Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Succeeds 

Atheists like to think that if God revealed Himself in an "undeniable" way, that they would without a doubt believe in Him. But this is not true. The Israelites experienced God in a way most of us don't and they still doubted Him. It's our sin nature to suppress the truth.

Kalam Cosmological Argument Expanded 1. Whatever began to exist had a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause and that cause was the rapid expansion of energy referred to as the Big Bang 4. All things that exist are made of matter and energy 5. A new thing begins to exist as a rearrangement of the matter and energy of prior things that existed from which the new thing arose. 6. Therefore, the beginning of the universe came from whatever began the rearrangement of matter and energy that existed prior to the beginning of the Big Bang. 7. The cause of the beginning of the universe is unknown at this time. 8. The processes of changing one material thing into another material thing are physical. chemical, and/or nuclear. 9. The scientifically minded person is satisfied with the truth of #7. Theists feel insecure with the uncertainty of #7 and quickly insert their favorite god or gods having the made-up-omni qualities that reinforce the teachings of their holy book.

The big problem with the Kalam is, it's an argument of common sense logic. Thing is, the more we find out about the universe we more we find it goes against our ideas of common sense logic, relativity giving good examples. There is so much we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing, and the answer is probably going to be something beyond our present understanding. And yet some think this rather simple logic of the gaps argument tells us something about the fundamental nature of the universe. It doesn't.

Awesome informative lecture,where is the full video plz ?

Au contraire! Atheists end up saying "up" is "down" and "left" is "right" and redefining terms in order to take the contradictory wrinkles out of their basic argument, which is: Nothing can cause something to exist. (That's as good a definition of "magic" as one can invent.) Richard Dawkins' big complaint is that what "appears" to be Intelligent Design is actually the effect of some unknown physical mechanism. (Once he's asserted that, he's free to make up any mechanism that he can imagine, no matter how illogical it is.) So, atheists are great at accusing others of doing what atheists do best: inventing myths, fables, and superstitions (and then trying to cover their tracks by calling them scientific theories).

we see stars exploding, therefore there’s an exploder. if you think that’s ridiculous then imagine how ridiculous the argument that if the universe has a beginning there must have been a beginner sounds.

No Frank, the amount of energy in the universe is not decreasing - it can't because the net energy of the universe is zero. We are just returning to a state of equilibrium. Also, the idea that everything needs a cause is an assumption that may well be false. However, if true, that cause could be a quantum fluctuation - not your god. Of course, all of the Kalaam depends on intuitive reasoning which we know is unreliable.

Most physicists and philosophers hold the view that time is tenseless. This is the most powerful and common objection from philosophers of time. The tensed view of time needs to be addressed AND defended if KCL succeeds.

If all space and time came into existence at the moment of the big bang then there never was a time when the universe did not exist as there was nothing before the big bang. If the big bang was not the beginning of the universe and merely the beginning of an expansion phase in a much older universe or multiverse then how can we then determine if the universe had a 'beginning'. Even if we could say that the universe had a beginning and that beginning had a cause (both currently unknown) we have no grounds for saying what that cause was. Saying it must be a god is an argument from ignorance.

