End of the 'End of the End of the Kalam?'? ft @Paulogia and @SansDeity

In this video, I respond to Matt Dillahunty's claim that the Kalam isn't an argument for God.

[Zosso-]

Short, sweet, simple, but very powerful. Love it, Squared.

[j.gstudios]

Oh no I forgot my metaphysical principals. I don't think my Kalaam turned out right

[petery]

You forgot the most important ingredient for making a good Kalam: You need to have somebody feeding you grapes while you're discussing the argument with a critic. That way you can destroy them with manners alone.



Wait, I forgot, that is for when you present a Contingency argument.

[christiangadfly]

This is honestly the best video I've seen on the Kalam. I'm going to spread this everywhere.

[ApologeticsSquared]

(Apologies for the random background noise in the last minute!)

[existential_o]

Lol, the Jersey accent for the chief was very...




tasteful 😶

[whatsinaname]

I love the Dillahunty dilemma: if it don’t say God, then you’ve not established your conclusion; if you do say God it’s special pleading and begging the question.

[isaiahreno]

Leibniz Cosmological Argument works better.

[azophi]

I do really object to the whole agency/personal/whatever

… never understood that lol. The 3rd step has always seemed a lot lot more unintuitive to me.

[comradequestion]

I think you need to look up the difference between a "prediction" and a "postdiction" my dude.

[alexwarstler]

Either way, the argument is invalid in Matt's eyes because it involves God in the positive or negative.

[Golfinthefamily]

Kalam is an "Undeniably valid syllogism" - Dillahunty.

Professing to be wise, they became fools. I'm glad Matt agrees there is a cause to the universe outside of itself. I'd like to know his hypothesis as to what it is other than God.

[mirandnyan]

As far as I understand matt calls the part you called "the first ingredient" the kalam and what you called "the second ingredient" "weasiling in". he has said in thag video (if my mind doesn't deceive me right now) that he agrees the conclusion (3) follows from the two premesis. he just doesnt think you can just wish away more than that.

I would say youd need to have a seperate argument after the parties agreed to the soundness of the kalam (only the syllogism). as far as I can tell you kinda say that too in the video, is that correct? (calling it second ingredient). if this is explained clearly its all good, but just saying the syllogism isn't enough, and isnt an argument for god (by itself).

[TheRobot]

End of the end of the end of the end of the end of the Kalam when?

[philosophyofreligion]

Just because a property (not dead) applies to a collection (kalamPlus) that doesn’t mean it also applies one of its ingredients (kalam) even if they’re essential. That would be a composition fallacy.

[therottingstench]

Hahaha! Square, you don't get out of the skeptics yard do you!

[vinnygiggidy]

1) everything that is physical has a physical cause for its existence.

2) the universe is physical

3) therefore the universe has a physical cause for its existence.

4) God is not physical

Conclusion) God could not have been the cause of the universe.

My challenge is to make a critique of this argument that doesn't also apply to the kalam.

[bluejase]

All of that is good but what you glazed over very heavily is that you can be wrong in your conclusion. when You infer other ingredients into your syllogism this increases your margin of error.

[Борислав-сш]

Hello. Why a 'cause of the universe' had to be a person? It could be something like this:
In the beginning there was some piece of uncreated matter in a state in which it necessarily 'made time to go' and in the end evolved into universe as we see it now. In this case God, at least as it seems, is not needed at all.

[williambonney]

It's important to clarify that the Kalam is dead as a demonstration of the existence of God because it only concludes that something that sounds a lot like God exists. It simply isn't up to the task of providing proof, only 'reasonable grounds'.