Top 10 Worst Objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument from Internet Atheists
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Lecture by William Lane Craig. This is probably one of the most entertaining lectures [titled "Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up (or, the World's Ten Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument)] Dr. William Lane Craig has given. He deals with the top 10 worst objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Many of these arguments were made by unsophisticated and uneducated (at least uneducated in philosophy or science) atheists on the Internet and youtube. Here's the Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the unvierse has a cause. Here's the list of the worst objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1. Craig says that he believes in God on the basis of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart, not on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument. In fact, he says that even if the argument were refuted, he would still believe in God. This is blatant hypocrisy on Craig's part. 2. The kalam cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle. 3. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the first premise "cause" means "material cause," while in the conclusion it does not. 4. The first premise is based upon the fallacy of composition. It fallaciously infers that because everything in the universe has a acause, therefore the whole universe has a cause. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The argument equivocates on "begins to exist." In (1) it means to begin "from a previous material state," but in (2) it means "not from a material state." 8. The argument is logically self-contradictory. For it says that everything has a cause, yet concludes that there is a first uncaused cause.. 9. 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. 10. (From Richard Dawkins:) If "god" is the "terminator" of an infinite regress, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.
Comments
-
Every one of William Lane Craig's arguments commit the Let's Just Say It Commits A Logical Fallacy.
-
"Why is it only universes that come into existence out of nothing? Why not bicycles or Beethoven or root beer?"
Is Craig suggesting that we would be able to see things popping into existence out of nothing?
If things were popping into existence out of nothing, we wouldn't see it. Because the space we inhabit is not nothing.
If Craig did say that uninhabited space was nothing, he would have to stop bashing Lawrence Krauss. I don't see that happening -
My god this argument is stupid. All he proved that the universe has a cause. We agree. However you cannot conclude that a god did it or god is the initial and only cause. You still have to prove a god at the end of the day.
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal
So Socrates is mortal
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
So the universe has a cause.
1. All leprechauns are Irish
2. My friend is Irish
3. Therefore my friend is a leprechaun.
So my friend is a leprechaun.
Absolutely brilliant on circular reasoning. Craig has said absolute nothing that is relevant as usual. -
(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.
Enjoy. -
Top 10 Worst Objections, to the top 10 objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument from people with brains
-
Absurd. Again, and again, we are told there are 'reasons' to accept the belief in 'god'. Yet, Satan and Eve both made a choice against 'god' in the face of known outcomes. These outcomes were directly told to them by 'god'. There is no good way to know if the bible is the word of 'god'. It only asserts this, once, by a writer that, like almost every other writer of these 'books', did not know each other at all, and certainly don't share an obvious common divine appeal or congruence. THEREFORE, Craig, theists, sit it down and let us get on with the scientific method, before the ignorance of theocracy destroys our mental faculties forever.
BTW, Craig, here's an ad hominem: You are a misguided, misinformed, and maladjusted liar who sells religion as if it's the one snake oil among many that ACTUALLY works. If so, tell me why, when Jesus ransomed us through death, why oh why DIDN'T the end come, the slate wiped clean, the chance for us to start over? Why let continue the sin he came to atone?
Answer: Go fuck yourself, liar. The Flavius' are still laughing from their graves. -
Craig has already admitted. The B Theory of time and the argument against disembodied minds are the best objections possible.
Literally, every other objection either sounds extremely foolish to the educated, or is based on an already-answered for objection.
Non-theists are so closed minded to anything that isn't about Scientism it seems like. Nevertheless, only a personal encounter will transform a non-theist into a theist. It's much easier to be an atheist when you're not on your deathbed. -
Did i take a left turn instead of a right or... (?)
How did i end up in Fairytale Land part of Internet??? -
Craig says that the KCA "suffices" for him to prove a god exists which is still just based on assumption AND special pleading. You can't "argue" a god into existence using logical fallacies and assumptions. I notice some in the comments leaving statements such as "they will always have something to object to". That is not correct. Present some irrefutable evidence of any gods and end atheism, or just accept as long as the only evidence is special pleading, assumptions and improvable claims that atheism is a default position to a skeptic and that we simply find no reason to take anyone else's mythical superstitious claim of a magical Jew in the sky as factual and are okay not yet knowing what happened before the big bang or if the universe is infinite or not.
-
I wonder if a summary of the responses to the 10 objections could be listed in the notes, not just the objections.
-
Re the Blurb with this, proves to me that it's Personal. 1) Even if you think someone is hypocritical for some other reason, that makes no difference to the argument you say you have objections to. 2) Some people are close to illiterate when it comes to accepting a basic definition of a word. 3) It can't be proved there is nothing outside this material paradigm, just like people inside a room can't prove there is nothing outside of it. 4) Fallacious? Little kids decided if they want to be happy or throw a temper tantrum! And at least they admit they don't know where they came from or why anything is here...I can't be bothered to go on, lol...Why would God be hiding from us? Think about it...
-
Why would Craig focus on the "worst" objections?
I mean... he even fails here at times, but wouldn't he do better to focus on the best ones?
Given that the internet is full of solid deconstructions of this old piece of apologetic, he, at SOME point, really should get around addressing those. -
The worst of objections mean nothing when the best objection is to merely point out the deception and broken syllogism of the Kalam cosmological argument.
-
How about this one. If god is in a timeless state, and there cannot be any changes without a passage of time, then it logically follows that there can be no change from just God existing to both God and the universe existing. God is the "creator of the universe" so that god does not exist. Also the universe (if not eternal) exists inside a timeless state so there was never a state where the universe did not exist, even if it appears to have a beginning.
-
No matter the argument brought forth there will always be objections and most of these objections are just excuses not to believe in GOD, they are just food to strengthen the unbelief of the individual.
-
they will always have something to object to
58m 8sLenght
64Rating