An Atheistic Kalam Cosmological Argument - Atheism Defended

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. stenger writes: The more recent theological claim that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin have proved that the universe had to have a beginning is also in error. Again, this theorem was derived from general relativity and so is inapplicable to the issue of origins. Furthermore, it is disputed by other authors. I asked Vilenkin personally if his theorem required a beginning. His e-mail reply: “No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.” This is exactly what a number of existing models for the uncreated origin of our universe do.
2. You just appealed to majority though....
3. WLC is not a philosopher, he is a sophist.
4. My take on this is that 'Kalam cosomological' basically just means a discussion of the universe. Ilm-kalam is just the study of discourse. If one person is preaching to a group, that isn't kalam, it's just a lecture. At least two people have to participate in order for it to be considered kalam. The style of discourse doesn't actually matter, all that really matters is the content and the evidence. This is an opinion, but I think it's fairly close to accurate.
5. Atheism- the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense  
6. Craig: Abstract objects can't cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe had to be an immaterial mind.
   
   A mind, an immaterial mind, can't cause anything either. And how does a mind exist without a brain? There are biochemical processes inside the brain that do the thinking. So how does god think if it has no neurons, synapses, biochemical processes or any matter for that matter?
7. Oh, thanks
8. yes and I hope you realise I was being sarcastic in the first comment. You should commetn that on his video
9. Yes. 1:45 he doesn't understand how communication works. 2:09 is simply false. 2:18 ad populam. 3:06 argument from ignorance. 3:15 people can look at the sky. 3:29 the authors thought the earth was flat, as shown by many other bible verses. 3:48 many other religious texts say this, most likely referring to smaller wind patterns, as it is very vague. 4:00 easy to figure out, and then it makes reference to blood sacrifices, which most christians disagree with. 4:14 Claiming proof, no actual proof.
10. did you watch the video?
11. I wish there was an emoticon to show how hard I am snickering right now.
12. Here´s "the thing"... "Part 2": This is a problem. Saying that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" implies that "something exists that did not begin to exist". The KAC makes no reference to this. So while it appears to be a valid argument it may not be a sound argument.
13. Here´s "the thing"... "Part 1": The cosmological argument relies on the ontological argument as per the next 2 quotes: 1 - "the cosmological argument depends on the ontological argument, if the latter is not cogent, neither is the former"; 2 - "So the ontological argument leading to actual existence and the cosmological argument leading to necessary existence are mutually supporting". 
14. Oh shit this video has just been uploaded by a christian fundamentalist where he prooves beyond doubt that every word of the Bible is 100% true. He shows how the world must only be 6000 years old. I was an atheist until I watched this amazing video: /watch?v=XlOLSkx_wK8&lc=8fDsAglQB1BDKPyOKQF52nPQ0IL7gHSl17Ux6xYTNzc
15. How is that “defining God into existence”, that’s a conditional statement, if ¬x is true of P then ¬Q. there's no presupposition there.
16. It is my understanding that the original Kalaam argument said that everything that exists must have a cause. But this has been updated to read: "everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause." The reason for this is important - if they say God exists, then he must have had a cause, unless he always existed. To me, the major flaw in the KLA is that "cause" can mean natural causes and conditions while to Craig it means God.
17. Of course he's cherry picking his information. He's trying to assert that a non material thing exists. If you are trying to assert that a non material thing exists, and you are using material science, then you are doing something wrong. 
18. In order for my wacky argument to work, I have to assume that it works. 
19. That is very true but we know that by inserting "everything that begins to exist has a cause." he is tailoring the argument to exclude his God from the KCA using the assumption that his God always existed. What he should first do before he continues is prove that his God has always existed. The only way he can even try to do that is to refer to scripture which is unreliable. His argument folds more in what he doesn't say, more than what he does.
20. I'm an atheist but have a bone to pick here. WLC's Kalam's first premise isn't "everything that exists has a cause," it's "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Obviously a reworking of the original cosmological argument that allows God to exist uncaused so long as we assert that he never began to exist.