The Kalam is a bad argument. And there are lots of different angles to attack it from, but it basically boils down to trying to apply an inductive inference as if it were a universal truth. 1. Everything that begins to exist has cause for its existence (inductive inference) 2. The universe (is a thing that) began to exist (Big Bang theory) 3. The universe has a cause for its existence. 1 is sometimes said by apologists to be a sort of a priori metaphysical truth. But is it? I doubt it very much. I think that it is an inductive inference from our experience. Every thing that we see come into existence has a cause for its existence. OK, but what kind of "thing" are we talking about in P1? We are talking about complex proper parts of the universe, because that is all we have any experience of beginning or coming into existence. However, the universe is not a "thing" in this sense. The universe as a whole is obviously not a complex proper part of the universe. As such, the Kalam is implicitly committing the informal fallacy of equivocation. or we could actually make the fallacy of equivocation explicit by realizing that the type of beginning that we are talking about in 2, i.e., the "beginning" of the universe as a whole simultaneously with the beginning of time and space itself is a radically different sort of beginning than the "beginning" of any complex proper part of the universe, the type of beginning that informs the inductive inference in P1. One way to demonstrate the faultiness of the KCA is to propose another equally valid argument with equally plausible premises but which "proves" but which has a conclusion that it anithetical to Christian theistic belief 1. Everything that is caused to exist comes into existence from preexisting material (Inductive inference) 2. The universe was caused to exist (theistic premise) 3. The universe was caused to exist from preexisting material Did I just prove creatio ex nihilo to be false? No? I agree the answer is No, but if you can understand why not, then you should also understand why the KCA is a bad argument.

Very well put together presentation even with the cut and paste in scene in the classroom. Just wish we could see the speakers screen when he points to it.

Question. If the quantum world was there before the macro world. How is that a universe form noting? The quantum world is energy and if it is such then space, matter and time are present because that's what energy is. Shouldn't it be the quantum to the universe? Also when you spoke of the battery losing its charge doesn't that energy dissipate into a new form of energy? Then another? And another? What I am trying to say is that the energy something is made of is eternal. But its form changes. So because one form is decaying that doesn't mean the energy is being lost, all that means is that it's transformed into another form. And another. And another. Until eternity.

Can anyone, anyone at all demonstrate the first claim of the cosmological fallacy? Logic 101, if you make a claim, be prepared to back it up. Should be easy if it's true. All we've got is people trying to sidestep responsibility, asking questions back at anyone who points out the weak link. Anyone....?

if God is space less then how can he be "outside" of bigbang. space started at bigbang and "outside" is word which is an attribute of space.

Even if the KCA would stand, that would'nt be proof of the christian god at all...

If this moment right now began to exist, did something "create" that? Or is what "created" this very moment just the fact that a previous moment ended. See? We don't need any kind of being to be a creator.

And I'm simply suggesting that Turek is giving an intro to Kalam. Besides, I think it's a wild allegation to say MOST scientists hold to a tenseless universe when MOST scientist hold to the Big Bang which is the beginning of time as we know it.

Mr. and Mrs. Brady tell their six children, "All kids who are not the eldest must share a bedroom." Greg is the eldest child, so the rule clearly doesn't apply to him. However, the role of "eldest" is unique. Only one person could possibly be the oldest sibling. There's no need to use a variable like "the eldest" if there's only one option that fits the definition. Mr. and Mrs. Brady could just as well have said, "All kids who are not Greg must share a bedroom," without any change in meaning. We could even rephrase it as, "Greg doesn't have to share a room but all other kids do." Same thing, different words. "All things that begin to exist have a cause" When we qualify "all things have a cause" with the implied exception of things that did NOT begin to exist, we have to ask what those un-beginning (or maybe we can call them "eternal" things) might be? I'm going to assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that most Christians would put God on the list of things that did not begin to exist. What else goes on this list of eternal things that could have created the universe? If you admit there aren't multiple eternal, uncaused things, we could simply rephrase premise 1 to read: "All things except God have a cause." It works just like it did when Greg was the only possible option that fit the exception. So now God is being used as evidence of God, which is of course circular and thus invalid. Please, Christians. Do not let your people use the Kalam as evidence. I'm only pointing out one flaw of many. The Kalam does NOT help your position or aid your credibility in the eyes of people looking for real reasons to believe. You should rethink using it, seriously.

Great video. I appreciate the upload. Frank is one of my favorites. A little logic and reasoning leads to the theistic view of the creation of the universe.

Even if you agree with the KCA-where does a god come in? And if it's a god- which one? Thor? Zeus? I'm not too intelligent so can someone please explain to me why doesn't the KCA apply to a god as well? Isn't that Special Pleading? If something caused the universe what caused god? If God was always there, why couldn't the universe always be there?

