A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Ringtone]

(To read the refutation you must have a Youtube account and log in before clicking on the link to my discussion page on Youtube. I'm Michael Rawlings by the way.)

See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ: "Does The Universe Have a Cause?"


(Note: I don't know how to indent in YouTube comments, so all quotations are emboldened. Also, it was necessary to use parenthesis in an unorthodox manner on a few occasions where brackets would ordinarily be used because of the way YouTube codes certain types of bracketed information inside emboldened text. )

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (or Alex's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent! But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether Alex is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a non-contingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom! Right over his head.

Apparently, Alex lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble. No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternal, non-contingent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a twenty-something-year-old atheist—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards. (Earth to Alex: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . .

The rest of the refutation

 

[Hollie]

(To read the refutation you must have a Youtube account and log in before clicking on the link to my discussion page on Youtube. I'm Michael Rawlings by the way.)

See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ: "Does The Universe Have a Cause?"


(Note: I don't know how to indent in YouTube comments, so all quotations are emboldened. Also, it was necessary to use parenthesis in an unorthodox manner on a few occasions where brackets would ordinarily be used because of the way YouTube codes certain types of bracketed information inside emboldened text. )

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (or Alex's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent! But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether Alex is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a non-contingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom! Right over his head.

Apparently, Alex lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble. No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternal, non-contingent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a twenty-something-year-old atheist—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards. (Earth to Alex: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . .

The rest of the refutation

The idiocy actually begins with the false premise of the silly Kalam nonsense.

The philosophical proposition know as the Kalam Cosmological Argument is little more than an appeal to a religious perspective under a burqa of 'philosophy'. This argument had a brief spotlight a decade or more ago at the hands of xtian religionist William Lane Craig. The argument simple-mindedly claims that the xtian God exists because the universe must have a cause. It's another version of the 'origins' argument given supernatural causation.

A 'philosophical' argument for the existence of life and the universe is required by religionists because appeals to supernaturalism and magic dead end at fear and superstition. The hyper-religious must abdicate reason and rationality regarding their gods and delve into the philosophical (and metaphysical), because reason and rationality do not exist in the realm of the supernatural. Philosophical arguments are essentially useless for drawing conclusions because ultimately, there's no requirement for the conclusions to be valid or not. They produce nothing of any real utility for problem solving and ultimately, no requirement for 'philosophical' arguments to be true or factual.

 

[Ringtone]

(To read the refutation you must have a Youtube account and log in before clicking on the link to my discussion page on Youtube. I'm Michael Rawlings by the way.)

See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ: "Does The Universe Have a Cause?"


(Note: I don't know how to indent in YouTube comments, so all quotations are emboldened. Also, it was necessary to use parenthesis in an unorthodox manner on a few occasions where brackets would ordinarily be used because of the way YouTube codes certain types of bracketed information inside emboldened text. )

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (or Alex's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent! But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether Alex is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a non-contingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom! Right over his head.

Apparently, Alex lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble. No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternal, non-contingent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a twenty-something-year-old atheist—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards. (Earth to Alex: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . .

The rest of the refutation

The idiocy actually begins with the false premise of the silly Kalam nonsense.

The philosophical proposition know as the Kalam Cosmological Argument is little more than an appeal to a religious perspective under a burqa of 'philosophy'. This argument had a brief spotlight a decade or more ago at the hands of xtian religionist William Lane Craig. The argument simple-mindedly claims that the xtian God exists because the universe must have a cause. It's another version of the 'origins' argument given supernatural causation.

A 'philosophical' argument for the existence of life and the universe is required by religionists because appeals to supernaturalism and magic dead end at fear and superstition. The hyper-religious must abdicate reason and rationality regarding their gods and delve into the philosophical (and metaphysical), because reason and rationality do not exist in the realm of the supernatural. Philosophical arguments are essentially useless for drawing conclusions because ultimately, there's no requirement for the conclusions to be valid or not. They produce nothing of any real utility for problem solving and ultimately, no requirement for 'philosophical' arguments to be true or factual.

Another mindless, indeed, tedious ad hominem rant by US Message Board's one and only . . .

 

[Anomalism]

Another mindless, indeed, tedious ad hominem rant by US Message Board's one and only . . .

There's really nothing in that post you feel is worthy of a response?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thanks for posting the video. Love that guy. You, otoh, heh.

As an exercise, quote the extent of your own ontological, non ad hominem content thus far, then contrast with Hollie's. I won't hold my breath. Btw, no responsible adult should give a crap who you are in RL. I sure don't.

 

[Ringtone]

Thanks for posting the video. Love that guy. You, otoh, heh.

As an exercise, quote the extent of your own ontological, non ad hominem content thus far, then contrast with Hollie's. I won't hold my breath. Btw, no responsible adult should give a crap who you are in RL. I sure don't.

