5 Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument (feat. James Fodor)

William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument is fatally flawed... so says author James Fodor. So let’s briefly outline five major problems with Craig’s defence of the Kalam, showing how he fails to establish the conclusion that the universe had a personal cause.

James Fodor YouTube

Unreasonable Faith: How William Lane Craig Overstates the Case for Christianity

Five Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument

Bad Apologetics Ep 5 - Kalam: Refuting William Lane Craig's most famous argument

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Support Paulogia at

Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast

Follow Paulogia at

[farrex]

William "let me just poison the well before addressing the argument" Craig.

[condorboss]

Interesting that WLC starts off with an _Ad Hominem_ argument: "People who disagree with me are Youtubers, not scholars."

[ProphetofZod]

I love how he says that no scholarly sources have refuted the Kalam, as if this is because the Kalam is awesome and not because scholarly journals don’t waste time on stupid nonsense. You know what else has never been criticized in scholarly sources? The use of avatars in YouTube videos and the intellectual rigor of Paul’s former faith.

[Thatonedude]

If smug was arguments, Craig would have the most

[JimFortune]

Craig says infinity is impossible, but his God is infinite.

[Sam_on_YouTube]

I learned the Kalam argument from a Christian philosophy professor. He assigned us journal articles to read that had counterarguments. I disagreed with him about his philosophical conclusions, but he was a good professor. I wrote my final paper arguing the teaching of the class was a contradiction. He gave me an A- and when I switched into the philosophy major, I asked him to be my advisor.

[ardenking]

The only people I've found convinced by WLC are people who already believe in the god at the time

[Travisharger]

I don’t even know what it means for something to “exist” outside of space and time. Time and space is what we call “reality”.

[just-some-muslim]

I would recommend the Book, *“Unreasonable Faith”* by James Fodor,
A direct response to William Lane Craig

[danielsnyder]

The main failure of the Kalam is the fact that NOTHInG has ever "begun to exist" All that we have ever seen are the rearrangement of existing things.

[taylorlibby]

It makes me kinda happy when William Lame Craig calls people who don't think like he does "infidels".

[OscarSommerbo]

WLC's "arguments" seems to amount to nothing more than assertions and quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo, much like Deepak Chopra. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[JiveDadson]

When something in our experience "begins to exist", it is a rearrangement of things that already existed.

[scienceexplains]

It’s easy to count to infinity if you count in increments of infinity: “Infinity”. Done. So what is WLC’s proof about counting?

[Rog]

Craig said that the being that created the universe, was endowed with this, that and the other.
So who was doing the endowing?

[shadowwolf]

Really, the best way to understand Mr Craig's arguments are to look up how con-artists work. The word games that Craig plays becomes readily evident when observed through the lense of knowing how it is that con-artists play with language in order to make it appear as if the speaker has something of value to say.

Craig doesn't know what he's talking about, he knows he doesn't, and he just wants to keep preaching without acknowledging criticisms to his concepts. He doesn't function like a honest interlocutor, we only ever see him twisting responses to suit his preconceptions.

Craig is playing word games, he isn't actually saying anything worth listening too. His arguments only work on people that are presupposing the conclusion to be true.

[ivanhagstrom]

It's delusional of William Lane Craig to believe that he understands general relativity better than the physicists that spend their lives studying it.

[aaronh.]

WLC has been corrected on all this before. Does anyone think he will admit it or change his views? No way - he has already ignored refutations by the boat load. He is a gifted orator though, very good at using the tone and pace of his words to influence. Personally, I think he’s a grifter and represents some of the most insidious anti-thought you can find.

[Seapatico]

I'd heard the phrase "Kalam Cosmological Argument" a lot, but never actually knew what it was referring to. So I was genuinely shocked to realize that this legendary idea for why God exists is just a fancy wording of:
"Well, it all had to come from somewhere!"

[andreasplosky]

Craig describes the big bang as "something that began to exist"
This is wrong. At best the Big Bang can be described as something that began to expand.
Craig is a weird phenomena. He delivers his arguments with great underlined conviction, but the content of what he delivers is always very childish, flawed, and full of miscomprehensions of basic principles.