun 1, 2012

DISCLAIMER: I no longer subscribe to the view that logic is merely a description of our universe. I now agree with users like Dan Courtney and KnownNoMore who have pointed out that these laws are axiomatic, and even to be false, they must be true. Please disregard my arguments which employ my previous view of logic.

Here it is: my refutation of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Enjoy.
I know that the first way I present the Cosmological Argument is not the KALAM Cosmological Argument: it is, instead, an older version of the argument, which used to be called the "Prime Mover" argument. I presented this argument first as a way to frame the issue, and to explain why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is phrased the way it is.

If you're giving me shit about this, that tells me that you haven't actually looked at the history of this argument.

This video addresses:
The thought process behind the argument -- This is what I was talking about above.
The false dichotomy of God vs. nothing as the cause.
The use of the equivocation fallacy.
The use of the composition fallacy.
The misapplication of logic to the universe itself.
The misuse of the term "beginning to exist" independent of time existing.


When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...