Fixing the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Dr. Craig interacts with recent YouTubers who attempt to "fix" the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[josephtattum]

I didn’t realize the Kalam was even broken 😂

[josephtattum]

Poor kid. He suffers from the same presuppositions as many atheists. Namely That only “intellectually honest” people will conclude that material causes are all that we can reasonably conclude. God is ruled out prior to any argument being presented.

[michaelwaters]

Dr Craig is right, the objectors haven't thought their responses through very well and don't have sound objections.

[johnwinslow]

Ahh, look at that smile. Craig is aging well in grace.

[nemrodx]

Wow!! terrible objections to Kalam. What a superficial thought... I can almost see the neurons dying of those poor atheists...

[matthew]

Hey Dr. Craig, I admire your work, thanks for all you do, i was wondering, could you engage with the kalam objections of Joe Schmid, from the majesty of reason youtube channel?

[truthmatters]

Here is the patience of the saints, those who can deal with overconfident internet atheists who haven't thought deeply enough about an argument, because they are too biased to seriously consider it.

[paulovitorsiq]

I would love to see Craig interacting with Daniel Linford and Joe Schmidt’s criticism to the Kalam. I think they have raised the most interesting objections I have seen.

[Mark-cdwf]

I just can’t resist…..

P1): Regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Grayson doesn’t know what he is talking about.

P2): Grayson is unaware that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

C): Therefore regarding the Kalam, Grayson continuously embarrasses himself without knowing it.

[witoldnowak]

How can an “immaterial cause” influence “material universe”? If we assume that anything apart from nothingness and singularity must have a structure and function then the mentioned influence must be described in the structure-function paradigm. But it cannot because there is a plethora of Christian thinkers claiming absolute simplicity, i.e., no structure at all of the immaterial cause, namely God.

[GordonGordon]

I feel like both have a sampling bias of who the overall scientists are that may or may not believe/acknowledge a beginning of the universe. Er... One of the two sides has a more credible sample than the other is the problem.

An example that comes to mind from recent times of sampling bias is about the relative dangers of COVID 19. There were a lot of experts on both sides... But man. I never saw as much death as 2020 and 2021 in my decade long career as an emergency room physician.

Anyway. I feel like this is a light warmup jog for Dr. Craig before writing books...

[p_louis]

I noticed that he has some kind of DNA model behind him. Interestingly, the head of the human genome project, Francis Collins, is an evangelical Christian.

[markmcflounder]

Yeah....oh man...that was just painfully excruciatingly bad. The claims he makes....it's like is hanging out in the multiverse.

Space-Time Nature
      "Since it's impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems implied the absolute beginning of the universe. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems 'led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.' Dawkins apparently labors under the delusion that a singularity does not form a boundary to space and time." (cited in Craig, William Lane, "How Do We Know God Exists?, editor D.A. Carson; Lexham Press, Washington; 2022.: original Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose,  The Nature of Space and Time, Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.)

[stunningkruger]

everything that has a beginning has a course .. of course (& the first caused was the first cost) there you go.

[tuav]

The scientism is very strong with this one.

[tTtt-hotq]

Kalaam argument is logical, but premise one is not yet completely clear.
If everything starts to exist has a cause, what does that mean by starts to exist? If it starts to exist means as a chair or a desk or as you or me as Craig says then there's always something before it starts to exist as whatever it is. Which is aligned with the first law of thermodynamics, energy is not destroyed or created but change its energy form. So its not starts to exist from nothing. You and i started from the mother's egg, single cell, and the father's sperm. And when they meet it started to exist as you or me. It splits to two, four, eight and so on. Extra materials or resources came from the mother, and the food she ate. Nothing from nothing.
And so as the BB, it started to exist as the universe from Singularity, not from nothingness. Where did the Singularity come from to started to exist as Singularity? We don't yet know. But it was there, whatever it was, that was equivalent in energy to the whole universe.
As for materials and immaterial, the universe is material. So the universe (material) didn't start to exist as the universe from nothing logically.

[HKFromAbove]

Is it not strange when you change the argument the argument fails.
I have never heard of such academic dishonesty.

When you change why the points where.made.in the first place you fail to understand sthe actual argument presented.
Wow.

[beautybearswitness]

That answer clarifying the confusion between efficient and material causes, just wow!

[tecnocato]

Q: What is the difference between an atheist and a flat earther?
A: What they deny.

[grantbartley]

In fact, you don't need the universe to start for a cosmological argument to work, you just need the universe to not be its own cause, ie contingent. Leibniz' version can handle this.