One of the main flaws in most versions of the KCA is in the first premise. "All things that begins to exist, has a cause" This is in contradiction with the christian belief of libertarian free will; which states that agent causation can begin a new chain of events. So it should be someting like: "Everything that begins to exist, has a cause; except ideas of agents." This exception would be essential to the argument.. and offcourse would be needed to be demonstrated as well. So for the KCA you also need to demonstrate libertarian free will.. good luck. (another things assumed in the argument: - A-theory of lineair time at the scale of space-time)

In my opinion, the cosmological argument boils down to a choice of two causes: a non-temporal impersonal cause or a non-temporal personal cause. Each cause necessarily existing in a non-temporal state outside time and space which did not exist before the Universe. But since a personal cause requires intent before cause, and an intention to change the state of affairs rather than maintain them and what the content of that change will be, then this negates the ability of a personal cause having a non-temporal existence because intent must precede cause in a temporal existence. Therefore the first cause must be a non-temporal impersonal cause. So I agree that the cosmological argument is logically sound and valid, and logically concludes with a non-temporal impersonal cause. Now, consider how the cause could exist outside time, yet need time to function. This is a contradiction of it's necessity to exist outside time to be considered a cause, which would not have existed before the Universe. Time and space did not exist before the Universe so any cause would need a non-temporal existence. This is important to remember in using logical assessment here! One cannot simply defy logic and assume the cause can defeat the necessary conditions of it's existence, or this would be considered Special Pleading which is a logical fallacy. And second, if one is to then argue something illogical about the nature of the cause, and specifically then bring a God into the argument with the attribute of omnipotent, then further arguments can be used against that God's attributes, such as omnipotence. So consider this argument against a God's attribute of omnipotence: Can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? If God makes a stone so heavy that it cannot be moved, then God cannot move it and is not impotent. But if God cannot make that stone, then there is something God cannot do, and hence God is not omnipotent. So God cannot be omnipotent. A man can make something he cannot lift, so the question itself is logical. Only the application of the attribute of omnipotence make it more complicated. So omnipotence itself is a contradictory attribute and simply claiming God can do anything and is omnipotent does not work when trying to claim that God can exist outside time, and still require time to function, which is an illogical application of the omnipotent attribute just as making a stone he cannot lift would be. And finally, what is the difference between a personal cause and an impersonal cause anyway? Well a personal cause requires intention, foresight, planning, purpose and organization. Aspects we typically associate with a person or the thinking of a person. Something with a will of it's own and the capacity to carry out that will. Since there are many attributes of the monotheistic God which this obviously applies, including many examples in the Bible of such a God carrying out that will, then the term "personal cause" would apply to that kind of God specifically. But an impersonal cause is the result of natural forces or conditions that had no previous cause other than the conditions in which they exist necessarily. Such as a lightning strike or hurricane. Yes these two events have a cause, such as storm clouds and high and low atmospheric pressures, temperature conditions and static produced by hot and cold air colliding, they nevertheless do not require a will, or intention, foresight, planning or have a purpose. They are not the result of a will that is being carried out on purpose. Or with a desired result or conclusion. So they are considered impersonal causes. Of course it can be argued that a God controls every single atom in the Universe, and even the winds on Mars are a result of this Gods will. But you see the dilemma of assuming this kind of omnipotence is possible in the example of a God creating a rock he cannot lift. Omnipotence itself has it's own contradictions, and when you combine it with Omniscience, then you get the Problem of Evil. That a God knows everything in advance that will ever happen, and has unlimited power to stop it, but simply chooses not to. And so the theist would argue that is because we have FREEWILL, and God allows us to make our own choices and face the consequences of those choices ourselves. Well I agree my own actions result in their own consequences and I have nobody to blame for them than myself. And I wouldn't blame a God for the evil of men anyway. But if I were Superman, and could fly and do all the things Superman can do, I would protect this world from evil as much as I could, save children from pedophiles, save people in fires, prevent starvation and wars, and do as much as I could with the powers that I had towards the most good I can. I think any good person would. But I don't think it's a matter of Freewill. I think that is an excuse by theists! I think if God didn't want evil in the minds of man it wouldn't be there at all. Why? Because in the Bible it talks about the Tower of Babel in which God makes each man speak and think in a different language. One minute you speak Hebrew, the next Japanese! Or Arabic! or French! We assume all the languages in the world right? And each language also comes with it's own perceptions, interpretations and definitions of things unique to that language which directly contribute to our understanding and interpretation of reality. So this goes beyond effecting merely the will of man, forcing him to perform some action or task, this changes the brain itself, forcing the man to conceive of his own reality in a completely different way! This is not just changing the will, this is changing the man! Why can't God simply delete evil from the brain of man like he installed a language in it then? Seems a mere matter of programming and the desire to do, don't you think? So don't give me that "I choose to go to hell because I don't believe in God" crap. If God can make me speak Japanese and understand their complex thinking and writing style, then he could whisper "Hello! I am God. I exist and how are you, man?" in the brain of every unbeliever on the planet and atheism ends the moment after...

