Does Kalam Equivocate on the Phrase 'Begins to Exist'? - Kalam Cosmological Argument

preview_player
Показать описание
Some skeptics and atheists have tried to refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument with the following rebuttal: "The argument equivocates on 'begins to exist.' In (1) it means to begin 'from a previous material state,' but in (2) it means 'not from a material state.'"

William Lane Craig responds to this so-called refutation.
  1. firstcauseargument
  2. Kalam Cosmological Argument
  3. William Lane Craig
  4. Begins to Exist
  5. Kalam
  6. Cosmological
Рекомендации по теме
Does Kalam Equivocate 0:03:20

Does Kalam Equivocate on the Phrase 'Begins to Exist'? - Kalam Cosmological Argument

Does Kalam Equivocate 0:02:51

Does Kalam Equivocate with the Word 'Cause'?

Equivocation in the 0:05:30

Equivocation in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (William Lane Craig, PhD)

The Kalam, Causation 0:02:57

The Kalam, Causation & Equivocations - Dr Alex Malpass

3. Worst Objection 0:03:04

3. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Fallacy of Equivocation

Response to 7. 0:04:26

Response to 7. Worst Objection to Kalam: Equivocating 'Begins to Exist'

7. Worst Objection 0:03:25

7. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Equivocating 'Begins to Exist'

Does Kalam Contradict 0:01:57

Does Kalam Contradict Itself with the Uncaused Cause? - Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Doesn't 0:09:21

The Kalam Doesn't Mention God: A Response to Rationality Rules

A Kalam Reply 0:23:52

A Kalam Reply to Capturing Christianity

Kalam and Equivocation 0:01:45

Kalam and Equivocation

The Absurdity of 0:02:05

The Absurdity of Denying the First Premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Peter Kreeft)

The Kalam is 0:13:12

The Kalam is INVALID | April Fools

Meaning of 'Universe' 0:01:28

Meaning of 'Universe' in the Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig & James ...

Does Kalam Beg 0:04:33

Does Kalam Beg the Question and Reason in a Circle? - Kalam Cosmological Argument

No, the Kalam 0:15:18

No, the Kalam Doesn't Equivocate (response to Rationality Rules - Part 2)

5. Worst Objection 0:03:56

5. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Nothing Can Do Something!

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1:15:42

Kalam Cosmological Argument 2.Physicists and Philosophers strike back

Responding To The 0:01:59

Responding To The Equivocation Fallacy Objection To The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Does God Exist- 1:24:39

Does God Exist- A deeper look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument

6. Worst Objection 0:06:53

6. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Nothing Ever Begins to Exist!

God Proven in 0:01:00

God Proven in 1 Minute

4. Worst Objection 0:04:25

4. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Fallacy of Composition

Great Cost of 0:08:21

Great Cost of the Kalam

Комментарии
Автор

What evidence is there that there was ever nothing?
Why does WLC talk about time being created at t=0 and also talk about time before t=0? I suspect it's because he can not wrap his head around a timelessness. It's easy to say "It's like asking what's north of the north pole", but it messes with your head nevertheless.
Timeless means "without change". What could a timeless entity begin to do?

ExtantFrodo
Автор

Yeah, I see a lot of youtube atheists use this argument too. I don't see a lot of scholars using it though. I can see why.

firstcauseargument
Автор

It's not's "his argument"...
Even if the argument did equivocate (which it do not) you don't seem to accept any "better" definition of it. If an argument is made more sound by defining a term better, wouldn't it be better to either reasonably agree or disagree with the new argument, than just throwing out the window because the original didn't hold?
And what are the evidence for nature to be a necessary being? Are you assuming that nature is all there is?

gjoerulv