Matt Dillahunty - 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument', and why it fails...

#christianity #islam #god #apologetics #arguments #kalamcosmologicalargument #muslim #debunking #premises #cosmologicalargument #counter-apologetics #atheistvschristian #atheistvsIslam #williamlanecraig

Ws Digital Media Links

Add me to talk or Support me so I make more of these weird videos, buy Wes a Coffee?
$CashApp: @WesSturdevant

Thank You for Public Domain

[ScienceFoundation]

My preferred refutation of the KCA is special pleading. If the universe began to exist, the principles therein also began to exist and cannot be applied. You don't get to say "The universe began to exist...except for the principle I need to make my argument. It was like metaphysical or something for some reason."

[Gwaithmir]

I wasn't impressed with the Kalam Argument and debunked it when I was a senior in catholic school. I knew I was on to something when my religion instructor, a priest, refused to discuss my critique, saying I was too young to know what I was talking about.

[BornOnThursday]

The Kalam focuses on the logic of cause and effect, but even if it somehow holds true in case of the "true" origin of everything, we, today, do not know how and we can't currently verify if it follows cause and effect.

I agree with Matt that adding a god doesn't help us as we don't know the "true" qualities of a god or gods, and have likely glued all these abstract features together to try and make it make sense.

[tedgrant]

"God" is the name of something, just like "Fido" is the name of something.
If I called my dog "God", I would know that God does in fact exist.
Perhaps God could be trained to perform tricks
(Exodus 7:3, Joshua 10:13).

[ericjohnson]

Whether something had a beginning or not, does not necessarily have any bearing on there being a cause. An eternal cause can create an eternal thing. So even if the universe always existed (and from our point of view, it might as well be eternal), there could still be a source for all the matter in the universe (or universe of universes).

But this is a typical case of asking the wrong question. The purpose for this argument is to provide a rationale for believing in God, with that rationale being materially based. But all religion is experiential. Would I go to a physicist if I had a broken heart? Why then would I go to a physicist if I wanted to get to know a spirit being? Something the physicist knows nothing about (at least not from a scientific perspective).
Our understanding of reality is materially based, and that perspective does color our thinking in most areas. But life is full of non-material things, like emotions. Life is full of experiences that shape who we become.

A more cogent question might be: "what experiences with the divine have people had, and can they identify items that contributed to that experience?" And "how did that experience improve their interactions with others (if at all)?"
I postulated this question in college back in the '70's, "regardless of whether or not God actually exists, is there a psychological benefit to believing in God?" Me being a Psych major. After my profound experience of the Divine Father's Love, I've concluded there is. And it certainly proved to me that God exists. But I leave up to the individual to choose whether they would like to have a similar experience of not. It takes both Capacity, and Receptivity.

[RKling-ob]

Unless you can debunk science, which has very solidly established that the universe had a beginning, and you can debunk cause/effect (which would make science impossible if it didn't exist), you must accept the fact that a first, uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

[roderickshaka]

🚨counter argument: ☝️anything that is sentient, has need, is rational, can reason, can differentiate between having and not having needs a cause.

[joehorn]

The only people here arguing for the kalam are known trolls.

[oldmanh]

I marvel at your intellect to explain things to explain

[bencompson]

The arguments presented in the video against the Kalam are weak. Having doubts about the premise is hardly an argument against it.

And appealing to semantics in regard to the beginning is weak as well. We have a reasonably good understanding of 'the beginning'. Most attempts to circumvent the idea of the beginning of all that exists trend toward bizarre and unprovable theoretical ideas requiring tortured mathematics that don't fully do them justice. Even the idea of the infinite existence of matter leads to bizarre and logically impossible conclusions. Appeals to dark energy and dark matter require tortured definitions of "nothing". Its almost like listening to Miracle Max. He's not dead, he's just mostly dead. Its not 'nothing', its just mostly nothing.

As to the Kalam not saying anything about God, well, sure, it does not name names. But if you consider the nature of the cause of the beginning of all matter, energy and time from a state when none of that exists then it aligns with the most important characteristics of how 'god' is logically and typically defined. You may decide not to call it 'god'. But you can't escape from the fact that you are describing God whether you call him The Force or Mother Nature or whatever.

[twelvestitches]

The First Cause was and is God. God created HImself. You don't have to accept or even understand it for it to be true. You think you are smarter than you actually are.

[ceceroxy]

Matt Dillahunty has the worst arguments ever against the kalam. He hasnt done one ounce of work, study or research on this subject. He doesnt have a clue what he is talking about.

[truerealrationalist]

Without having watched this, I can already say with absolute certainty that the Kalam was not "debunked" here. I am sure that no few, good reasons were provided to _doubt_ that the Kalam is _true._ That is a *rebuttal.* To *debunk* or *refute* an argument goes beyond this to demonstrating that the claim is _false._ This hasn't happened.

No can can demonstrate either of the premises or the conclusion of the Kalam is _false._ Therefore, no one can _debunk_ or _refute_ it.