Dear Theists, STOP USING THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. This video isn't showing how the Kalam argument would be wrong, at most it shows that it is based on debated assumptions. But just because some scientists or philosophers think that things can come into being out of nothing or that the universe is eternal doesn't mean that's the case. If the universe started with the big bang then its extremely reasonable to think it has a transcendent cause.
2. (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.....
3. So you're dismissing the argument because it's too simple? That's a fallacy if I ever heard one.
4. If it's OK with you, Dave S, I will continue to use the Kalam argument because I think it is a sound argument.
5. Thanks Dave ; helpful again, exposing the absurd lengths that the theists have to go through in yet more extreme attempts to define a deity into existence via a cheap word-game when a simple "Oh I got faith in the holy highly spirits!!" ought to do the job if they'd any grip on "reality"...and for the love of jebus don't get some silly prick like Matt Slick started on that one... :)
6. This video is meaningless
7. Very well done. But for me, I just find Kalam to be rubbish on it's face. In order to make any type of analysis one must have a basis for comparison. So as soon as we are able to examine the start of other universes.....
8. The cosmological argument is based on assumptions that come from nowhere. It gets destroyed here because of this. You don't get serious honest debaters using it any more.
9. Atheist debaters are every bit as predictable. The vast majority of them use the problem of evil argument, which is also quite weak. And the reason it's presented so quickly in the first presentation of it (whether it be in informal or formal debate) is because theists have no way of predicting what sort of objections the atheist will make, and so they don't waste time attacking straw men. They've time constraints, so they present a rough summary of the argument and then move on. Your criticism would only be good criticism if this was the only argument they presented in the whole speech and they just repeated themselves over and over throughout it.
   
   As pretty much anyone will tell you, the Kalam cosmological argument does not attempt to prove there is a god. It only tries to show that there must be a cause of the universe, and then the theist tries to logically infer from the nature of the case that the cause of spacetime itself would need to be timeless and spaceless (and therefore changeless and immaterial), incredibly powerful and personal (as abstract objects like numbers also meet the timeless and spaceless requirement but do not stand in causal relations).
   
   Your suggested revised argument is fine and all, but it really isn't necessary, as all of this can be clarified if and when the objections make it necessary. Again, the point is to present a summary of it and see why that particular opponent will question its validity. There's no need to drive home any and all points that the opponent actually already accepts.
   
   Your accusation that Craig is just trying to be deceitful in his definition of "begins to exist" doesn't work. Indeed, he usually does just leave it at "e begins to exist at time t..." because that is enough for him. And time itself can be said to have a beginning by this definition, because what he says is that there isn't a period of time before it (and that's obviously true). That you yourself rephrase it as "there is a period of time in which t didn't exist" suggest more dishonesty on your part than Craig's.
   
   And since he argues plausibility and not certainty, he only needs to give arguments for why the A theory of time is more plausible, which is easy to do. Namely, it takes more assumption to believe in the B theory of time, and so we should stick with the more simple theory. Further, he also has arguments that work with either theory. The teleological argument and the contingency argument, for example.
   
   Finally, no, the argument doesn't comment on the absence or presence of material causes at all; that's because the meaning has always been "efficient cause". And so whether or not we can come up with examples of something have an efficient cause but not a material one is besides the point. To believe something come out of nothing by nothing, as Craig himself has said, is literally worse than magic.
10. The Kalam is wrong on so many levels.. who knew you couldn't take pre-scientific drivel, put some lipstick on it, and end up with a sound argument in an age where we actually know some things about cosmology?
11. On the contrary "Dave." The KCA is much more elementary that you are capable of admitting. If you are going to make an attempt to pose as a grandiose intellectual, at least make some attempt to mask the 'pseudo' portions a little more efficiently.
12. But you have not refuted it at all. You've just whinged about semantics, and cluttered it up with a bunch of contradictory semantics in order to hide your inability to refute it using logic instead of verbiage. Yours is the word game.
13. ''temPORal'! I wish sceptics got sm education
14. What is a tensed fact?
15. I dont understand premis 1. What is e refering to?
16. LOL
    (1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been around for centuries. Anyone that doesn't know what its terms are shouldn't be debating anyone worth debating. Thus why no one debates you, Dave S.
    
    (2) This niggling argument on terms from an undergraduate nobody lay philosopher is about as relevant as any I've ever heard. You're trying to change the argument into a parody of itself.. a.. strawman, if you will.. and you're setting that strawman ablaze.
    
    This isn't a counter argument. This is a strawman. This is the sort of "pseudo-argument" that Dr. Craig gets in the Q&A section from some long haired, unshaven pseudeo-intellectual (sound familiar), who then whines and stomps his feet when Dr. Craig dismisses it after punching a giant logic shaped hole through it. Enjoy your day.
17. This is the perfect demonstration of how far atheists have their heads lodged up their hinder parts. The verbal acrobatics are astounding. The amount of time used to present the KCA is without question the most ridiculous objection I've ever heard. Perhaps, dear atheist, spending an immeasurable amount of time in minutia is for the apologist not necessary. And to define the terms, such as "begins to exist" and "cause" and "universe" is the oldest trick in the atheist handbook. Nice try, but you do not get to establish the rules of engagement by demanding we use your definitions, which is where such a requirement inevitably leads. Further, non-theists actually believe that "could-be's" and "what-if's" are enough to disprove solid, established fact. I'm sure it's because these are "their" could-be's and what-if's. I mean, everyone knows, especially any self-worshipping- er, uh, self-respecting atheist, that their could-be's and what-if's far outweigh the solid, established facts of non-atheists.
    And our could-be's and what-if's, even when not being used to refute solid, established fact, just don't carry any weight with the average atheist. There's no way this is not due to the indoctrination they receive from the core scientific establishment. 
    Take for example the fact that anything that exists has a cause. In other words, all that is being established by the first step of the KCA is that if it exists, something caused it to come into existence. Something made it happen. Atheists just don't like the fact that it, at the very least, 'supports' intelligent design, so they go right to work refuting that one simple first step in the argument and their M.O. is to proclaim loudly "THAT DOESN'T PROVE A DAMN THING!", when no one says it "proves" anything. It 'supports' it, though, and they know it supports it, and it's driving them even more nuts-o. LOL!!!
    Hey, you know what they say, "Anything but God".
18. your argument is bogus!! it does not touch the facts that time exists, design exists, and what is hidden in dark matter exists.
19. One absolutely retarded video, proves nothing and contradicts itself. Wtf?