The Kalam Cosmological Argument makes unsupported assumptions about the nature of time and the nature of causality. I have no option but to dismiss it as being fatally flawed.
A pathetic need to reinforce their beliefs in reaction to the advance of science forcing their god into smaller gaps every single day would be my best guess.
Really good video thank you, you make a fair attempt to capture some of the base criticisms of the Kalam, but there are so many more and I am sure this comment section will slowly fill with them over time. My biggest issue with your stated position is the presupposition followed by obvious special pleading. If something never begins it doesn't exist if this is true of everything then God cannot be a thing. And if nothing can exist alongside God then there is obviously not nothing.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is not an argument about God at all but rather about the possibility of a cause for the existence of the universe. What if this cause is something other than God which is timeless, spaceless, and with no beginning? One thing which bothers me is when religious people dishonestly use both science and philosophy against scientific, agnostic, and atheistic claims. Science has roots in philosophy as during the inductive scientific method and peer review we as scientists always question conclusions and hypotheses which is a direct reflection of the nature of philosophy in which you always question concepts. In religion you do not question anything as you believe as you do based off of spiritual faith which is in contradiction to the nature of philosophy. Also we as scientists do question our understanding of causality.
The idea that an extratemporal and extradimensional cat batted at the singularity with its paw, causing the expansion thereof and as such kicking off space and time and thus creating the current representation of our universe, makes just as much sense as the abrahamic origin story.
Premise 1 is problematic. If it’s true that whatever begins to exist has a cause, you have either an infinite regress of causation or an uncaused cause, which means there’s some exception to the premise. So, whatever begins to exist has a cause EXCEPT one thing. That’s not a very strong way to begin an argument. You also have a problem of pinning down how and when things actually come into existence. It’s very hard to track that and there are more questions than answers. Also, things popping into and out of existence does appear to occur in quantum physics.
The characteristics ascribed to their proposed cause also have significant problems, the only potential characteristic that could logically be applied would be "existent outside of our known universe". Anything relating to the cause requiring intent is nonsense, things are set in motion without any intent every moment of every single day. For example: a tree branch falling off a tree into a lake, after being hit by lightning, causing a wave to hit the lake shore and displacing a number of grains of sand has absolutely zero intent incorporated into any step of the process. At best the whole argument leads to the possibility of the beginning of the universe as we know it potentially having a cause from outside of the current representation of our universe.
“Some god exists.” Let’s pretend A god exists. The chances of YOUR god existing is so infinitesimal that you are all but guaranteed to be wrong about the god you are wasting your life on. Not to mention, “a cause” has NOTHING to do with a god. 🤦🏻♂️
Take the hint from the chat, or do your own research. The kalam is trash on numerous levels. If WPC cared he would have acquired an education in physics like all the academics he misrepresents did. He's had the time and funds to do his homework.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument makes unsupported assumptions about the nature of time and the nature of causality. I have no option but to dismiss it as being fatally flawed.
The original Kalam doesn't even lead to a god. Let alone your personal imaginary friend
Damn. I came to exist and I had a beginning. Am I God? Awesome!
why are you guys still doing this?
A pathetic need to reinforce their beliefs in reaction to the advance of science forcing their god into smaller gaps every single day would be my best guess.
Really good video thank you, you make a fair attempt to capture some of the base criticisms of the Kalam, but there are so many more and I am sure this comment section will slowly fill with them over time. My biggest issue with your stated position is the presupposition followed by obvious special pleading. If something never begins it doesn't exist if this is true of everything then God cannot be a thing. And if nothing can exist alongside God then there is obviously not nothing.
Sorry but the Kalam nonsense has never worked, never will.
Just drop it.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is not an argument about God at all but rather about the possibility of a cause for the existence of the universe. What if this cause is something other than God which is timeless, spaceless, and with no beginning?
One thing which bothers me is when religious people dishonestly use both science and philosophy against scientific, agnostic, and atheistic claims. Science has roots in philosophy as during the inductive scientific method and peer review we as scientists always question conclusions and hypotheses which is a direct reflection of the nature of philosophy in which you always question concepts. In religion you do not question anything as you believe as you do based off of spiritual faith which is in contradiction to the nature of philosophy.
Also we as scientists do question our understanding of causality.
The idea that an extratemporal and extradimensional cat batted at the singularity with its paw, causing the expansion thereof and as such kicking off space and time and thus creating the current representation of our universe, makes just as much sense as the abrahamic origin story.
Premise 1 is problematic. If it’s true that whatever begins to exist has a cause, you have either an infinite regress of causation or an uncaused cause, which means there’s some exception to the premise. So, whatever begins to exist has a cause EXCEPT one thing. That’s not a very strong way to begin an argument.
You also have a problem of pinning down how and when things actually come into existence. It’s very hard to track that and there are more questions than answers.
Also, things popping into and out of existence does appear to occur in quantum physics.
The characteristics ascribed to their proposed cause also have significant problems, the only potential characteristic that could logically be applied would be "existent outside of our known universe". Anything relating to the cause requiring intent is nonsense, things are set in motion without any intent every moment of every single day. For example: a tree branch falling off a tree into a lake, after being hit by lightning, causing a wave to hit the lake shore and displacing a number of grains of sand has absolutely zero intent incorporated into any step of the process.
At best the whole argument leads to the possibility of the beginning of the universe as we know it potentially having a cause from outside of the current representation of our universe.
“Some god exists.”
Let’s pretend A god exists. The chances of YOUR god existing is so infinitesimal that you are all but guaranteed to be wrong about the god you are wasting your life on.
Not to mention, “a cause” has NOTHING to do with a god. 🤦🏻♂️
Unbelievable! Not this again. This argument has been punished many moons over. And so has William Lane Craig. Stop it already.
It is not even worth the time talking about it. P1 is already garbage.
Take the hint from the chat, or do your own research. The kalam is trash on numerous levels. If WPC cared he would have acquired an education in physics like all the academics he misrepresents did. He's had the time and funds to do his homework.