The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Arguments For God Episode #4)

The Kalam cosmological argument is always a popular one for religious apologists to pop out during debates. It's centuries old, but is a persistent one. Here's my take.

LINKS:

@CosmicSkeptic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

[CosmicSkeptic]

Sorry about the video cutting out twice. The video wouldn't export until I removed the beginning for some reason. . .

[liyanadan]

hey Alex, just wanted to say that you are cool as fuck😎

[Lollypopgurl]

Please do a video on the big bang!! Too many of my theist friends claim its only a theory and there is no proof. I would love to send them a 10 minute video explaining why the big bang is scientific fact, since I'm no astrologist and I'm afraid of explaining it wrong or making points that are easily countered. Thanks Alex!

[VicedRhino]

I would love to see a video on the big bang. Also more sharks.

[godlessengineer]

I hate the cosmological argument. mainly because of the logical leap from something causing the universe to God.

[alph]

im always amazed by how smart and articulate you are, while stil sounding nice and respectful. I believe I'm about your age (im 18) and the students that I meet on a daily basis who are interested in science and atheism are incredibly arrogant. Most of them don't want to communicate or exchange, they want to show off their knowledge. Thank you for not being one of them!

[rationalityrules]

Awesome as always. Great job Alex! : )

[carson]

Damn, that's one cool ass shark.

[blubear]

I miss the chest of drawers in the background

[evingmadeez]

YES... I'm always down for a big bang!!

[DrMustacheQueen]

As a Muslim it's really refreshing to be able to watch an atheist point of view about God without bashing etc. I think the world would be a better place if theists and atheists were able to have a calm discussion about this, just like this video. I really enjoyed this. This is the first video of yours I've come across, but I'm definitely checking out your other videos. You make great points :)

[et]

You got every single one of Aquinas' ways incorrect.


The argument from motion has nothing to do with movement or force in space. It has to do with movement from potential to actuality. Second, you seem not to know that the Kalam argument, in many cases, is formulated on something's ontological or per se cause, not per accidens.


The argument from contingency, for example, you got completely wrong. We don't rely on our parents to exist in Aquinas' example because our parents are merely a per accidens prior temporal cause. He means that we are ontologically contingent upon things right now. For example, a room being lit is contingent upon there being a light. Light goes out, room is not lit. A parent could die but the child would continue to go on, therefore we are NOT contingent upon our parents in the sense Aquinas means it. We are ontologically and physically contingent on, say, our liver working or God upholding contingent beings. For example, why do things not spontaneously poof into nothingness? Because the necessary grounds the possibility of the contingent the Being of an object is continually created at every moment. This is why Aquinas says that creation happens at every moment, not at a moment in time. This was also why Aquinas EXPLICITLY stated that his argument was not contingent upon the universe having a begining.


This is sloppy work.

[troyschulz]

Just for the record Alex, you're quickly becoming one of my favourite skeptic channels.

[dionysis_]

Well, I think after Alex’s latest episode with William Lane Craig we all know that his refutation does not hold. Looking forward to his re-examining of the proof.

[ubergenie]

2;28 There is a world of difference between proving some kind of cause and God.


Yes. That is why Craig always shares the causal analysis. We can't use time, space, matter or energy to create our universe since they began to exist when our universe began or later. He asks his audience do we have any being we know of that is uncaused? Abstract objects, and God. Abstract object are causally effete. God is the only timeless, spaceless, immaterial, being that is powerful enough to account for the creation.


And if we want to punt to a universe generator multiverse we have only punted the problem backward according to Borde Guth Vilenken.

[Tracks]

Lovely content! Please keep going, one day you make it big

[LimiTLesSGamingmm]

Isn't he the kid that WLC responded and owned?

[kurisudeiru]

What if the Big Bang happened not because of a force, instead by the sudden absence of contracting force, like when you release a compressed sponge from your hands? Doesn't it mean that force isn't actually needed for there to be a big bang?

[DB]

This argument fails due the fact that Cause/Effect only apply to the confines of our space time. Which began as we understand it with the Big Bang.

Therefore the idea of applying Cause/Effect to logically deduce factors from outside our space time (before the Big Bang) is ludicrous and simply impossible.

Perhaps effects preceded cause or an entirely different process was about. It's impossible to tell. And even to dumber to assume you could.

[TestTest-hlem]

Hi CosmicSkeptic,
the contingency argument does not rely on cause and effect in the domain of time. this is a common mistake some people make. it relies on logical cause rather than temporal cause. i.e it utilizes PSR (principle of sufficient reason)