Refuting Cosmological Arguments for God (AnticitizenX mirror)

For more refutations of the Kalam argument, you can check out the videos below:

Musical Credit:

"Origins" by Mike "Skitch" Schiciano.

This guy is amazing! Show him some love and check out his music.

[scienceexplains]

There is at least one error in the video: the chart of the apologists’ reasoning has “God did it” as the last item. It should be at the top left. They start with the conclusion

[JiveDadson]

You left out one important step in the KCA, namely, disabling comments.

[warrennz]

*_"I don't know"_* will ALWAYS be the first step to finding the truth. Sticking in an imaginary agent will ALWAYS be the wrong answer.

[Fimbulvinter]

Yes, William. You, or more specifically, your component atoms have always existed. 'You' began to exist when the atoms that make up your body came together to create the temporary form you regard as you. When you die, your atoms will break apart and reform to form new structures,  but that new structure is still made up from pre-existing matter, just in a new temporary arrangement.

[ChipArgyle]

Turns out you can't argue your preferred deity into existence. Who knew?

[meusana]

Just remember 1 thing. WLC is the only person qualified enough to speak on the matter of cosmology.

[pilgrimpater]

Leaving aside that i can't think of anything that has ever "began" to exist (as opposed to be a change of what is already there), i am still mystified as to how WLC thinks he can get away with a blind leap from Premise #3 to arrive at #4. Talk about a sleight of hand.
Btw WLC may argue that he did not exist in the Jurassic but he STILL will not say WHEN he actually began to exist. Did he come out of his Mother's womb looking like that?

[txfreethinker]

The Cosmological Argument is committing the logical fallacy of Special Pleading. That's why "everything that exists" was changed to "everything that began to exist." But, the new wording didn't change anything --- it's still Special Pleading.

[markpolice]

William Lane Craig's whole argument centers around "I don't know, therefore God.".

[SylvEdu]

I think at 6:10, what that apologist was talking about when referring to himself, was not his material body, but his existence as a mind, an agent, and a consciousness. While his material components existed, his identity did not, but sprang into existence out of a series of causes. Just a guess.

[lugus]

Also the first 3 premises are the KCA. Not the other 2. People use other arguements to explain how a god might be the best explanation, but the KCA doesn't aim to do that alone. It seems theres some misunderstanding about the actual arguement

[rationalmartian]

This is a great exposition of the Kalam. It is explained well, but in this one he really cuts through all the rhetorical bullshit, sophistry, obfuscation, and attempted smoke and mirrors to get it down to the plain dishonest load of old fallacious knackers it quite clearly is.

[Terry-nrqn]

I think there is a misunderstanding at 9:50
This is how I have seen the Kalam typically structured.
1Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2the universe began to exist.
3 The Universe has a cause.
As the big bang was when all material was created, this cause must be immaterial.
As.the big bang was when spacetime was created, this cause must be spaceless and timeless.
As anything that begins to exist has a.cause, the cause of the universe must havr never began to exist, or its beginningless.
So far we have a timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc cause of the universe. There are 2 things that fit the criteria of spaceless timeless etc... Abstract objects( like numbers or the laws of Logic) or a creator. Abstract objects ha e no causal power, so it must be the creator.

Things the kalam cosmological argument is not
1 logically fallacious
2 proof of a beard man judging you in the sky
The only thing the kalam does is establish a deistic creator.

Something interesting, science cant answer everything is an absolutly true statement even if its used fallaciously by christians. Do some research on the is / ought distinction and you will see.science.cant answer everything.

[rocadezona]

How is there something instead of nothing?

[SteveEwe]

Actually, I have seen a few that address this. There is no amount of arguing or listing reasons or syllogisms that will make an idea or a premise or a statement become an existence or prove it's existence. In order to verify if something exists, there is only one way to find out. Go verify it actually does exist in reality. Go measure it. *You can't do it from an armchair*. You can't do it on a chalk board.

This is also the reason why string theory (and anything smaller than what we can measure out of an accelerator) is currently in crisis. They could come up with the answers, but there's no way to verify it.

[lugus]

Religious people are not trying to prevent scientific advancement. There are theists at the most high end universities right now who are leading experts in some fields. Theres theists who are scientist at these universities aswell. Doing the research. All they hold is that God is the thing that underpins all of this

[Piterixos]

Your rebuttal is so satisfying. I wish all people who debate WLC saw it.

[humbertojimmy]

That's what happens when actual evidence and research take a backseat to... just thinking real hard about stuff.

[simenhaga]

Good video, and I like how you point out that the argument it self is no evidence for God, however when Thomas Aquinas introduced the argument it was not ment to prove the existence of God but rather that if you believe everything that is created has a cause, something must be eternal since something being created from nothing is absurd. That is where the strenght of the argument is.

[michelritergia]

If this held up more than a little bit then professional philosophers would bring this up