Debunking the Cosmological Argument for God (Theophage mirror)
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
There have been several good videos debunking the kalam argument (see links below). This video highlights something many other refutations miss, namely the fallacy of equivocation..which renders the argument invalid. Premise 1 refers to things that begin to exist within time. In other words, there was a time when a thing did not exist, followed by a time when it existed. This is not the case with the universe, since time is part of the universe. The universe is a finite age (13.8 billion years), and because time did not come into existence until after the inflation began, there is literally NO TIME at which the universe did not exist. Rephrasing the argument to accurately include this information, we get something like this: Let X = "a thing which began to exist a finite time ago after a point when it did not exist" Let Y = "a thing which has existed for a finite time, but which exists at every point in time" 1. Everything that is X has a cause for it's existence. 2. The Universe is Y. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence. As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument fails. Because the universe has existed at EVERY moment in time, it did not begin to exist in the way that every object included in P1 began to exist (after a period of time where it did not exist), so the argument is invalid. There is also a further type of equivocation going on in the argument. Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo (from nothing). But everything around us that supports premise 1 only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of *one* thing in this category, leaving no support for the claim that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause". Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this: 1. Everything that results from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.) 2. The universe began to exist from nothingness...NOT as a rearrangement of pre-existing (uncreated) matter. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. Once again, premises 1 and 2 are comparing apples and oranges. The type of things being discussed in premise one are very different than what is being discussed in premise 2, so the argument fails. Thanks to Theophage for the video. Check out his channel for more great videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/Theophage?feature=watch Other videos refuting Kalam: Debunking the Kalam - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WVf6Uvk8U Oh, What a Tangled Web! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rSAo6IpiFU&feature=share&list=PL33ABD27539B516A9 The Kalam Cosmological Fallacy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg I "Kalam" Like I See 'Em.. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9MtIma5YU Debunking the Kalam (scientific errors) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE You can read a written refutation here: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam Also check out QualiaSoup's "Putting Faith in it's Place" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
Comments
-
I think you are making category mistakes in your critique and I would guess that WLC would say that your definitions for his phrases and uses of them are not the same as his, but never the less, you didn't even bother with trying to debunk the Contingency argument. The truth of the matter is Christians do not call the Cosmological argument for God a "smoking gun", but just another of many pieces of evidence for God. The argument itself merely says that everything that is finite and was "caused" had to have something that always existed cause it. This is logically valid and has no equivocations in it. It's very basic. Also there is no other logically tenable alternative argument to this. Christians admit this argument alone doesn't prove the Christian idea of God and merely only use God as a label for the "First cause". Now we could argue as to whether the universe always existed or not, but I personally, based on ALL of the evidence and information we currently have believe it's way more rational and reasonable to believe that the universe had to be caused and did not always exist, but that's JMO.
-
The argument from contingency has nothing to do with beginning to exist. By only refuting the Kalam cosmological argument, you ignore an actually good argument. It's unsurprising that no atheist has actually refuted the argument from contingency and just go after apologetical jokes like WLC instead of good theologians like Thomas Aquinas.
-
I don't think much of logic or argument of this sort. I prefer waking up in the morning and shouting out: "Bugger GOD!!"...............ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!
Ouch! Alright, you got a point........... -
Dickhead.....Wallow in your bronze Age Ignorance I don't give a shit.
-
I think dinosaurs are actually aliens from another planet and their spaceship crashed on earth. They never actually "roamed" the earth. This idea has no proof and neither does the idea that they lived here. My point is that I find my random statements to be meaningless (kinda like this video). At least my statements are somewhat entertaining.
-
I believe in Intelligent Design! all the evidence points to God being designed by Man. You cant refute it can you?
-
Well put. I always find myself thinking this when I hear the first prop of the KCA. When did anything "begin to exist"? Pretty difficult to avoid being arbitrary. Everything that exists began to exist when the universe began to exist.
-
Causally prior and temporally prior have the same qualifier, but obviously should not be conflated. Though I appreciate your numbers analogy, the fact remains that numbers are a type language to describe reality; they don't have ontological status.
-
Thus we both understand that causally prior and chronologically prior both have the same qualifier, the word prior, which signifies a time relationship, thus in concept they are the same. As for numbers it was meant to be an example for necessary existence which has no proof.
-
Not really. A rock sitting in a pond is causally prior, and simultaneous with, water displacement. Numbers don't stand in causal relations and are therefore not relevant to the discussion.
-
Causally prior is equivalent to chronologically prior, and there is no proof that necessary existence is a valid statement. Some say that numbers exist necessarily, but then no number has a meaning without countable quantities and thus numbers exist in relation to quantities so their existence is contingent.
-
Which something actualizes a rainbow? The sun does by acting on water droplets. What people thought is not relevant to what is true. Scientists thought many things were true that are not. Should we then abandon science? Theoretical physics is simply that, theoretical. This is simplistic thinking, for sure. Science of the gaps reasoning.
-
For something to actualize another, it must at least be causally prior (if not chronologically prior.). All things exist either necessarily or contingently. Whatever actualized all of reality exists necessarily, and doesn't require a cause. Your argument is not persuasive.
-
This debunk utilizes real equivocation. The universe "has existed for all time"—meaning as long as time has existed, with time coming into existence alongside space, matter, etc.—is not equivalent to always existing. "Everything that results from a prearrangement of particles..." does not ameliorate this concern. Apples (X) and oranges (Y) still begin to exist, irrespective of their ages.
-
Grow up, spell it like a man pussy, its fuck off ;)
-
Wrong. You can not make assertions of something that exists (whatever that is supoed to mean) outside of reality. Moreover, I see you are incapable of understanding this fundamental concept, change by definition means something can not remain the same. Good luck with your special pleading and cherry picking which of the sciences you think supports your absurd claims. Tschüß.
-
Think of a more basic level. Even though a rock is still a rock today, and tomorroe, it is not unchanging, it undergoes change at the atomic level ALWAYS. Nothing is unchanging. Your analogy is a false eqivocation. You are exchanging the terms of an identification of an object with its properties. Moreover I would argue I am not the same person I was born as, changing over time into who I am today. And your artist changed on so many levels it is laughable, movement is observable change dumbass.
-
I realize you have a dog in this fight, but that being said, what you are "special pleading" for is illogical. This shows the desperation of the theistic response on this subject. One can not have something that resides in stasis, yet is changing, while being "...immutablly...unchanging...". AND YES, something that does not change, is not capable of changing. That is like saying your god has two choices, and chooses both, and is always right, illogical. So much for a perfect god.
-
Function necessitates change, otherwise you have stasis. Something that is changeless, does not change, whereas something that functions by definition must be changing.
-
I feel the use of changeless in the video is both the configuration and the function. Effectively the system is completely frozen which makes it non-functioning.
12m 42sLenght
243Rating