The Kalam Cosmological Argument EP1 | ft. @MajestyofReason

--

References:

5) The Philosophy Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (2011), pg 91

8) The Kalam Cosmological Argument | William Lane Craig (1979), pg 8, 32, 36, 44, 46, 47, 49,

9) Infinity, Causation, and Paradox | Alexander R. Pruss (2018), pg 181-182

--

Timestamps:

00:00 An Absurdity
01:45 The Majesty of Reason
03:13 A Finite History
09:05 Two Stages
09:47 The Argument
10:17 Stage One of the Old
15:46 Stage one of the New
22:11 An Absurdity Addressed
23:43 The future

--

#kalam #apologetics #theology

[rationalityrules]

Graphical mistake at 23:02: The Earth and Saturn numbers are flipped to say that Saturn orbits 30 times for every Earth orbit. Small mistake, but worth noting.

[Tommy_XO]

Damn Steve this was great! But in order to reach episode 2, I’ll have to traverse an actually infinite number of moments of time, so looks like episode 2 is never coming.

[Erikulum]

Premise 1: The Kalam Cosmological Argument refer to things beginning outside of time.
Premise 2: The concept of "beginning" make no sense without time.
Conclusion: The Kalam Cosmological Argument make no sense.

[alananimus]

I despise the Christian use of the term "timeless". It's one of those terms they use to smuggle extra concepts.

[TheGuiltsOfUs]

I've never understood what these arguments have to do specifically with the bloodthirsty maniac worshiped by the abrahamic religions. You could just as easily use them to argue for the God revealed by Spinoza which rejects any teleological or moral obligations - practically atheism.

[amirhosseinahmadi]

My man's becoming a great motion designer and video editor in addition to being a fine philosopher.

[LuxuryLenoxLuditoryLuthorLob]

This man inspires me to become more productive in life, to seek knowledge and to challenge the beliefs of other's.

[farrex]

According to our very limited perception of space/time infinity can't exist, therefore an infinite being exists. Proving the impossible with the impossible is simply absurd, not to mention that we can't even prove either is impossible and therefore the argument only adds a level of complexity to a premise that cannot be proven nor observed. Only someone with a conclusion already set in mind, would be arrogant enough to say said argument proves anything.

[Garion]

Not ashamed to admit that a lot of this video went over my head…at least the first time I watched. Not sure if my understanding will get any better after watching it a couple (or more) more times.

[dungeon-wngw]

Alex O'Connor's recent video seemingly started a firestorm on twitter over the word "Atheist." if you're familiar with the situation I'd love your opinion on it.

[Zrsz]

When you see william "slaughtering children in gods name means their salvation" craig, you know its going to be brutal. Im suprised people still want to talk to that guy.

[iseriver]

Kalam is like Pascal.
They've probably done the most damage to the abrahamic religions.

[Martial-Mat]

"The incoherrence of philosophers" well he got that much right. So much "logic" used to prove bullshit. I feel that listening to WLC talk on this subject is akin to listening to the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grain explain how to detect witches.

[gbickell]

I can almost hear Craig, Turek and friends gagging on this as it's pushed down their throats, like force-feeding geese when making pâté

[vojtechrejtar]

Why is the spiderman talking so wisely now

[oldmanh]

The theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate’s books “Cycles of Time”, The Nature of Space and Time” by Roger Penrose advocates through scientific knowledge and reasoning that there is no first cause. Craig is a “Christian Apologist”, Koons is a Philosopher of “Religions”, Pruss is a Professor of Philosophy who is a “Believer”, and Lok is the founder of Civilization that writes songs for Pepsi Cola.The Kalam is another cosmological argument for the existence of “a” God ; as a ex Jesuit I have spent my life(84) seeking and have yet to hear a definition that is valid in structure and has sound definitive premises…evidence!

[JesusAguilar-phgn]

Even if the argument doesn't work without filling logical gaps with preexisting faith (i.e. it ultimately relies on confirmation bias), it's still supremely fascinating how some of the most brilliant minds will flex their brains and do some incredible gymnastics with very complex knowledge just so they can rationalize the beliefs they hold so dearly and refuse to ever let go.

[MarkoMood]

Since we have no examples of something beginning to exist, nor confirmation that the universe itself began to exist, Kalam's premises may be dismissed until further notice.

[snaga]

The whole Kalam assertion seems counter intuitive to me. They are unconvinced by infinite regress and that infinity itself is impossible but they assert that the first cause(God) is an infinite being. I must be missing something.

[MarkPalmerISP]

What's the distinction between "eternal" and "infinite" as WLC has no problem with God's eternal mind.