Kalam Cosmological Argument SPEED RUN!

This is a speed-run of the Kalam Cosmological Argument based on the finitude of the past. This video is designed to go through the argument as fast as possible.

[kamiljan]

This is the best speedrun channel on the whole internet ;)

[monarchblue]

This video was pretty awesome. You summed it up pretty neatly. Thoughts on Andrew Lokes kalam?

[philosophyman]

If you look at the vacuum of space you see both fluxuations in vacuum energy and particles and antiparticles forming and instantly obliterating. Its possible that these fluctuations can sometimes lead to straying.

[CMVMic]

@0:10 The leading cosmological modal is the Conformal Cyclical Cosmology by Roger Penrose. Also, Causal Finitism is not true (causal loops are metaphysically necessary). Causal Finitism posits motion ex nihilo. It assumes a first cause in a causal chain was motionless, how can one prove that a motionless being is metaphysically possible?

[Kyeudo]

A classic example of the Equivocation Fallacy. "Begins to exist" starts out meaning "was arranged out of existing matter into a new form", but then is used to mean "came into being from conceptual nothing", making the argument invalid immediately.

Then, it asserts that the thing which caused the universe to begin to exist must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, despite no evidence for such. It also asserts that a large thing can't be caused by a small thing in order to make the cause of the universe look as much like God as possible, ignoring many known instances of a large thing caused by a small thing such as an avalanche started by a single snowflake.

[somerandom]

Do you have any examples of anything that began to exist? and evidence of a cause?

Without these things, the kalam falls flat on its face.

[artsveiman]

how do you know there was nothing?, how do you know that it was spaceless, timeless and immaterial. and even if it was all those things, how do you know it was god?

[BasedxGabriel]

I don't use this argument because it essentially rests on a composition fallacy. "Because something is true about things within the universe, it must also be true of the universe itself." Just because things within the universe have a cause, it doesn't follow that the universe itself has a cause. I take the pressup route.

[geraldharrison]

So expressed, it is not a good argument. The claim that what begins to exist has a cause of its existence is just an upshot of the self-evident truth of reason that EVERYTHING that exists has a cause or explanation of its existence. If everything has to have a cause of its existence, then there must be some things that cause their own existence.

Second, it does not follow that the cause of matter has to be immaterial. For nothing in the idea of some things being the cause of their own existence seems to require that the things in question be made of a particular kind of stuff.

[les]

How do we know that the Universe required a cause? We know that events in the Universe require a cause, but why are we extrapolating this intuition to assume that the Universe as a whole had a cause?

[letusdebatenow]

💁🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

I'm always amazed at how theists miss the special pleading inherent in this argument.

[qsxdgwl]

I have a suggestion if you are up for it a speedrun proving Jesus existed

[MarcCastellsBallesta]

From 0:09 to 0:12 you said something about physics that isn't true.
Interpretations of some papers may say that. But there's no paper saying that. Big difference.
Nice try, tho!

[Nickesponja]

Why is all the work put on the second premise? The first premise is literally claiming to know something about EVERYTHING. Not "the things inside the universe", not "the things we have observed", but literally EVERYTHING. The first premise is definitely the one that needs evidence to support it

[ariellu]

Everything that exists - - cause.
God exists - - cause.

Wait, God is eternal, with no cause.
Therefore, Kalam argument fails.

Let’s try differently:

There is nothing that exists with no cause, which means that if there is something with no cause- it does not exist.

God has no cause, therefore God does not exist.

Kalam argument fails again.