CLOSING STATEMENT - @CapturingChristianity vs. @rationalityrules

Welcome to the Closing Statement of my debate against Rationality Rules on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

DESCRIPTION #1:

DESCRIPTION #2:
Cam's Responses

DESCRIPTION #3:

DESCRIPTION #4:

00:00 Introduction
00:33 Section 1 - General Comments
07:04 Section 2 - Objections to (1)
10:05 Unsatisfiable Pair
22:33 Section 3 - Objections to (2)
32:52 Outroduction

Many thanks to the following people for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of the script: Josh Rasmussen, Justin Mooney, Wade A. Tisthammer (aka Maverick Christian), Liz Jackson, Andrew Moon, & Joe Schmid.

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

Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.

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

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

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

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

#Kalam #Atheism #Debate

[rationalityrules]

Commenting 2 hours before this is published. I just want to say a big thank you for the time you've put into this debate, Cameron. Whatever your verdict might be, I hope you've found this exchange valuable. Because of this debate I'm now far more informed in the contemporary literature sounding Kalam type arguments, I've made some good friends with those working in the field, and I've grown and adapted as an individual. Thanks man.

[Geopoliticstoday]

Regardless of anyone's beliefs or lack of....its nice to see a respectful conversation among men.
🙏

[beepboop]

The fact itself that Cameron has to go for so complicated and convoluted mental gymnastics proves non-existance of all-knowing all-loving god wich cares about his creations and wants to communicate with them.

[wireless]

From what I have seen, apologists universally assume that modal talk (necessity, possibility etc) says something about things “out there” in the world and can magic unobserved beings out of thin air - rather than just being part of the way we talk about the world. This position of modal realism is controversial in contemporary philosophy and came back into fashion in the 1960s after centuries (it was last in fashion with the scholastics who developed many of the arguments apologists put forward).

Effectively, you haven’t answered the basic question “isn’t all of this just word games?”

[ahoel]

The fact that theists are reduced to using infinity paradoxes and other silliness, is strong evidence to the fact that there is no God.

[ChongFrisbee]

Funny thing about intuition, different people can have wildly different intuitions. Cameron's and mine, for example

[MikeOzmun]

The final statement of the video was the first statement I've heard you say that cannot be validated or defended: that God loves unconditionally. If the God we're referring to is the God of the Bible, his love is quite conditional.

[Apanblod]

We can not reach a conclusion about cosmogony or the 'ultimate origin' of reality using philosophy. To assume that we can simply think and speculate about things that may forever be beyond our understanding and reach a conclusion based on extremely limited information about the actual state of affairs is a bit preposterous.

[drkxl]

Soo, here is your last video. Let me recap your argument:
1)There is a First Cause
2)If there is a First Cause, Then God Exists.
3) God Exists.
Now, I won't go at any lenght to tell you why 1 and 2 are false. I will instead assume that the reasons you provided are indeed sound arguments and go from there.
1) Is true in virtue of you (trying to) proving that nothing infinite can exist. If nothing infinite can exist, then there must be a finite number of causes for each thing, Hence, some things are uncaused. Right?
2) Is true in virtue of you (trying to) pointing out that the main difference between caused and uncaused things have a main difference, which is limits. Uncaused things have no limits. Having no limits of something, means having infinite of that something. Unlimited Power? Infinite Power. Unlimited Size? Infinite size. Am I wrong here? Is there a difference between having no limits and having infinite of something?
2) Proves that since something is unlimited in everything, then it's God. So 3) is right and god exists.

Now. I can smash your argument in two ways.
1) Do you see anything wrong with your arguments? You presuppose that NOTHING can be INFINITE. Since NOTHING can be INFINITE, there must be a First Cause. BUT. If NOTHING can be INFINITE than there's no infinite POWER, infinite KNOWLEDGE. You using two different words for the two arguments went over Steven's and the audience's heads apparently. Not over mine. Infinite can be literally be defined by "with no limits".
This proves that GOD can't exist, because there's no infinite.

2) Alternatively, we can say that, yes, God exists, but that proves there's such a thing as infinite, and that means that Causal Finitism is FALSE because there can be INFINITE CAUSES for something (Me, for instance, don't think this is true. I think the previous is true.)

Please, I BEG you. Answer this statement. I know, I'm an unknown person spouting comments. Not even a youtuber. Still, My argument is flawless, unlike yours. Respond. Otherwise... Debunked.

[mTspce]

13:05 "If Causal Finitism is false, then the Grim Messenger story is possible. The Grim Messenger story is not possible, therefore Causal Finitism must be true?" No, Cameron, that is a logical fallacy, known as 'affirming the consequent' or 'fallacy of the converse'.

Causal Finitism being true is not the only reason that the Grim Messenger story can be false.

[CaptnOgre]

Although I love a good debate, I can't help but think that Cameron seems to be more interested in the process of deep diving into philosophical rabbit holes rather than to try to simplify the essence of the arguments. With so much talk about Reapers, messages, and quite technical terms one can easily forget what the hell the original argument was... no joke, had to re-read the description to remember what they originally were talking about.... Word Salad anyone?

Yes, I know I'm obviously not as read up on all the philosophical jargon and such but couldn't we substitute the word "God" in Cam's Kalam premises for "Allah" or "Zeus" or any other powerful deity from any other religion??

(1) There's a first cause
(2) If there's a first cause; then Vishnu, Mbobo, Atum or Pangu exists
(3) Therefore Vishnu, Mbobo, Atum or Pangu exists

Isn't that enough to see how this thought process is contingent upon a human created deity to insert into it to have it make sense?

Isn't this begging the question?

[GhostLightPhilosophy]

RR : “The pricetag of some contradictions being wrong is gargantuan”
*Graham Priest has entered the chat*

[iwilldi]

if determinism is the ultimate reality, then asking for yet another cause which causes that deterministic reality, makes that cause simply part of the deterministic reality.
The only question is, whether true random generators exist, and therefore the nature of reality is monistic (only deterministic) or dualistic (determnistic and random).
There are 3 places to introduce a _god_ expression:
a ) as determinism itself
b ) as a random component
c ) as a being like us which is at the whims of determinism and optionally random generators.

Does god play dice in order to decide his will, or is his will predestined?

[goldenalt]

Can someone explain what Cameron thinks an "unsatisfible pair" is? My understanding is it is a pair of properties that create a paradox. Cameron's arguments don't seem to make sense in that context.

[oliverhug]

7:20
(1) there is a first cause
(2) if there is a first cause, god exist
(3) god exist

How on earth do you know what the first cause is. Even IF there is a first cause, no one could possibly know what it is and certainly not what it’s characteristics would be.

Here another 3 premises


(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3)Therefore the universe had a cause.

So the universe did indeed “begin to exist” at the Big Bang. So the second statement is true.

But the first line says that it had “a cause”.

See what I did there? If the position is that the universe began at “The Big Bang” - then that was the cause. Simple as that.🙂

[giladpachter]

@Capturing Christianity
Cameron, Cameron . . . you know that Stephen is gonna have a field day with this video, right?

[soulriver]

How did you know that god exist in the first cause? I find it funny and illogical. 😂

[CallMeChato]

“ Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
No it doesn’t.
End of Kalam. End of this series. A lot of effort went into nothing.

[codygillard]

Can't wait for everyone to get into the comments with the snarky, sarcastic, douche responses

[thesuitablecommand]

Ayy the longest-lasting debate is finally coming to a close! Sort of sad, but sort of excited to have been witness to all of it