Turek's understanding of entropy is worse than my dog's understanding of the Korean language. If he insists on further propagation of this lawyering of "scientific evidence" he really must fix his abysmal explanation of the Second law of thermodynamics.

Turek never said that God created Himself. God is an immaterial being that needs no cause. If the universe created itself, it would have to be something and nothing at the same time. Turek gave no contradiction. And God created something out of nothing CAUSED not uncaused. So, this doesn't hurt causation. It's interesting that earlier you made the comment claiming Turek said nothing about causation now you seem to want to deal with it. I'll unblock you when you stop contradicting yourself.

Awesome speech .. when i was a evolutard I really did not understand science . I’m not a scientist I’m just a regular joe , but understanding irreducible complexity and a symbiotic relations really changed my mind .

And furthermore, if he's arguing that the universe began with the second law of thermodynamics then he must admit that the pre-fall utopian existence would have been impossible

It fails because there is a difference between how theology defines nothing, and how science defines nothing. They're much different.

The Kalam argument and franks arguments did not and do not succeed at all.

The argument fails because it assumes the need for a cause. It's simply a god of the gaps fallacy. No one's been able to prove it yet.

He did not beg the question because he didn't posit the conclusion in the premise. He actually gave reasons why someone created the universe rather than no one. Did you even listen to the video? "You can see the fallacy by applying the same question to ANY unexplained effect." Now THAT'S begging the question, because you're assuming his premise can fit into any situation when he said it was about the universe NOT everything (like hidenbergs, etc.). How many sock puppet accounts do you have?

The first premise is unproven. It's an assertion and therefor worthless. Second premise is essentially true, although time started existing at the big bang too. There is therefor no "cause" for the universe because that implies a time before the big bang. That moment does not exist. Therefor the conclusion is wrong. The idea that the universe has a "cause" is wrong because the word "cause" is not valid in this context. Without time the word cause is meaningless. Conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.

Too late now, but it would have been nice for the camera to have been dialed in more on the *SLIDES* and not just Frank. Oh well.*EDIT* ..........Where was this hosted?

He questions "You can't make a tiger out of nothing." well? how can you make a God out of nothing?, it's easy, you use your imagination.

Sorry. Yes, I re-uploaded this video. The first one I uploaded wasn't the one I intended to put up. That was a mistake. This video here is longer and better. Enjoy.

the Cosmological Argument for the non-existence of god. 1. Everything that exists must have a cause. 2. god is uncaused. 3. Therefore, god does not exist.

