Debating the Kalam Cosmological Argument | Baylor University 2019

Matt Dillahunty CONFRONTED on the history of cosmological arguments

[Repent.Believe.obeyJesus]

So if you could be wrong why would you use that

[DepletedUrbranium]

First pretend you don't understand, second object when the argument is translated for you.

[euanthompson]

He might be wrong, because he is. It also has no bearing on the argument anyway.

[daniellowry]

Its quite clear Matt hasnt read any literature on cosmological arguments. There is no original cosmological argument. Cosmological argument is a family of arguments associated with a variety of philosophers from Aquinas, Al Ghazali, Leibniz etc.

[martytu]

If I’m being charitable, Dillanhunty is just trying to establish which KCA is being used in the debate.

If something like time has a beginning, then time requires a cause. It follows that the cause must be outside of time. Therefore, the cause must be timeless and has no need for a cause.

[sammyking]

No one has mastered the art of dodging and beating around the bushes like Matt dilla “dodge” hunty has

[dg]

Why would at matter what the original phrasing one? The point is just that the question, as it is posed now, specifically excludes questioning the creator.

[troyii]

Even if that was the intent, doesn’t the argument still hold up? Or at least that’s the poignant question now

[ignatiuscianci]

he is kinda right. "kalam" itself in scholarly sense means "rational study of Islamic theology". And its founded by Muslim apologetic scholars to counter Neoplatonic and Aristotelian philosophy. And the kalam cosmological argument was formulated by Sunni Persian scholar al-Gazali during Islamic Golden Age.

[HammerTrader]

“very being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.”-Al Ghazali in the 11th century.

[alexgonzalez]

Everything is an assertion until you have to prove it. 😂

[TeamRandomNoob]

No way y'all hyping up the cosmological argument 😂

[xHal]

It doesn't even really matter. Plenty of arguments for God started out as something that could be easily questioned or debunked. Adding the necessary "begins to exist", if anything, HELPS the argument. Whether or not the "original" was worded a certain way or not doesn't really matter. It still holds up better than something like Anselm's Ontological Argument.

[STREEEEEET]

It's BEGIN to exist because infinite regression of causal effects leads to a logical contradiction, therefore something IS eternal, aka the first uncaused cause..
And it's not a special pleading because it's not special at all, if you can demonstrate that the universe IS eternal, then the universe doesn't need an explanation for it's existence.