You apparently don't know, precisely, what ad hominem is. Moreover, the reason I identified myself thusly is because of US Message Board's rules regarding content from other social media sites that are not one's original work or properly attributed. Have the rules changed or are you just projecting your mindset on me? The content is not from Youtube as such, but taken from the discussion page of a member.
I'm telling the moderators that they need not be concerned as the above content was posted by the member who wrote it, namely, I .

Now did you actually have a meaningful and informed observation to share, or, like Hollie, are you just going to spout mindless ad hominem and irrelevancies?

 

[Ringtone]

Another mindless, indeed, tedious ad hominem rant by US Message Board's one and only . . .

There's really nothing in that post you feel is worthy of a response?

No. It's pure ad hominem. Her post amounts to theism is crap sans any ontological or epistemological justification, let alone an argument, any where in sights.

You want a response to her trash? Okay. Prove it! Begin by demonstrating that you actually understand the essence of the refutation and Alex's argument, such as it is. What precisely am I supposed to say?

Her trash is pure . . .

LOL!

 

[Hollie]

Thanks for posting the video. Love that guy. You, otoh, heh.

As an exercise, quote the extent of your own ontological, non ad hominem content thus far, then contrast with Hollie's. I won't hold my breath. Btw, no responsible adult should give a crap who you are in RL. I sure don't.

You apparently don't know, precisely, what ad hominem is. Moreover, the reason I identified myself thusly is because of US Message Board's rules regarding content from other social media sites that are not one's original work or properly attributed. Have the rules changed or are you just projecting your mindset on me? The content is not from Youtube as such, but taken from the discussion page of a member.
I'm telling the moderators that they need not be concerned as the above content was posted by the member who wrote it, namely, I .

Now did you actually have a meaningful and informed observation to share, or, like Hollie, are you just going to spout mindless ad hominem and irrelevancies?

You do find myriad ways to dodge, duck and then skedaddle.

Your need to shelter behind a 'philosophical' argument is a standard tactic to bolster a religious argument, one supported by appeals to partisan, supernatural gods. The religionist is burdened by having create supernatural gods administering over realms to explain the natural as if by doing so answering the fundamental questions of why are things are the way they are-- as opposed to doing what it really does, which is now create a whole new set of questions about the supernatural realm that cannot be answered. The 'philosophical' musings answer nothing, and of course it has the same effect of obscuring what the truth really is, and it opens up a larger question which is, "What the heck is 'magic'"? We can see this in the Evolutionist / Creationist debate tactic. The only people who fight the overwhelming evolutionary evidences are those with a vested interest in the literal accuracy of the Genesis mythology -- a mythology that is no more or less sacrosanct than the creationist mythologies of any other religious belief system. By accepting the two chapters of Genesis as the answer, they not only accept no answer as the answer ("magic!"), they forever preclude themselves from embracing what the true answer is. Asserting "the gods did it" only puts off by one huge step answering the question itself.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You apparently don't know, precisely, what ad hominem is.

Well, you just provided a perfect example.

Moreover, the reason I identified myself thusly is because of US Message Board's rules regarding content from other social media sites that are not one's original work or properly attributed. Have the rules changed or are you just projecting your mindset on me? The content is not from Youtube as such, but taken from the discussion page of a member.
I'm telling the moderators that they need not be concerned as the above content was posted by the member who wrote it, namely, I .

Not identifying yourself is commonly recommended. I believe you felt it warranted in this case, but I don't believe the mods will be convinced. Good luck with that.

Now did you actually have a meaningful and informed observation to share

Already done. I would get into where I part ways with the young fella, but it seems of little significance by contrast.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The rest of the refutation

I believe the guy covered the bases you portray as unvisited and see nothing more in your link. If you have any sort of cogent case to present, I'm still waiting to read it..

 

[alang1216]

(To read the refutation you must have a Youtube account and log in before clicking on the link to my discussion page on Youtube. I'm Michael Rawlings by the way.)

See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ: "Does The Universe Have a Cause?"


(Note: I don't know how to indent in YouTube comments, so all quotations are emboldened. Also, it was necessary to use parenthesis in an unorthodox manner on a few occasions where brackets would ordinarily be used because of the way YouTube codes certain types of bracketed information inside emboldened text. )

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (or Alex's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent! But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether Alex is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a non-contingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom! Right over his head.

Apparently, Alex lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble. No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternal, non-contingent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a twenty-something-year-old atheist—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards. (Earth to Alex: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . .

The rest of the refutation

I've always considered this argument as a 'God of the gaps' one. There was a Big Bang that created our universe, that is generally agreed by all (except maybe Biblical literalists). Science doesn't know what preceded the BB so that gap in our knowledge can be filled with an intelligent, supernatural creator as easily as any other cause.

