No, the Kalam Doesn't Equivocate (response to Rationality Rules - Part 2)

This is Part 2 of a 3-part series responding to Rationality Rules' video on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

------------------------------------------ GIVING ------------------------------------------

Thanks to all of our patrons for your continued support! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.

-------------------------------------------- LINKS --------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------- SOCIAL --------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------- CONTACT -------------------------------------------

#RationalityRules #Kalam #God

[CapturingChristianity]

I'd like to take a moment and address Stephen's objection that everything in our experience that begins to exist has a material cause and really what we need for the argument is experience of something beginning to exist *without* a material cause (or experience of creatio ex nihilo). First, I see no reason *at all* to think that the Kalam needs inductive evidence of creatio ex nihilo. We don't always need prior examples of something before we can conclude it exists. For example, we have no prior examples of a Big Bang but given the evidence of red shift (and other data) we can be reasonably certain that it happened. Prior examples can be helpful but they aren't always needed. (The objection also seems to rely on a faulty view of probability, namely Frequentism, but that's another matter.)

Second, the Kalam is an argument precisely for the conclusion that the universe began to exist without a material cause. In other words, it's an argument for creatio ex nihilo. Saying that we need prior examples of creatio ex nihilo before we can accept an argument that concludes with creatio ex nihilo would be like saying we need prior examples of Abraham Lincoln before we can accept an argument that concludes Abraham Lincoln existed. That's just not how it works. So really what interests us is the truth of the Kalam's two premises. If they're both true, then the universe was created without pre-existing material. In other words, creatio ex nihilo happened. This would then take us into a discussion about the arguments in defense of (1) and (2) and hence take us away from Stephen's objection. So at best, Stephen's objection leads us to a discussion about the evidence and arguments for the Kalam's two premises. But then the objection is completely irrelevant.

[ezaddinharun]

Stephens is a baby version of Aaron Ra

[alexsmith]

Stephen did not say that "creatio ex nihilio" is wrong, he said that it's not supported by enough evidence and that "creatio ex materia" is in fact supported. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Creation out of nothing" claim just didn't meet its burden of proof. That's it. We don't know yet how matter came into existence or whether it existed before big bang and we have no example of "Nothing" to reach conclusions you making. You spent last 8 minutes debunking his view(?) but he did not say that the universe created out of material, he said that it's scientific supported model and he implied that he doesn't know the answer, nobody does. Sorry for my bad english)

[ElBarbonn]

Don´t make part 3, you are just buring yourself even deeper.

[ddannydaniel]

Wow, Blake has gotten chubbier.

He has been eating some knowledge and wisdom

[troydana]

The three points in support of premise 2 at around 6:00 are poor, but I'd like to address another point that continues to come up in these videos (e.g. 8:15) that a criticism of the conclusion or its consequences is irrelevant to the criticism of an argument. This is simply in error, since if we have independent reasons to think that the conclusion to the Kalam is false, ipso facto we have reasons to think that the Kalam is unsound. We should weigh the support for the premises of the Kalam against the support that the Kalam's conclusion is false to determine which is more likely the case.

To make an obvious example, suppose we found that the conclusion to the Kalam entailed a contradiction. Would you still say that this is irrelevant to the argument itself? Of course not, since the conclusion cannot be true, and therefore at least one premise must be false. In general, if our support for the claim that the conclusion is false is greater than our support for the premises being true in conjunction, then we are rationally compelled to think that the argument is more likely unsound.

[chamberlainsexquisiteobjec]

Wouldn't this be a perfect refute of rationality rules ' DNA debunked ' ?
DNA and origin of humanity points to God

For example there is four types of information lowest being what a dog would write on a typewriter but For example let's imagine the codes of DNA information in this example of what a dog would write

1 : "uhh obyiguobhuho, ggubhub " - this is information but the lowest information which makes no sense it's called statistical information this happens only in chance

2: "grand da eats letting" this is called cosyntics information and happens very rarely in chance, it's hard to understand but higher information than statistics

3: " grand pa is eating " this information is called semantics this considered complex but not the highest, this never happens and is impossible to get in chance or luck

4 ; " let's eat, grandpa " this is the highest information this is a request, it's called pragmatics information, this is the high information and demands a response ! .demanding a response is called apobetics information even more high than that

Any mistakes in these informations will cause massive mistakes for example

" Let's eat, grandpa " without the coma is - let's eat grandpa - which the dog wants to eat grandpa !!! 🤣

And the " uhh obyiguobhuho, ggubhub " without coma is still the same

This is prove DNA is made by a complicated super intelligent creator we call god !

