"Yes it really has been debunked. It's a logical fallacy. It begs the question because the only possible eternally existing thing is God. Even if you ignore that, if everything needs a cause what caused the first cause? If the first cause wasn't caused, why is it exempt from the rules? Even if you concede an uncaused first cause, what says that cause must be God? Even if you concede that much, you still haven't shown a personal god. It's utter BS."
I get responses like this from atheists and theists alike online. Its very disappointing because it shows just how little people know of how logic and argumentation work. This atheist asserts that Kalam states that everything which exists needs a cause, which it doesn't. Kalam actually claims that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. But even so, if God needs a cause, it doesn't follow that God would not be a good explanation of the universe, you don't have to explain the explanation in order for it to be a good explanation.
This atheist claims that Kalam begs the question because the only possibly eternally existing thing is God. What? Kalam doesn't claim that. Even if it did that doesn't mean it is begging the question. To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion, in the support of one of its premises. Then he goes on to say that Kalam doesn't show that the cause is God, which is somewhat true, but William Lane Craig does give an extension of arguments in support of the cause being God in many vids on youtube and in his written works (one of these does argue for a personal being as well). The fact that this atheist is completely unaware of this, only shows he hasn't done his homework.
So basically in a small paragraph this fundy atheist has managed to commit at least 4 major fallacies in reasoning. The truly sad thing is that this comment got multiple up-votes on youtube.
No comments:
Post a Comment