Correct me if I am wrong: The flaw with the argument Premise 1 and the conclusion. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause.", and "Therefore, the Universe has a cause.". It never defines what "begins to exist" means. To be logically consistent, you would have to say that the Universe began to exist in th same sense that things in the Universe began to exist: Which would mean that the cause of the Universe is bound by time, space, matter, etc. just like we are. But that would mean that the mysterious thing that caused the Universe also has a cause bound by time, and the thing that caused THAT would be bound by time, and so on. There's an infinite regress.

Great stuff. The word "nothing" seems to be where atheists get lost. They dont "want" there to be an understanding of nothing because that would mean someone outside of time, space & matter created! And that would perfectly define what we understand as GOD. Seems to coincide with the Bible too... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1 NIV. However, its not really about what folks "want," its more about what is true.

Frank Turek can't handle the fact that some people don't believe what he believes in and is so angry about it. His presentations come across as desperate. He believes in god and I don't and who cares ? Let's focus on the here and now problems in the world.

PhD in apologetics... hmm... If three people have PhD's on their specific religious ideologies... Like Frank Turek and his PhD in Christian apologetics, compared with another person with PhD in Muslim apologetics and a the third with a PhD in Hindu apologetics... what does that say about a PhD in apologetics? Doesn't Turek, have a degree in conniving people to believe his version of a story without evidence? ... Just like people with a PhD in a counter belief.

If Turek addresses every single part/question/objection of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I'm afraid the lecture would be hours and hours and hours... possibly over a month long. Sorry, if I decided to post a video up as an introductory forum for KCA. If you want to know more about the Tensed and Tenseless theory of time according to KCA, I would recommend Craig's works. But it's obvious that Turek holds to A theory of time.

Why do Christians feel the need to prove the existence of their God? Isn't faith enough?

The KCA fails because both premises are unproven. We simply don't know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, or that the universe had a beginning.

If I take out the word "universe" from points 2 and 3, and substitute the word "rainbows", the argument is essentially unchanged. Yet anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science can explain the "cause" of rainbows without invoking a deity. KCL provides evidence of nothing.

30:34 its funny because hes also believed in the separation of church and state, as well as religion being harmful on society

If there ara nothing, then there are no law of thermodynamics, so then the 2 law of thermodynamics has no mening for it did not exist.

If space began at the BB, then what was BB expanding into? Something can't expand into itself can it?

"Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Succeeds" It doesn't succeed. It loses when it is called an ARGUMENT. To prove something ( in this case, the existence of a god) you must present EVIDENCE for the god, not ARGUMENTS. It is not possible to argue or define something into existence. To prove a god exists: 1) define the god in a clear meaningful way A meaningful way means the definition cannot use: - presuppositions - arguments from ignorance - circular reasoning - false dichotomy - unproven claims ( ie: claiming god exists in a place outside of space and time without proving that such a place exists) 2) present evidence that can be examined & that proves the clear & meaningfully defined god exists

I was simply suggesting that defenders of KCL should defend its most pressing objections, which is exactly what Craig did in his 2 Books defending a tensed view and criticizing a tenseless view. I'm familiar with Craig's work on time and recommend Oaklander's response to craig.

The thing about the "first cause" is that it is an uncaused cause. This is our justification for calling it God: A thing is omnipotent if and only if it is not restricted by any rules. A thing is not omnipotent if and only if it is restricted by rules. Is the first cause restricted by rules? If no, God exists. If yes, then it is not the first cause. Something else defined its nature (i.e. the rule) Therefore the first cause is not restricted by rules. Therefore the first cause is omnipotent. Therefore the first cause is God.

Turek blatantly misrepresented Einsteins work...

great presentation! but just curious as to why Mr Turek never mentions georges lemaitre? The belgian catholic priest who formulated the Big Bang Theory.

i helped make off-road trucks. tell me what begins one.

Doesn't the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument to assert it's truth need an observer that has witnessed every event that has caused something to exist. The universe exists but you cannot assert the truth that the universe has a begining with a premise that is an assumption. If the universe has a beginning there could be no cause of the effect of the creation of the universe because of the temporal nature of cause and effect. But paradoxically you cannot have a definite present in an eternal universe.(how can we get to the present from an eternal past) Both arguments have there flaws so don't be mislead by the piosness of science or religion.

