One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. Logic, or at least intuition dictates that this Big Bang event had a cause. We send only good stuff. To reiterate, for philosophical relevance the kalãm argument must deal with things that begin to exist from nothing. rationalskepticism.org seeks to promote open and reasonable discussion to support free thinking and free people. So the Big Bang is analogous to your conception. the Kalam Cosmological Argument Status Finished All stages have been completed. The Cosmological Argument is therefore, nothing more than a clever god of the gaps argument. The universe began to exist. What caused the Big Bang is analogous to your parents. 4. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe. Let’s examine both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence in support of premise 2. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). The universe began to exist. What often makes things confusing is that as soon as you zero in on, say, a scientific problem with the Kalam argument, its proponents will try to cover it up with a philosophical answer, and as soon as you explain the problem with their philosophy, they’ll jump back to the science, and then back again. It has been re-worked several times to reach its present, most widely recognized form--i.e. The original Kalam cosmological argument was developed by Islamic scholars in medieval times based on the Aristotelian “prime mover” idea. There’s not much more to it than a simple, yet flawed, syllogism of three steps. 1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Kalam Cosmological Argument--Premise One. - God). For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows: One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. Enter your email to get updates from the SSE. Logic, or at least intuition … Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument Rebecca WatsonFollow on TwitterSend an emailAugust 7, 2011 3452 Less than a minute It’s another great video from commenters skydivephil and Monica – previously they took on the fine tuning argument. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. Image via Wikipedia We show how it is contradictory and that the physics being used to support it doesn't do so. The original Kalam cosmological argument was developed by Islamic scholars in medieval times based on the Aristotelian “prime mover” idea. Since this was obviously not the case with my coffee, it is an inappropriate comparison. The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) Our Universe could be one of many. 2. 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Relatively few people would have problems with the cosmological argument as given above. In this video we debunk the Kalam cosmological argument (commonly used by Dr William Lane Craig). Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its existence. There must have been some reason why the Universe came into existence. It is named after the kalam from which its key ideas originated. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth. Therefore, the universe has a cause. It’s details the many criticisms of the argument, all in one place: Authors of the KCA, such as Craig, see the argument as dealing with the beginning of existence of all discrete objects as being the set described by the term “everything”. Yes, the universe has a cause, but is it not possible that the cause… 1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Premise #2: The universe has a beginning of its existence; What, then, within the universe, has truly begun … It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing – a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology): 1. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It comprises two premises and one conclusion: Premise #1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; I have, over the years, been a keen objector to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an argument that apologists like William Lane Craig use to posit the existence of a creator god for the universe. However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. It claims that the existence of the universe can best be explained by an intentional designer, namely god, since natural explanations have not been able to posit such existence. Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The universe began to exist. Debunking "The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked" by atheist "Rationality Rules" Popular atheist YouTuber "Rationality Rules" tried stepping on the famous Kalaam Cosmological Argument popularised in recent time by Christian William Lane Craig and ended up stepping on himself. The Kalam-Cosmological Argument (KCA) is based upon the idea that the universe has an absolute beginning in time and therefor necessarily has to have a cause of its existence. They are: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The history of Cosmological Arguments (or, First Cause Arguments) stretches back to Aristotle and beyond, where they … The Kalam Cosmological Argument as oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig, is as follows. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. The Cosmological (Kalam) Argument This is a favourite of Dr. William Lane Craig. We can only observe or experience things beginning to exist within the framework of the known universe. Therefore the universe has a cause....a pointless, tiresome argument cited ad nauseam by William Lane Craig. - God can't create a spherical cube). They are: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Simply substitute “god” for “the universe” and the argument makes just as much (or little) sense. The argument of the atheist stems primarily from lack of understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. 4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. That's when your clock started. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below. Cosmologists have shown based on observational evidence that our Universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago which is traditionally called the Big Bang event. