Kalam Cosmological Argument vs Nothing | RE: Atheists' Defense of Nothingness
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
William Lane Craig takes on incredibly bad and silly arguments against the Kalam Cosmological Argument (many of which comes from the Inernet and Youtube atheists). The objections Craig refutes are: - If the universe began to exist, then it must have come from nothing. That is quite plausible, since there are no constraints on nothing, and so nothing can do anything, including producing the universe. - Nothing ever begins to exist! For the material of which something consists precedes it. So it is not true that the universe began to exist. - The cause mentioned in the argument's conclusion is not different from nothing. For timelessness, changelessness, spacelessness, etc. are all purely negative attributions which are also true of nothingness. Thus, the argument might as well be taken to prove that the universe came into being from nothing. This video clip comes from Craig's lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyHqSzXfrkE
Comments
-
ROTFLMAO......
(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...... -
Nothing is greater than God. Hey, we can all agree on that, right?
-
Atheist logic: "Nothing created everything. Don't question it even though we have no evidence of nothing creating anything. If you question it, then you are an anti-science bigot."
-
According to the strict rules of construction of Hebrew grammar, the first lines of Genesis should read:
"When God began to create the heavens and the earth--now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was on the surface of the ocean, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters--then God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light."
"What's the significance?", I hear you ask. Well, either:
A. We are dealing with an entirely terrestrial framework, the development of earth being the only thing described, with the universe framed from the vantage point of earth and that through the lens of a prescientific near Eastern "Cosmology" (with the focus upon theological cosmogeny, not the how but the WHO). In that context "let there be light" is the earth's atmosphere going from opaque to translucent, allowing the cycle of light and dark fundamental to biological existence to begin.
Or:
B. It is describing the big bang, but with a strong anthropic principle, where the "focus" of the Creator from the start is Earth; in that context "God separated the light from the darkness would refer to the photon energy dropping to a point where photons could no longer eject electrons from their orbits, allowing stable rest matter and free photons to coexist.
Occam's Razor suggests A. is the correct interpretation, but I do not rule out B. entirely. -
Only atheists believe in fairy tales that have Nothing exploding, expanding faster than the speed of light to create our universe and turning rocks into single cell living organisms that can evolve into multi cellular complex organisms (with no plausible explanation as to how it happened) atheists also believe in the fairy tale that a fish will magically turn into a prince.
13m 30sLenght
57Rating