The Scholastics have an old axiom that says "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." Meaning in English : "Out of nothing comes Nothing". If you were to ever have an absolute state of non being aka "Nothing", then something could never arise from that state of non being. For something to come into existence from absolutely nothing, it would need a cause, and you would have to say that it CAUSE ITSELF into existence. But for it to cause itself to come into existence, it would then have to exist prior to itselt to cause itself to come into existence, which plainly violate the law of non contradiction. Therfore, something can't come from nothing. Read slowly: - Out of nothing arises nothing. - Nothing cannot create something because nothing has nothing to create and no ability to create. - There is nothing in nothing that can cause something, because it's absolutely nothing. - *If nothing had the ability to create, it wouldn't be called nothing, it will be called "something that has the ability to create something". And that is not nothing.* So, the universe had a beginning therefore it was caused by 'something' else 'outside the universe'.

I think the universe has a beginning...as well as time having a beginning. I see no problem in speaking this way. I also believe time is tenseless. What do these statements mean given a tenseless view of time? Craig, Oaklander and Sider are excellent sources.

The believers thank God for sending down Al Ghazali and his intellect.

The issue I have with a god of this universe is this. If God is infinite, has existed infinitely why then did he create mankind in only the past 5000 years?? What was he doing the last trillion trillion trillion etc years?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument An argument that Uses the most fundamental laws of contemporary physics and engineering. To prove. The presence. Of God. Allah. 1-Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existe. 2-The universe began to exist.( The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.)+(the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). In a closed system the available energy will become less and less until until finally you have no available energy at all (you have reached a state of entropy).simply The universe is running out of energy.which also points us to a universe that has a definite beginning. 3-therefore, the universe has a cause. In Holy Quran the Word of God, THE ‘BIG BANG’ VERSE اَوَ لَمۡ یَرَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ کَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنٰہُمَا ؕ وَ جَعَلۡنَا مِنَ الۡمَآءِ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ حَیٍّ ؕ اَفَلَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out (fafataqnahuma)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:31 Al-Anbiya) The universe is running out of energy VERSE ﴿٨﴾ أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۗ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّهِمْ لَكَافِرُونَ 8. Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth, and what is between them, except in truth, and for a specific duration. But most people, regarding meeting their Lord, are in denial. ( The Romans

Thank you Muslims

The KCA fails because, depending on how you interpret the terms it's either a fallacy of equivocation and/or a fallacy of composition. This stems from the "causal premise," i.e., that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence, being an inductive inference from our experience of things beginning to exist. Besides the problem of induction, i.e., you can't reliably derive universal principles from an inductive inferences, there's also the problem that our experience of things beginning to exist is limited to complex proper parts of the universe coming into existence from pre existing (material) simples. However, IF the universe began to exist, and I believe that in some sense it did, i.e., it had a first temporal moment of existence, it's not a complex proper part of the universe (it's the universe as a whole), it could not have come into being from preexisting (material) simples (nothing preexisted the universe) and it did not "come (or pop) into existence" because that implies that there was a time prior to the beginning of the universe where the universe did not exist. So, what all this means is that the term "begin to exist" in P1 is different than the sense of "begin to exist" in P2, which makes the argument a fallacy of equivocation. It's also a fallacy of composition because it tries to hold the universe as a whole to a principle that, at best, we can only ascribe to complex proper parts of the universe. The KCA is not a good argument at all. It has some prima facie appeal, and it's understandable why someone might miss the equivocation, but it's a fallacious argument nonetheless.

No. The quantum vaccum is energy. That's NOT nothing. That's something. Do you think nothing is something at the same time? Furthermore, I don't see how it's merely nuanced to say there was no before. Turek would agree with that. So would I. There was no time before the singularity.