DNA is pragmatic and apobetical information

Biological intelligence cannot be created over a long or short period of time especially by chance or just luck, you can stretch to get DNA cosyntical information which in my example here is " grand da eats letting " by staggering amount of luck equivilient of landing 6 on the dice 1 million times ! Quite impossible ha ?

[godlessrecovery]

As usual, post hoc justification for a bad argument due to reasons unrelated to the quality of the argument.
Also, you're still asserting a creation ex nihilo at some point. You have no basis for this claim.

[stelios]

Oh this is great. I hope this means another Rationality Rules response. Wheres my popcorn

[TheBlackDogChronicles]

I would like to see the argument actually countered in a way other than it is done here, which is effectively "It isn't because it isn't." Secondly, I don't know where the person who is attempting to counter the argument comes from but in my years on the planet I have heard, perhaps several hundred times, heard Christians stoop to the straw man of "How can anything come from nothing?" which is, as the man named Stephen is heard saying, is the trick of making a non-scientific usage of the term "universe". If anyone is unclear about this, they can do a search in Youtube using the words "how did the universe come out of nothing?" :) Peace to all viewers.

[dnrevan]

I hope the 2 can just have a discussion for a half hour or so this weekend, record and upload it. It will be very useful for both channels and the viewers as well.

[garycottreau]

Nicely done. It seems Stephen may not be up to speed on the Big Bang Theory. Not sure he is up to speed on the theory of evolution either. Darwin's was at a great disadvantage back in the day. We know have a much better appreciation from 160 years of updates in science. Electron microscopes, Francis and Crick finding a DNA model in 1953, decades of biochemistry, and find the limits of evolution. Turns out there is not enough time in the world [universe] for these 'gradual' changes. Cheers.

[DrHowbeit]

6:23 This is confounding to me. Stephen says that creation ex nihilo has never been demonstrated to occur. Blake smirks at this point and says that Stephen is presupposing a materialistic world view, then Blake brings up the obvious possibility of an immaterial cause. To me this seems to go against the entire Kalam argument which rests on statements about the observable reality we know and are familiar with. Premise 1 and 2 refer to the physical reality around us, things we can observe. I don't see how you can just break this pattern and suddenly find support in unobserved immaterial phenomenons.

[MrJesseBell]

No, Stephen did not make up that theological definition. You saying “that’s absurd” doesn’t make it absurd. These apologist videos never fail to fail.

[doctornov]

this is so poor, and here's why:


Blake says to accept immaterial causation because he already "believes" it as a theist. This is so unscientific it's absurd. You don't start with an assumption and then apply that belief to an argument you're claiming is scientific, whilst giving no argument or justification for that view. Stephen's view is more reasonable as he is referring to current cosmology and its knowledge (not unproven assumptions on faith), which is verifiable. He isn't arguing in a circle, like you are.


And saying things like souls and such haven't been disproven, and therefore why not accept it, is the kind of silly wishful thinking that has no place in science. I'm astounded Blake is smiling smugly, thinking he has the answers, when in fact he has nothing more than blind faith.

no wonder christians are ok with slavery, because atheists own them ALL THE TIME.

[MikeWinger]

"Possibilities are cheap"
I think that if more atheists and agnostics understood this point it could really impact their worldview.

[sasilik]

It is even worse than first one. I am quite interested how much more worse it can get with third part.

[LoveYourNeighbour.]

The DEVIL is in the DETAILS, as they often say... If it wasn't for people like YOU, Cameron, putting the time & effort into these kinds of specific details, MANY people would be misled by these popular Atheist channels. Your work is an incredibly valuable public service! (By the way, thanks for communicating this technical material in a manner we can all understand.)

[insanityplus]

"That which created the universe must exist outside of space time and matter."
The problem here is you now have to make up something that isn't matter but could create a material universe and support that claim. Not only is it impossible to do so it seems delusional to make such a claim.