Refuting the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

DISCLAIMER: I no longer subscribe to the view that logic is merely a description of our universe. I now agree with users like Dan Courtney and KnownNoMore who have pointed out that these laws are axiomatic, and even to be false, they must be true. Please disregard my arguments which employ my previous view of logic.

Here it is: my refutation of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Enjoy.
CLARIFICATION:
I know that the first way I present the Cosmological Argument is not the KALAM Cosmological Argument: it is, instead, an older version of the argument, which used to be called the "Prime Mover" argument. I presented this argument first as a way to frame the issue, and to explain why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is phrased the way it is.

If you're giving me shit about this, that tells me that you haven't actually looked at the history of this argument.

This video addresses:
The thought process behind the argument -- This is what I was talking about above.
The false dichotomy of God vs. nothing as the cause.
The use of the equivocation fallacy.
The use of the composition fallacy.
The misapplication of logic to the universe itself.
The misuse of the term "beginning to exist" independent of time existing.

[Never-mind]

Theist: Why is there anything? Something can't come from nothing, therefore god. (Implied: before there was something, there was "absolute" nothing.)

Skeptic: Then where did god come from?

Theist: God has always existed.

Skeptic: That negates the argument that "absolute" nothing was the starting point.

Theist: God created herself.

Skeptic: That negates the argument that something can't come from nothing.

Theist: Everything that exists needs a cause. But my god doesn't.

Skeptic: That negates the argument that everthing that exists needs a cause.

Theist: The universe necessarily requires an intelligent designer. But my god doesn't.

Skeptic: That negates the necessary designer argument.


Infinity, eternity, existence, and life are mysterious concepts, but unfortunately gods don't solve them. Best guess: Being has always been. Existence has always existed. Get over it theists. Sit down and have a nice cold beer. You'll feel so much better.

[joshshultz]

Argument from equivocation: This argument does not commit the argument of equivocation. If it did then the term cause would be used differently throughout the argument. But the argument does not do that. The word cause is used in a very general all throughout the argument. There is no "cause using pre-existing material" anywhere in the argument. Rather, cause is used in a very general way that would encompass any kind of cause, not just "cause using pre-existing material". This general definition of cause is used consistently throughout the argument and thus there is no equivocation.Composition Fallacy: There would only be a composition fallacy if the first premise said that everything in the universe that begins to exist has a cause. However, it does not say that. It says everything that begins to exist, whether in the universe, outside it, etc. that begins to exist has a cause.Another way we can see if this argument is logically valid is to put it into symbolic form.1) all p is q2) x is p3) therefore, x is qThis is the form the cosmological argument takes. This form of argument is clearly valid and thus so is the cosmological argument.

[jlc]

The argument has been destroyed, the fact that Craig still uses it is yet another example of his dishonesty.

[LeonhardEuler]

I was happy to hear you add "at least on the macroscopic scale" when talking about logic as a description of things within the universe. I've recently been studying quantum gravity from the point of view of category theory, and it makes it painfully clear that classic logic, quite simply, does not provide an accurate description of quantum physics, but rather that the expectation that it would is a relic of our intuitions of mathematics relation to the category of sets. Great vid.

[EpicUXnl]

Actually, this is one of the better videos I've seen debunking the Kalam argument. It's concise and clear. A lot of Kalam opponents get into the science, but that's not even necessary. Good job :)

[cruelsuit]

1. The universe is in constant motion
2. Something is eternal
3. If stability was a possible state of the universe the universe would be unchanging, motionless,  eternally
4. Stability is therefore an impossible condition for change
5. An uncaused being would be unchanging and stable (it can't be different from one moment to the next)
6. Motion can not come from stability
7. Therefore motion and change is eternal and a stable cause is an impossible condition
8. Therefore there is no God.

[samueljackson]

also what justification do they have to ADD that which begins to exist? 

[letstrytouserealscienceoka]

The Kalam utterly fails at premise 1. Things, specifically so called virtual particles (actually real particles with very short lifetimes) come into existence all the time without cause. Their existence is predicted by quantum theory but not caused by it and we know they really exist because we see their effects at the atomic and subatomic level. We may eventually observe them directly in the LHC if they can be created at sufficient velocities to extend their apparent lifetimes long enough to be directly detected.

[malignor]

This was short, clear, concise. Best refutation I've heard.
The argument wasn't just refuted, it was annihilated.

[TylerDurdentyler]

Venaloid As for 3:45 - I like how Krauss treats this argument from WLC, it goes like this:

1. All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour
2. William Lane Craig is a mammal
3. Therefore William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.

[LouigiVerona]

Good. Concise. I would love to see a version without the comedic intro, just so that one can link this video to anyone who makes the argument.

[Venaloid]

Yes, I'm probably going to do that eventually (even though that video is mostly about objections that are dumb and that I didn't raise, or it's Craig responding to what is basically the same objection multiple times).

[CosmosFiddler]

Your logic is clean, irrefutable and makes me like hearing you speak. Continue please! You are a rock star of logic!

[davidhoffman]

Great video Veniloid. I would like to point out one more problem with the argument that you didn't mention. In my critical thinking and psychology class, I was taught that many things (like schizophrenia or ones sexual orientation) have multiple causes and that it's usually not good to assume a single cause. Do you know if anyone has presented any evidence for the universe having a single cause as opposed to many/several causes? Thanks.

[anbu]

"As Nietzsche wrote however, speaking of gods is pointless in this universe given the connotations associated with the word. But we could well create the overman."

[atobeast]

this video was very good. explained quite well. if anyone out there doesn't understand this, watch it again. props to you sir

[ExcludedLayman]

I'd like to highlight an important point here: Incomprehensibility makes genius indistinguishable from gibberish. An idea, or part of an idea, that is not understood by a person is a black box to that person; they simply cannot see inside to know if it works. It's Dunning-Kruger, in other words.

There's also a tendency to create such black boxes accidentally when trying to reason out a problem (like theodicy). Arguments/explanations grow in complexity until all the errors are hidden from view.

[TRJTRY]

this is a classic case of an ontological paradox as long as the loop closes itself we shouldnt have a problem

[Sinkh]

No cosmological argument has ever said "everything has a cause". Kalam is not an attempt to patch up a weak argument. It's an urban legend that apparently will never die.

[pitchkid]

he makes a great point. considering the idea of an omniscient or omnipotent god, one must be open to an entity that transcends our logical supposition that something can only exist if it is created by matter that already exists. you have to realize that when you consider an entity with supernatural traits, you have to accept possibilities beyond which are observable in our world. your original argument is based on logical thinking that humans have developed. but it doesn't necessarily cover all