Liked the video purely for the hippo defecation comment. Other stuff seems very solid too.

Even if there was a first cause why would it be your god?

Huh? How so? The Big Bang Theory is right in line with causality. It doesn't refute it at all. There's a reason why Christians have been embracing the notion of causality and showing how the BB is proof of it. As far as nothing goes, the universe popped into existence CAUSED out of nothing. I don't see how this can be put as an objection to the notion of causality. How is it merely nuanced?

I totally agree that the argument is not valid. But if I were to just agree that the Universe was created by something that existed outside of cause and effect and time. What in the argument proves that this "something" was sentience, or a God, or the Christian God. Even if I did agree it was caused by a sentient being, why would it be the Christian God?

If you believe that everything has a cause, then you cannot believe that we have Contra-causal free will, and are therefore a Determinist.

Argh! We live in a culture that has been steeped in religious images and metaphors. Of course, when some amazing new feature of the natural world is discovered it evokes these images and metaphors in our minds. Scientists are not immune to this, but I can almost guarantee you that when scientists appeal to these images and metaphors they are most often appealing to them exactly in that sense, i.e., as metaphors. Yes, Einstein spoke a lot about God, but God to Einstein was metaphor for the order and beauty in Nature, not a supernatural person who designed the universe.

... okay, I don't see where Turek implied that anywhere. Why knock down a strawman? Why can't time exist at the point of the Big Bang? Better scientists know that.

Look, until you watch the WHOLE video and not dodge EVERYTHING I said in my previous comment, I'll unblock you. If you want answers be open to it. And you'll see no jump was made. The only jump was made was you're incredible leap over the arguments that were said.

I have no "proof" that this universe actually "exists" (ref: The Matrix). But I have a "gut feeling" that the universe exists. Since the universe does exist (my premise) then that means "there are things which exist". In my personal experience everything which begins to exist has a cause. God (if there is a god) is the only "thing" which never "began to exist" (again my premise). Therefore god is the only "thing" that could have "started the ball rolling".

"That something that begins to exist must have a cause." LOL! So, it's obvious you didn't watch the video, especially the part where Turek talks about causation. Look, if you think it makes sense that something can come into existence UNCAUSED, not only does that destroy science, you also shouldn't have a problem if a raging tiger pops into existence uncaused out of nowhere. TBS doesn't respond to any part of this video except a little bit with causation. His video sucks.

All science is based on the assumption that we can DO science in the first place. The atheist denies that he makes any assumptions whatsoever and then denies the right of everyone else to assume that we can, via reason alone, figure out that the universe cannot be self-caused. (Atheistic logic glorifies irrational arguments.) The little kid assumes that he can learn ride a bicycle and so he goes on to do so. The atheist is at a loss to explain how anyone's faith (assumption) enables him to see and know more than the atheists does. That's what irks an atheist the most.

Loving how the kalam concludes god for us. Used to be a atheist but now... I'm wondering though, where does faith come in to the equation since it's god's deepest concern and that but now we know he's there?

