Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Very shoddy...
   His counterargument can be summed up as follows:
   
   "Premise 1 fails because I've never seen anything coming into existence."
   
   And yet, following this same logic, he's essentially saying that the big bang theory is unsupported, due to his lack of personal experience as a human being.
   
   "Quantum particles can come into existence from nothing!"
   
   From this he is implying that the quantum vacuum is in fact "nothing", and yet this claim is completely unsupported.
   
   "Because I can't materialize something with my mind, there is no support for premise 1!"
   He then proceeds to change the first premise based on his shoddy reasoning, and proceeds to attack that. Red herring.
   
   "The KCA makes the composition fallacy"
   And yet, it doesn't. He merely created a faulty reason to support the first premise, and shot it down. Classic straw man.
   
   "I disagree with the 2nd premise because our universe may actually be part of a super universe or yada yada multiverse"
   Clearly, we exist, and there is solid ground for the big bang theory, therefore it follows that the universe began to exist at some point. Also, ignoring the fact that we have no evidence for multiverse theories, he violates Occam's razor. He tries to avoid accepting the premise by suggesting there are an infinite number of dependent causes associated with the eventual creation of our universe, and thus that we can't trace it back to a true "origin." Need I explain any further why this fails to attack the KCA?
   
   At the end of the day, his argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. He's just trying to avoid the implications of the KCA by appealing to ignorance.
2. Peter Millican is on fire here... what a fantastic response!
3. So, Dr Craig makes a claim, and he bases his claim off of a book called "The Kalam Cosmological Argument." But he was the one who wrote the book. Are we allowed as scientists to make claims, then write a book about our claim, then use the book as evidence? He even quotes himself.
4. What utter bullshit... The man even knows he's bullshitting
5. I'd add another objection to KCA, namely that timeless god can't exist, or to be more precise he is reduced to laws of physics and there is no reason to call it a god.
6. Doesn't debunk it whatsoever
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.
   
   Done........
8. It's logically impossible to 'debunk' the kalam argument. Misleading title.
9. Theists love to construct such silly arguments because they have zero actual evidence. I know this is popular in apologist circles but in the end it is only mental masturbation.
10. If Craig's argument really is "debunked" in this video, why not include his response? He's sitting right there! From what I've heard, Craig has refuted the poor objections Millican raises over and over again.
11. Dumb
12. He's bringing up questions and alternatives that do not have better evidence to support them than the existence of God.
13. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is based from an ancient argument used by Muslims to support Allah's existence. That is why is has "Kalam" in front of it.
    
    The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not trying to prove YahWeh or Jesus Christ is God and does exist. The Kalam Cosmological Argument simply shows the likelihood of why the universe came into being from a single Creator.
14. That that Billy-boy!
15. I think the bottom line position of apologists and all believers is that they either want supposed non-believers or atheists to agree with them--however flimsy their Kalam, William Lane Craig retread Kalam or ontological arguments are; or convert to their brand; or stop their atheist diatribes against religion as its cutting into their recruitment and membership.  The aim is never to really have discussions of inquiry that get at the truth.  And this is because the methods and the starting presuppositions are completely at odds.  The apologists bring a presuppositional biblical backdrop or personal anecdotes to the table, while the scientists and atheists bring naturalism (that is the product of induction), the null hypothesis, reason and the requirement of evidence to the table.
16. Everything that begins or ceases to exist has a cause, but the cause could be some unknown mindless laws of physics. There is no evidence that this cause has the ability to think, plan, hold emotions or have intentions. Kalam Cosmological Argument is another scam used to sell books to unsuspecting gullible people.
17. What the Kalam argument (and Craig's updated argument) tries to do is argue backwards from what is stated in their holy books whereby they already have the conclusions in hand (God created the Universe and God exists).  They then try to construct the correct premises and present them in the right sequence in order to try to create a valid and sound argument in support of their conclusions.  This seems like a fallacy of assuming the conclusion or a non sequitur argument?  Just the fact that the so-called "uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being" must also be a personal one is an obvious giveaway.  God, and a personal God, is simply thrown into the argument.  One could build the same argument for Zeus, or Amun or Vishnu, etc.  As Millican states, our common use and understanding of causality can't be apply to the universe as a whole.  Also, the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is simply speculation.
18. 1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.  I see an orange at the supermarket.  It started out its existence as a pollinated flower on the branch of an orange tree and transformed into a ripe orange some months later.  The universe, as we currently know it on the other hand, is not like the things which constitute it.  The 'ontological' causality of things within the universe is not the causality the KCA is utilizing.  What does it mean to say that an omnipotent being 'caused' the universe to exist?  Because we are unsure if there were laws of nature--or a prior 'old,' crunching universe or eternally foaming universes, etc. before time = 0, we just don't know what was the case prior to the Big Bang.  Was there a thing or a being before t=0 that 'caused' the universe into existence?  We're just not sure... in spite of what holy books say.
19. KCA... its still around? Shit, stupid. god by inference.
20. These sound bite videos are about as worthless as the title of this video.
    This is part of a debate and has little context or merit by itself.
    Put lazy aside for a moment and watch the whole debate instead.