Apologetics 101: Kalam Cosmological Argument

Send us a text (www.buzzsprout...)
Join one of our Discord Community Moderators, @StealthyWarlord as he presents, explains and discusses the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Stealthy is deeply passionate about his faith in Christ and that is made clearly evident in his commitment to Christian Apologetics. We hope and pray that this can be both edifying and instructive to you as you listen to it.
All of our official Bible Studies and Seminars done in the server are recorded and posted online for others to take part in.
Join our Discord to take part in these Bible Studies and so much more!
/ discord

[@Theos_thinker]

To anyone curious about the validity of the philosophical version of the Cosmological Argument: I suggest you watch the “debate” (more of a discussion) between William Lane Craig and Jimmy Akin (both Christians).
It’s a fascinating discussion.
Also:
When did these lectures begin? How do I join in?

[@ChristianInfluenceMedia]

Check out the events tab in our Discord! The next one is the 25th at 4pm PST. :D

[@ScienceFoundation]

The Kalam is a fallacy known as special pleading. If the universe began to exist, the principles therein began to exist and cannot be applied. You don't get to exempt causality from beginning to exist just because it suits your argument.

[@thediamondminer4892]

@ScienceFoundation Could you explain where the special pleading is? I dont quite understand what you are saying.

[@ScienceFoundation]

@@thediamondminer4892 Causality is a principle within the universe so if the universe began to exist, then the principle of causality also began to exist. You don't say gravity or the conservation of momentum applied prior to the universe existing. It makes no sense to try to apply causality.

[@thediamondminer4892]

@@ScienceFoundation Their seems to be a confusion here. Things like Gravity and Conservation of Momentum are physical properties. They by definition can only exist with in a universe. Now things like Causation are metaphysical properties, they are not reliant on the universe to exist. It would seem weird to me to assert that only things in the universe have to have reasons for why they come into existence, whereas the Universe itself (which is made up of the same things as those in the universe, space, time, matter, ect.) doesnt.

[@ScienceFoundation]

@@thediamondminer4892 Do you have an example of a cause and effect that does not rely on matter and energy?
Otherwise, that's just ad hoc rationalization.

[@thediamondminer4892]

@@ScienceFoundation Ad hoc is when someone is making more assumptions then needed in order to explain something. But either way, it is not on me to disprove you. Your position is that the Universe came into existence from nothing, due to nothing. That is your argument. What is your proof? Why should we believe that this is possible?