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. Logic, or at least intuition dictates that this Big Bang event had a cause. How to Debunk The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Leaping to the conclusion that there must be a single personal deity is exactly that—a leap—or, in other words, a non sequitur conclusion. Cosmologists have shown based on observational evidence that our Universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago which is traditionally called the Big Bang event. The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked — A Response To YouTuber Rationality Rules by Evan Minton I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. Rebecca Watson Follow on Twitter Send an email August 7, 2011. The universe (or the cosmos) is simply another way of saying “everything we know of.”, How to Debunk The Kalam Cosmological Argument, https://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Create-Universe-Nothing-ebook/dp/B01MAWBA7O?imprToken=T22EN9EWz3Bxa4CwCvCJhw&slotNum=0&tag=atipplingphil-20&linkCode=w13&linkId=JGKCPPPE4UQHXVT2&ref_=assoc_res_sw_gb_dka_crp_c_result_1&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2F. There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. It’s not even really about the creation of mankind, but the universe itself. The argument is fairly straightforward and enjoys intuitive support. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God. The Kalam-Cosmological Argument (KCA) is based upon the idea that the universe has an absolute beginning in time and therefor necessarily has to have a cause of its existence. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception. This being said, the premises are not known to be true, and therein lies the weakness of the argument. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God* because the entity behind the creation of the Universe had to have been itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, space-less, an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will. The more controversial premise in the argument is premise 2, that the universe began to exist. Playing next. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t arrive at a personal god. At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo. 4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). Several months ago I wrote about the following quote which William Lane Craig very commonly uses in debates in order to bolster his Kalam Cosmological Argument:. The argument is still full of the same holes, but when its proponents skip that way from the scientific to the philosophical, from the composition fallacy to the circular fallacy to the non sequitur fallacy, people tend to lose track of what’s going on, give up and accept the argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and William Lane Craig #1. In case you’re interested, I have a new book out debunking the KCA. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most popular cosmological arguments around today. It comprises two premises and one conclusion: Premise #1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; Premise #2: The universe has a beginning of its existence; A very common follow-up conclusion is that the cause of the universe must have been god. The state of entropy before the Big Bang and before your conception is irrelevant to our Universe and your conception. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. Let’s examine both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence in support of premise 2. Filed under Uncategorized via Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument – YouTube . 1) The Kalam-Cosmological Argument. 3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. The universe began to exist. 2. The Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) is an deductive argument, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. 3. Before we refute his argument, we must let the readers know that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy and what that means is the " context " of the argument … By Jonathan MS Pearce • Sep 10, 2012 • 66 comments. 1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. Premise 2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and William Lane Craig #1. The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. 3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. John Prytz (John Prytz) The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked! If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? This is a practical hand-book comprised of short segments that introduce common religious arguments followed by bullet-point replies that debunk them—simply, quickly, straight to the point. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. I have, over the years, been a keen objector to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an argument that apologists like William Lane Craig use to posit the existence of a creator god for the universe. There could just as easily be multiple deities, or a non-deity cause. An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. The kalam cosmological argument sounds a lot more complex than it really is. It' One of my patrons brought this video to […] It goes like this: 1. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… 14:25. – molecules from atoms). Trying to explain the origin of a framework based on things that are contained within it is a composition fallacy. Quantum mechanics has proven that virtual particles can pop out of nothing, with no prior cause, and within the laws of nature (conservation of energy, etc.). Before we refute his argument, we must let the readers know that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy and what that means is the " context " of the argument … Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Premise 2. 34 52 Less than a minute. Consider this analogy. Debunking William Lane Craig “Universe,” Kalam, and Equivocation 03/03/2012 The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states, “the universe began to exist,” where William Lane Craig defines “universe” as “the whole of material reality.” 2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. So I think that the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is surely true. Since the beginning of the universe marks the beginning of all physical entities its also the beginning of … There must have been some reason why the Universe came into existence. If the cause is unknown, if there is a gap in our knowledge needing to be filled, the unknown must be God.]. This argument depends crucially on the idea that the universe had a beginning in time and essentially has the following logical structure: 3. Alas, that conclusion doesn't arise of necessity from the premises. Since the beginning of the universe marks the beginning of all physical entities its also the beginning of space and time (or space-time) itself. The universe began to exist. 