Very powerful argument

Let's say we allow the Kalam Cosmological Argument, purely for the sake of argument. Let's accept the contention that this would be proof of a personal God. We immediately hit many problems : 1. If we try to then deduct that a God exists - then, by the (accepted) Kalam, he necessarily began to exist. Therefore, following the accepted reasoning, he too necessarily had a creator... and suddenly it's turtles all the way down. 2. We can avoid problem 1 and set God up as an exception to the initial premise... but such an exception means that the initial premise is now invalidated and must be reconsidered. Worse, Occams razor then provides that by far the better claim is that the universe itself meets the stated exception without introducing further complexity. Clearly, both 1 and 2 cannot be simultaneously avoided. But for the sake of argument, lets imagine that you pull a logical rabbit out of the hat and we are forced to assume prime cause. You have yet to demonstrate that such a cause is sentient or personal... far less that it just happens to be the Christian God out of over 2000 long abandoned Gods and hundreds of current Gods. To do so is equivalent to : a) Everything that exists began to exist, and; b) the universe exists, therefore; c) Invisible unicorns drank all the milk in the refrigerator. This video is nothing but deliberate straw-men. This man stands up there, argues both sides to a sympathetic audience and, unsurprisingly, manages to win his solipsistic schizophrenic argument. Heaven forbid that he should ever have to debate/... y'know... an *actual* skeptic. (But here's what one would have said if they were here) This aversion to challenge is precisely the reason that most of these videos turn off the comments. These types of claims are simply far too fragile to stand up... the false claims attributed to the opposition are far too easily countered... and the false premises and illogical conclusions used to form the argument do not bear actual scrutiny. Most Christian apologists are at least smart enough to deliver their loud, nonsensical, speech with all the bluff and bluster of PT Barnum and block any comment in the hope that nobody listening ever hears the other side of the debate - worse, they will try to convince you that you HAVE heard the other side and it's not remotely credible. Seems many (most?) Christian apologists are alarmingly disingenuous... if not downright deceptive in presenting their claims. Conversely, you'll almost never find a skeptic video which hides from its audience. This is because skeptics, on the whole, welcome the debate and are happy to bear public scrutiny as they have a well founded logical basis for their statements. Certainly, it is far rarer for an atheist to attribute false claims to the opposition. They're usually found asking theists what they think or mean, and then arguing within those explicit terms... and only with the ammunition provided by their opponent. Indeed, when an atheist engages in this kind of skulduggery, fellow skeptics will be quick to point out their failings. We skeptics, it seems, simply value truth and honesty more highly.

What about reality? Has reality always existed? God exists within reality correct? That's what it means to be real after all. So if God is real and exists within reality then who or what created reality?

This dude is out of his mind and suffering from self induced psychosis

USE THE SHROUD OG TURIN AS AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD

FT can improve on his talks by lowering his voice. He keeps on shouting

He didn't jump the step to the ominpotent being. It's obvious if the universe was created the creator was omnipotent. Listen to the video. What else do you expect, the universe was created by a weakling-nothing-unintelligent nature? Talk about a jump!

cool

+Bob Langevin Everything that BEGINS TO EXIST must have a cause. God is eternal and exists unaffected by time and space, therefore God is the uncaused first cause.

you mean "you're ignorant." quite ironic. the greatest mind in the universe can't verse you in correct english.

Sorry,I'm a little late to the party but I'm having a great time.IDHEFTBAA 😏

Too much philosophy in the comments... 🤔

George Ellis is a genius! He is up there with Newton, Maxwell, Tesla, Polkinghorne, Planck, lemaitre, Salam, penzias....They all believe In a Creator!

Do people still use the Kalam Cosmological argument? It's been debunked countless times ha I'm surprised there are still people out there trying to push this nonsense.

... o-kay. Turek actually gave evidence for the beginning of the universe. I just hope you actually watched the video.

These apologists are just deluding themselves. Deductive reasoning has proved to be next to useless in uncovering truths about the natural world. The ancient Greeks were masters at such reasoning and yet most of the "knowledge" they obtained about the natural world using it was complete garbage. Now these apologists come along and think they can apply the same type of reasoning, except this time they want to apply it to a realm we know even less about i.e. the supernatural realm. Yeah right!

Stop screaming

Neither the Heliocentric model or the Big Bang Theory are true, but the core logic of the Kalam Cosmological argument still works.

"Where is the evidence for this?" Watch the video and you'll find out. I'll unblock you when you do.

LOL! From 24:50 to 25:30 made me laugh so hard. This argument collapse with this bad example.

is this a stand up comedy? maaaan i had a blast laughing my ass off

"I believe in the big bang I just know who banged it" 😂

the cats out of the bag.......... I confess it was me.......... worst thing I ever did :-)

atheists-"There is no God and I Hate HIM !!!!! lolllllll 😁