I fine with not knowing what preceded the BB and consider myself an agnostic on the matter. On the other hand I'm 100% sure no one knows the answer so when it comes to a specific creator, in other words your God, I'm an atheist.

 

[Grumblenuts]

As Alex points out, given we agree there was a bang that produced what we now call time, to then presume something "preceded" that is silly.

Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternal, non-contingent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing.

Again, as Alex points out, you need to define your terms. Explain "nothing." Current cosmologists can locate "nothing" exactly nowhere so what are you really talking about?

Why is there something everywhere? Because nature disallows the existence of a true void. Because it cannot be otherwise. The potential for there to be something grows in exponential proportion to any lack of something. Potential geometry must always exist. It's non-material. Non-"particle." Non "wave." The term "virtual particle" literally screams the fact that no actual "particle" exists. Then what does? Fields. What's a field? A concentration of potential that applies pressure to material substances or to other fields, including rarified areas of the same field.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone: You apparently don't know, precisely, what ad hominem is.
Grumblenuts: Well, you just provided a perfect example.
Ringtone: Yeah, Hollie's example of it. Ad hominem is attacking the man while not providing an argument that directly engages the substance of the man's argument.

Grumblenuts: I believe you felt it warranted in this case, but I don't believe the mods will be convinced. Good luck with that.
Ringtone: Convinced of what?

 

[Ringtone]

The rest of the refutation

I believe the guy covered the bases you portray as unvisited and see nothing more in your link. If you have any sort of cogent case to present, I'm still waiting to read it..

What are you talking about? I address Alex's argument in detail. Do you have a Youtube account? Did you sign into your Youtube account before clicking on this link: The rest of the refutation .

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ringtone: Convinced of what?

That that amounts to a legitimate excuse regardless. They don't want anyone publicly revealing their personal info here in any case. You always can, but it sure ain't recommended.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The rest of the refutation

I believe the guy covered the bases you portray as unvisited and see nothing more in your link. If you have any sort of cogent case to present, I'm still waiting to read it..

What are you talking about? I address Alex's argument in detail. Do you have a Youtube account? Did you sign into your Youtube account before clicking on this link: The rest of the refutation .

I've had a YouTube account forever. I'm always signed-in. I will sign out now for you and sign back in..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, I've read some.. It's there. Mea culpa. I'll need a specific question in order to comment further.

 

[Ringtone]

As Alex points out, given we agree there was a bang that produced what we now call time, to then presume something "preceded" that is silly.

So you're saying that it's reasonable to believe that effects can just occur or that things can just come into existence without causes, that sufficient causation, the foundational principle of science, is silly?! You're saying that the belief in magical events is rational?!

crickets chirping

Grumblenuts writes

: Again, as Alex points out, you need to define your terms. Explain "nothing." Current cosmologists can locate "nothing" exactly nowhere so what are you really talking about?

You didn't read the refutation. I'm not going to rewrite it again here. Read it! I do define terms. In this instance, whether you know it or not, you're alluding to ontological nothingness. We do know what that is, namely, the absence of being. It's not rocket science.

Grumblenuts writes

: Why is there something everywhere? Because nature disallows the existence of a true void. Because it cannot be otherwise.

So now you're claiming that the material realm of being has always existed despite what the imperatives of logic and those of cosmological science tell us?

The potential for there to be something grows in exponential proportion to any lack of something.

You're making new atheist slogan speak. There is no such thing as "a lack of something", i.e. an ontological nothingness, in the first place. That's absurd.

Potential geometry must always exist. It's non-material. Non-"particle." Non "wave."

Well, now, you've finally said something sensible, but what is the ontological ground of immaterial existents? Geometry, immaterial mathematics in general, imply mind.

The term "virtual particle" literally screams the fact that no actual "particle" exists.

Nonsense. Pseudoscientific gibberish. Virtual particles are real particles, fleeting material existents, that arise and dissipate as fields rearrange themselves. If this were not so, we couldn't detect them.

In any event, you miss the point I make in the above preceding the link to the rest of my refutation. At the top of his argument, Alex acknowledges that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a non-contingent existent. In the very next breath, he obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Think. Logic, let alone any cosmological argument, does not assert that "everything needs a cause", but that whatever begins to exist must have a cause! By definition, God did not begin to exist.

 

[Ringtone]

Okay, I've read some.. It's there. Mea culpa. I'll need a specific question in order to comment further.

Fair enough.

 

[Ringtone]

The rest of the refutation

I believe the guy covered the bases you portray as unvisited and see nothing more in your link. If you have any sort of cogent case to present, I'm still waiting to read it..

What are you talking about? I address Alex's argument in detail. Do you have a Youtube account? Did you sign into your Youtube account before clicking on this link: The rest of the refutation .

I've had a YouTube account forever. I'm always signed-in. I will sign out now for you and sign back in..

Okay.