Articles

The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Debunked (The First Cause Argument – Refuted)


It’s a big one my friends! The granddaddy
of all the First Cause arguments, and an absolute favourite among many apologists… this, is
the Kalam Cosmological Argument – Debunked. The history of Cosmological Arguments (or,
First Cause Arguments) stretches back to Aristotle and beyond, where they were used to “prove”
the existence of gods such as Zeus. However, they received considerable development during
early Christianity, and then again between the ninth and twelfth centuries by Islamic
theologians, and it was during this time that the Kalam Cosmological Argument was first
created. The argument goes as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe
began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Before we proceed to debunk this
argument, it should be stated that William Lane Craig is predominately responsible for
restoring its popularity, as in 1979 he comprised a defence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
in the form of two additional arguments. Now while there are serious… serious flaws with
Craig’s additional arguments, and while this video will indeed briefly cover some
of these flaws, the main focus of this video is the original Kalam Cosmological Argument,
and so sorry Craig… you’re not in the limelight this time… I’ll have take on
your word-salad of a joke at a later date… So, to get straight into the thick of it,
the first point to be raised, in my opinion, is that even if we accept the original Kalam
Cosmological Argument in its entirety, all it would prove is that there was a cause of
the universe, and that’s it… it doesn’t even suggest, let alone prove, that the cause
was a being, and it certainly doesn’t suggest that this cause was a being that is eternal,
omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, personal and moral… that is one hell of
a leap! Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t remotely support Theism. A second
problem that arises even if we accept the argument is that while it would prove that
the universe had a cause, it wouldn’t prove that this cause itself was without a cause.
Or in other words, it wouldn’t prove that a first cause existed… which for a First
Cause Argument is pretty damn ridiculous… To be fair, the proponents of this argument
do indeed offer additional arguments in the attempt to assert that the cause of the universe
must be without a cause, but the point I’m trying to make here and now, is that the Kalam
Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial… And hence, the proponents
of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions… include
the likes of Craig. So far we’ve just scratched the surface of this argument, and yet we’ve
already demonstrated that even if it were valid it wouldn’t prove that a first cause
existed, and it certainly wouldn’t indicate that the cause of the universe was the Abrahamic
god… However, in an effort not to bore you, let’s move on from the starter and get to
the main meal… the logical flaws within the argument. One of most critical flaws with
this argument, and one that isn’t always recognised, is that it commits a subtle but
devastating Equivocation Fallacy. It does this because the argument switches between
two different definitions of the ‘universe’ throughout its premises in order to achieve
its conclusion. During premise two, the argument uses a scientific definition of the ‘universe’
– that being, “all matter, space and time”, but during premise three it uses a colloquial
and or theological definition of the ‘universe’ – that being, “everything that exists,
everything that has existed, and everything that will exist”. This key distinction here
being, that when we say that “the universe began to exist” using the scientific definition
of the ‘universe’, what we’re saying is that all matter, and by extension all of
space and time, began to exist in the way it does now. What we’re not saying is that
absolutely everything came into being from absolutely nothing. But when we say that “the
universe began to exist” using the colloquial definition of the ‘universe’, we’re
indeed saying that absolutely everything came into being from absolutely nothing. And this
brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
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.
In fact, to the contrary, everything we know about cause and effect overwhelmingly and
unanimously tells us that when a new thing is created it is due to the rearrangement
of energy and matter that already existed… that is, everything is the result of Creatio
Ex Materia (creation out of material). The truth is that we have no evidence whatsoever
to suggest that the universe (as defined by science) was created from absolutely nothing,
and hence, the extraordinary claim that something can come from nothing requires extraordinary
evidence, and yet the best response the proponents of this argument have offered so far, is the
assertion that absolutely everything began to exist at the Big Bang… Which again, simply
isn’t what the evidence suggests. Yet another defeating flaw that the proponents of this
argument commit, but not a flaw that the argument itself commits, is a Special Pleading Fallacy.
As already demonstrated, the Kalam Cosmological Argument by itself only asserts that the universe
had a cause, but the proponents of this argument go a step further… they assert that the
cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without
adequately justifying why this cause is an exception. In general, these proponents argue
that, because cause and effect cannot occur without matter, space and time, and because
matter, space and time began to exist as a result of the Big Bang, then whatever came
before the Big Bang could not have had a cause… but to state it for a last time… the claim
that matter, space and time began to exist at the big bang is not substantiated. To quote
Sean Carroll, a cosmologist who is in my opinion is remarkably articulate on this subject,
“the correct thing to say about the big bang is not that there was no time before
it, but rather that our current understand of the laws of physics gives out at that moment
in time.” And leads us to the last flaw I’m going to point out in this video…
and it’s another flaw that isn’t committed by the Kalam Cosmological Argument itself,
but is very frequently committed by the proponents of this argument. Beneath all the additional
arguments and word-salads, the proponents of this argument are essentially making an
Argument from Ignorance. What it all really comes down to is the claim that since no scientific
explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must
be very specific god… a god that, wouldn’t you know, coincidentally is the one that the
proponent believes in. That’s right… it all comes down the extremely satisfying “we
don’t know, therefore god”. Like I say in most of my debunk videos, there are many
more flaws with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and there are countless more flaws that are
committed by the proponents of this argument… But to recap just the few I’ve risen here,
the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial and or useless because: even if accepted,
it doesn’t support theism; and, even if accepted, it doesn’t suggest that a first
cause existed; and the argument is flawed because: It commits an Equivocation Fallacy;
and It asserts that something can be created from nothing; and the proponents of the Kalam
Cosmological Argument also frequently commit: a Special Pleading Fallacy; and, an Argument
from Ignorance. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is either a sound argument that is trivial
and relatively useless, or it’s grotesquely flawed argument that requires additional flawed
arguments to reach a theistic conclusion. Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the
view, and here’s an overwhelmingly powerful argument to consider… Whatever channel begins
to exist has subscribers. This channel began to exist. Therefore, this channel has subscribers!
And it loves them dearly! 😉 all 293 of them!

