David Wood (Acts 17 Apologetics) and Braxton Hunter (Trinity Radio) discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.
Subscribe to Braxton’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/braxhunt
#DavidWood #BraxtonHunter #KalamCosmologicalArgument
Special thanks to everyone who contributed via SuperChat and Super Stickers: Andy Shadich, MJ Jackson, grand champion mayday, Michelle Marie, Kafir Linda Clark, King Charles, and Onesimo Saenz!
This just came up in my mind. Atheists are like Buzz Lightyear. They both believe in a wrong worldview and both use illogical statements like “To infinity and Beyond”. Haha
First, since we don’t know everything about the ‘start’ of the universe, if that even is the right word, we can’t say that it had a cause. We simply don’t know enough. Even if you grant that it had a cause, you don’t know that it was a god or your god specifically. Even if you grant that … what was this god’s cause? I don’t understand why that it is so difficult to understand why some see these as gaping holes in the logic.
Good job God bless you🙏much love & respect💖
2:11 loud and clear 
It really amazes me that you theists don’t seem to have realised that science has progressed alot since Thomas Aquinas came up with the first version of the cosmological argument. Most modern astrophysicists reject the premises. You should listen to the debate between Craig and Carrol
I suspect no one, or at least extremely few, have gone from non-belief to belief based on logical arguments. I think there is usually some personal events that shifted perspective and outlook, and then one might be open for it. In addition, I’m not sure knowledge of God is the same as faith in God. Faith is more of trust in His plans than belief in His existence, though the first seems to require the latter, but I’m not sure of that either.
I have a question can infinity have a starting point?
How do you know that models with predictive qualities are better than those that don’t. Also nothing can be the cause of the universe. Also nothing is not restricted by rules or logic so anything can come from nothing.
I wonder why Google chooses to put adds for ramadam before your post?
Technically nothing ever begins to exist. Everything is made up of material that has always existed so premise one is false. Like how the wood that makes up a table is technically not created just refashioned
Great stuff, gentlemen. David, I’ve followed you for a while, and you’re awesome. Braxton, I just discovered you recently, and you’re a beast! Glad you’re on our side.
In order for a deductive argument to be logical, it has to be valid and sound , while it’s true that the Kalam cosmological argument is valid, it’s not sound though.
1st premise; EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXSIST MUST HAVE A CAUSE.
how do we know that’s true!?
Have we explored all of the universe!?
Do we know for sure that the same current laws of physics had applied in the early stages of the universe!?
Besides, causation does not result in anything to simply exist, nothing gets to exist rather it’s rearranged by pre-existing elements.
And causation is a temporal natural law which simply states that everything that is WITHIN the universe is made of elements not CREATED ex-nihilio. We don’t know of such law/laws if any, operates “OUTSIDE “our universe.
2nd premise; THE UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST.
The universe did not just begin to exist, its expansion started.
Besides, the universe is not just a “THING” it’s a set of THINGS ,this premise treats the universe as a member of itself.
And finally the word “BEGAN” implies that there were TIME “before” the universe which is nonsensical <>.
We were created with the free will to choose or not choose God. - This is the reason for the passion. This is the reason why the passion had to occur. This is what the Prodigal Son parable is all about. See if you can follow this…:
Free will is not an absolute. As an example: None of us, or few of us “choose” our sexual orientation - that is thrust upon us.
God gives us free will to not choose him. That’s a gift. And the first thing we did with it was to not choose him. At that point, there’s an obvious fork in the road - God can either leave us with our free will and were are be-damned OR he can take away our free will in this regard and we are saved. That’s the two obvious choices - but instead God chooses a 3rd more complicated choice. Thru the passion he provides a way back to him without us losing our free will.
In the Gospels Jesus does not put a gun or sword to us and then tell us how or what to believe. Instead he coaches us and teaches us how to seek the truth. All of Matthew chapter 8 is about that. He wants us to find our way back to him under our own impulses. That’s what the Prodigal Son story is all about. It is each of us’s biography told from God’s perspective. Each of us has to make the journey out and the journey back in. It is more important that we do that, honestly, than anything else. So there’s nothing wrong with anyone being an atheist - it just says where they are on their journey - and hopefully they find their way back. But God doesn’t put a gun to the head of anyone.
What this analysis says about the Passion is stunning. The reason for the passion is not just to save us - God could have done that simply by taking away our free will. What the passion does is allow us to be saved AND keep our free will.
Think about what that means for a moment. God so loved us that he gave us free will AND a way back to him - but that required him into humbling himself into a man’s body, then having himself tortured & humiliated and murdered in the most humiliating way. So free will is important. Atheism is aggravating. In the Prodigal Son story, the father remains troubled the entire time the son is gone, hoping he will return. But apparently tolerance of it and all manner of free with is so important that God put his only begotten son through the meat grinder.
This to me explains the hidden God problem. Not only can we not prove there is a God, we can neither prove that there isn’t a God. Because one or the other would affect our freedom to choose. So science advances, theology advances, knowledge advances but maybe wisdom advances too - and that wisdom is that we cannot prove whether or not there is a God because God wants us to make the choice for him or not for him. Let me save you some anguish. We will never fully be able to prove God exist or does not exist - by design, no matter how advanced our knowledge becomes, and its that way for a reason. The reason is so we can have free will.
To that extent, the proof that there is a God is that we can neither prove or disprove him and that the story of Christianity is all about that.
Now if there is a devil, he is against this project. He wants to deny all the above. And if you dig into it you’ll realize that Islam is all about that. Islam is not about doubt & faith (the lack of certainty provides wiggle room for us to have free will): it is about certainty - creation is evidence of a creator. Islam labors to take away humanity’s freedom of choice, thus the death for apostasy & the beheading of infidels/kafirs. Islam does not deny that there is a God, it just labors to deny us the love of God as manifested in Christ and his sacrifice for us. Islam doesn’t deny God, it just attempts to thwart God’s plan and in that attempts to deny Christ. Islam doesn’t deny Jesus existed, it just attempts to deny the Passion of Christ. Islam then is patently anti-Christ. You don’t have to wonder who the Anti-Christ is, it is Mohammed.
The claim, “God, You didn’t give me enough evidence to believe in You,” WILL NOT WASH on Judgment Day. Everyone knows that the world around them is real, and that some things in it are REALLY good, and other things are REALLY evil. That’s enough.
It seems to me that after reading many of the posts here from those who favour the existence of a god believe it to be a Christian god. Why they don’t favour any of the other countless gods or goddess’ that have “existed” throughout human history is most likely due to the fact of their geographical birth place, their family, their environment and the year in which they were born. Their arguments are mostly false premise and emotionally charged and offer little to nothing by way of evidence or sound logic. I’ve always thought that if the universe had a creator, it certainly wouldn’t need to have books written in languages that were invented by great apes such as ourselves. Thanks to science and scientific reasoning (albeit by great apes) we are finally on our way to rid ourselves of the idiotic religious ideologies and their hideous non- progressive doctrines that have ruined so many lives.
Wipes nose with bare right hand at 34:57. Do you want to shake hands with Mr Hunter?
The theory of time and God’s knowledge, B theory, sounds like Greek Parmenides to me, also way before Islamic philosophy
If there truly was no God then there would be no gods at all.
We would just be another animal on this planet and the idea of Sin wouldn’t exist either.
There would be no group of people calling another group of people sexually immoral as we all would have grown up thinking if you want a baby then have sex with the opposite gender if you don’t want a baby then have sex with the same gender.
Nobody would have any reason to get uptight about any sexual behaviour, unless our morailty really does come from an external source.