Atheist Destroys The "Kalam Cosmological Argument"

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Kalam does not prove God. God is not mentioned in the premise.. It cannot prove a premise it does not contain.
2. They don't address what is WRONG about the premises. At minute 9:00 they at least consider there must be an UNEXPLAINED reason! but they DON'T dare to say what it is. the KCA TELL US some of the characteristics necessary for the beginning of the UNIVERSE.
3. What is so silly about the response of the host of this show is that a toaster cannot act on its own. A toaster cannot put bread inside itself, it cannot plug itself in, nor pull down the lever to toast the bread. Therefore the argument that a toaster is just as likely to have created the universe is absurd since it is bound by all these things. The female host claiming that her soul is just as likely to have created the universe is absurd since she is bound by the time that she is living in. You cannot create something that limits you. These hosts are poking fun with illogical responses instead of seriously dealing with the argument.
4. callers argument falls apart.. very amusing lol
5. so the argument terminates with...'something caused the universe'! how did caller get a god from that! lol
6. The caller is logical and the respondents are extremely illogical. Quentin Smith who disagrees with WL Craig would also disagree with a transcendent cause but would disavow with the hilarious conclusions of this video.
7. (P1) Everything that is sentient has a cause.
   (P2) The Abrahamic god is (said to be) sentient.
   (C) Therefore the Abrahamic god has a cause.
   
   KCA, refuted...
8. Oh my gods. I love her and her toaster. Genius.
9. This was a wilful display of extreme arrogance. Last time I will watch this rubbish. I came for sound arguments against the KCA, and found disdain and self love. As for the 500 or so who like this, you either are shills, very stupid, very easily pleased by your "team" badge that you parade around, or just fucking tossers.
10. You know what, these fucking atheists are more than fucking irritating.
11. These are two fucking idiots. A toaster is a physical objects created by a mind. Toaster can't create itself, it was made by a mind, it can't produce toast unless a mind puts bread inside it. 'It's a cosmic transcendent toaster' - well, all you're doing is stripping the concept of a toaster of its real physical attributes and defining it as a cosmic transcendent uncaused entity I.e 'God'. Well done for basically giving support to the KCA.
12. The questioner schools these 2 and they reply with mockery, #atheism
13. Waste of 13 mins don't watch these 2 bozos
14. lol! Amateurs. Try debating Craig.
15. Wow the person on the phone is really solid in his understanding of the argument.  The two on the screen are just smart aleks who don't want to face the facts of the argument.  If the universe was created of necessity, from natural causes, you run in to an infinite regress of causes.  Therefore if the cause is not a natural cause the only other cause possible is an intelligent mind.
16. No one can use the Kalam argument to prove God because no logical path exists from the material universe and an unknown cause, especially a cause with magic qualities of being all-powerful, all-loving, and eternal. Such an argument goes from science to fairytales.
17. I'm not a proponent of the KCA but this was absolutely one of the most woefully pathetic attempts at a refutation I have ever encountered. Just awful! I expected more.
18. KCA is just another failed attempt by the desperate and deluded to justify their brainwashing since birth. People like this "factfinder" fool are mental midgets of monumental proportions (if you'll forgive the contradiction). Their lives are ruled by fear, fear of reality. When you're dead your dead and having their crutch kicked from them by reality is too much for them to comprehend.
    
    "The argument can not be defeated" LOL priceless.
19. Some people are just so stupid they think they know what people who study this for a living do not. When its demonstrated to be an argument based on assumption, conjecture, and speacial pleading they just pretend nobody has refuted their easily refuted argument. They pretend the universe in some form or another couldnt have always existed (and they never explain how they came to that wild ass conclusion) but their made up special friend has. They then attach attributes to their special imaginary friend they have yet to justify, and cant seem to explain how they got to the nonsense that NOTHING can be infinite except for their unjustified, unproven, friend that came from nowhere, from nothing, for no reason, and poofed the universe into existence, because existing for no reason in nothing was boring and it wanted something to worship it, to feed its human like ego. No matter how many times you point out how stupid this argument is they will always claim you somehow didnt address the argument. They are just that stupid.
20. They Are Both Funny But Sounds Like The Toaster Has More Intelligence Than These Two. By the way Who made the toaster?