1. Get the Debating Religion book now and start debunking common religious arguments in real time. If the argument stopped there, well all's well that ends well. - radioactivity). RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. A contingent being exists. God is only one hypothesis of many. 4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. 3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. This argument depends crucially on the idea that the universe had a beginning in time and essentially has the following logical structure: https://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Create-Universe-Nothing-ebook/dp/B01MAWBA7O?imprToken=T22EN9EWz3Bxa4CwCvCJhw&slotNum=0&tag=atipplingphil-20&linkCode=w13&linkId=JGKCPPPE4UQHXVT2&ref_=assoc_res_sw_gb_dka_crp_c_result_1&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2F, . Report. You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. So I think that the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is surely true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked! There’s not much more to it than a simple, yet flawed, syllogism of three steps. that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. We hope this is the definitive take down of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 2. Now, they’re tackling William Lane Craig’s cosmological argument: 2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". That state of conception was your original factory condition. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Therefore, the universe has a cause. which you can watch here. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. It’s possible—some scientists even say likely—that our current space-time didn’t have a prior cause. You can just as easily make the same argument about god himself. The path to free thought is through questioning, learning from, and understanding ourselves, others, and our universe. The more controversial premise in the argument is premise 2, that the universe began to exist. 3. It is a simple logical syllogism. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states, “the universe began to exist,” where William Lane Craig defines “universe” as “the whole of material reality.” This definition is important to the Kalam argument because it serves as a linchpin for Craig to argue that the universe must be caused by something which is “uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.” The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It doesn’t explain how things went on from there. If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case. The granddaddy of all the First Cause arguments, and an absolute favourite among many apologists… this, is the Kalam Cosmological Argument – Debunked. the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The universe began to exist. It’s a false distinction to make a separation between the terms. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Therefore: It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument. It is a simple logical syllogism. By Jonathan MS Pearce • Sep 10, 2012 • 66 comments. Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler) While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. However theologians have a long history of trying to do so and Craig spends a lot his energy trying to provide scientific and mathematical support for the so-called Kalam cosmological argument. The Cosmological Argument is one of the classical "proofs" for the existence of God. The only conclusion is “the universe was created by something”. Theists however amend this logic to intuitively say, actually state, actually conclude that there was a reason for this act of creation. It is a surrender to the supernatural, and a forfeiture of the labor that science is forced to endure. The most popular proponent of this argument is William Lane Craig. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. The main issues are not with the premises, but with the conclusion. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event. Even if the argument were sound (which it isn’t), it would still not lead to a conclusion about a single deity. Dr. Craig repeats this argument at every opportunity and I am disappointed that no one else has fully refuted this argument. [To be quite honest, this is yet another pure leap into a philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” - God is hardly all-loving). Picture from: Wiki The Kalam Cosmological Argument (From William Lane Craig): Whatever begins to exist has a cause. This is by no means obvious. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. In other words, a chair, a marble, a dog and a mountain all begin to exist and have causes for their respective existences. However theologians have a long history of trying to do so and Craig spends a lot his energy trying to provide scientific and mathematical support for the so-called Kalam cosmological argument. The argument of the atheist stems primarily from lack of understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Therefore, the universe has a cause. ** The Cosmos being all that ever was, is or ever will be. * Your own personal version of God of course is The God of choice - of course. But, and there is always a “but” to have to consider, theists like William Lane Craig immediately leap to one further conclusion. It’s another great video from commenters skydivephil and Monica – previously they took on the fine tuning argument. Debunking "The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked" by atheist "Rationality Rules" Popular atheist YouTuber "Rationality Rules" tried stepping on the famous Kalaam Cosmological Argument popularised in recent time by Christian William Lane Craig and ended up stepping on himself. God did it. Byexbelieverat3/04/2006. which you can watch here. 4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. Browse more videos. The claim of the first premise is “whatever begins to exist had a cause.” It’s often demonstrated by listing the causal principle “something cannot come from nothing,” or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". Debunking Christianity. So that doesn’t follow at all. This is by no means obvious. The kalam cosmological argument sounds a lot more complex than it really is. Cosmologists have shown based on observational evidence that our Universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago which is traditionally called the Big Bang event.