Kalam cosmological argument

I think they're all bad.

So not a fan of the Kalam cosmological argument, but I am a fan of other arguments for the existence of God.

One of them that may surprise some folks is I'm a fan of the ontological argument.

The ontological argument holds that you can demonstrate the existence of God just from properly understanding the concept of God.

It said, basically, information is not the same thing as knowledge because knowledge requires a knower.

For instance, like ChatGPT can produce an accurate paragraph about the Kalam cosmological argument, but does ChatGPT know the Kalam cosmological argument? And so why don't you explain that a little bit? Because I thought that that was fascinating and something that even like my high school class, I could put in front of them and say, this is the type of implications that we have when it comes to worldview and the soul.

Yeah, what's interesting about consciousness is consciousness does stand behind this discussion, this more fundamental discussion about knowledge and what it is we mean by knowledge and as well intelligence.

Because in the beginning of the book, I think we gestured this.

Now, you might say that the cosmological argument isn't convincing to you.

He actually employs the Kalam cosmological argument, which means to me that he's been reading William Lane Craig, another Christian apologist who has made a career out of the Kalam cosmological argument.

And so he utilizes that as a version of the cosmological argument.

I think he got his terms mixed up there between the cosmological and the teleological there at the beginning, and then he sort of writes the ship in the second half of his answer there.

So perhaps we will just have to be a bit shorter on it because it'll overlap.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the KCA.

This is Craig's central argument and probably contribution to philosophy of religion.

And it goes like this.

Exactly.

Nobody's looking at the Kalam cosmological argument and it's like, oh, finally I understand everything.

I think that those are the post hoc justifications for why people continue to like engage in conversations with atheists or people who want to be like spiritually ready and fortified in order to like fight against people who are criticizing it.

So for me, it's like as soon as you find community other in other places and you recognize, oh, these aren't the worldly people that have been like said to believe or like evil.

I mean, I'm not doing due justice to the rigor that McGrew presented the thing, but I, it was really quite fascinating.

It kind of, it, it, As you put it in a deductive format, it's kind of like that Kalam cosmological argument where you get to the conclusion like, oh, this is valid.

The conclusion follows the premises.

And if the premises are true, it's true as well.

I've seen him with other atheists taken to task, including Dawkins.

yes i saw that too yeah and i'm like going wow this guy's a great apologist so he clearly understands the the issues at hand but but here's what i was curious about and he's a great example i think so if you gave me let's say your famous argument the the the kalam cosmological argument and i listened to that as a human being with an intellect inductive deductive reasoning logic reason all the things i'm presuming exist And I listen to that and go, wow, that is an amazing argument.

I got to be honest, that is very compelling.

I agree.

Yes, I think that it's important to understand, Brad, that You're talking here about a person who is faced with an enormous decision to change his entire world view.

And that's hard to do.

One naturally feels stuck in one's own worldview of which one is convinced, and therefore one will not easily convert to another worldview in the absence of really, really compelling reasons, or perhaps an existential crisis in one's life that forces one to make such a change now with alex i did an interview with him on the kalam cosmological argument have you heard that interview yes

yes of course i've heard everything you did brother

Like, if this is true, then this is true.

And I think the Kalam cosmological argument would be a great example of a, you know, a, a deductive syllogism And so just a reminder for people, we've talked about this so many times, but it's a three-part syllogism with three premises.

[clears throat] Or I guess two, two premises and a conclusion.

So premise one would be, um, so everything that begins to exist has a cause.

...

the, uh, ability to create the Kalam cosmological argument, the first cause argument, and seeing the Big Bang as an ally.

And so reframing Christianity as not merely compatible with Big Bang cosmology, but actually seeing it as, as an aid to traditional Christian theology-

Mm-hmm