8
Comments
  • What can possibly have given rise to all that is or are we perhaps just an illusion, but then what is our consciousness that makes us aware of our own situation?

    So either existence as we know it has always been existing or non-existence cannot cause itself so we may not exist at all.
    Because we know we are here, that would for some assume that our matter has always been.

    Problem I see is that if something exists, has form and definition, moving in time and space, it then had a beginning for when it actually started.
    If not then it would cease to be as it becomes infinite without beginning or ending and can no longer be defined or formed.

    According to the above I choose to think that we have an existential beginning, caused by a "whatever" which itself has always been with no beginning or ending of its own.

    Though claiming that this "whatever" is not real, that instead we were caused by something that was caused by something.. a never ending chain of causation, is itself only a potential infinity and must logically be sustained by a "force" that itself is infinite with no existential beginning.

    Why? Because non-existence cannot cause itself to exist. And our matter cannot always have been because of defining properties of existing.

  • Didn't quite make it to the end, got bored listening to this deaf dude. Clearly hasn't listened to William Lane Craig or anyone else explaining the Kalam cosmological argument.
    It doesn't claim to prove the Abrahamic God.
    For the universe to exist it must have had a cause. Everyone now accepts that the universe had a beginning and can no longer hide behind the belief that it is eternal.
    The cause of the material universe must have been without cause otherwise we just move the argument to the next cause. The uncaused cause. And that same uncaused cause must have been spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful.
    And that sounds like God. Who that God is is another question.
    The alternative is to believe in the magic of nothing creating everything.
    The only fallacies I have seen have been in this poor mans attempt to undermine someone as gifted intellectually as Lane Craig.
    And if atheism is right, why are you wasting your life arguing about it? I'm always amazed that people like this spend so much effort trying to prove that there's no point to life.

  • And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of God. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.
    (6:116)

    And most of them follow not except assumption. Indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. Indeed, God is Knowing of what they do.
    (10:36)

  • 😅🤣😂
    WE know he’s Butthurt with Dr Craig laying ouT an irrefutable case. Adhominens are laughable. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    The Kalam Cosmological Argument still STANDS 😎

  • So atheists finally admit something can’t come from nothing. Thank you very much I’ve been waiting for you guys to finally realize how stupid something from nothing is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *