I know I am very late to the party, and the OP has been banned, but I will still respond.
Kalam is flawed in both its validity and its soundness.
Right from the start, the argument is guilty of committing the fallacy of equivocation.
It is using the same term, "begins to exist" with 2 different definitions. And the sad thing is, the OP even perfectly describes those 2 different meanings.
In their first premis, the give examples of things beginning to exist from already existing stuff: Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist from matter and energy that already exists. This is existence ex materia.
But in their next premise, they are using the term "begins to exist" for their god creating the universe from nothing, this is existence ex nihilo.
This is not the same meaning as in premise 1.
Kalam is also guilting of committing the fallacy of composition. This is assuming, that just because something is true of part of the universe, it must be true of the entire thing.
(January 6, 2024 at 4:23 am)JJoseph Wrote: Hi all. I'm curious if any of you can refute the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence
Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.
Step 2: The Universe began to exist.
This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.
Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.
Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.
This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?
Regards,
Joseph.
Kalam is flawed in both its validity and its soundness.
Right from the start, the argument is guilty of committing the fallacy of equivocation.
It is using the same term, "begins to exist" with 2 different definitions. And the sad thing is, the OP even perfectly describes those 2 different meanings.
In their first premis, the give examples of things beginning to exist from already existing stuff: Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist from matter and energy that already exists. This is existence ex materia.
But in their next premise, they are using the term "begins to exist" for their god creating the universe from nothing, this is existence ex nihilo.
This is not the same meaning as in premise 1.
Kalam is also guilting of committing the fallacy of composition. This is assuming, that just because something is true of part of the universe, it must be true of the entire thing.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
