A comment from Youtube: “The Kalam is a trash argument, fallacious special pleading. If the universe began to exist, the principles therein also began to exist and cannot be applied.” Notice a couple things. First, the tone. This is (clearly) written by somebody suffering from emotional — and perhaps for him, uncontrollable — spasms. Who hurt him? I don’t know. Either way, while I can think of professional skeptics that question the force of the Kalam argument, I cannot think of professional skeptics who do not respect it. Critics who make remarks like these betray their insecurity. Which is fine. At least we then know where the hold up really lies.
I might have missed this somewhere, so I apologize if it is already here. I haven't yet read and listened to everything you have. I heard about the paper you wrote with Jim on the pros and cons of the Kalam argument (mentioned when you were on the Cutting the Gordian Knot podcast). Is that available, or could you point me to it if possible? I'm currently researching and evaluating various formulations of the cosmological argument and I think that would be extremely helpful. Thank you so much and thanks for creating this excellent content.
I might have missed this somewhere, so I apologize if it is already here. I haven't yet read and listened to everything you have. I heard about the paper you wrote with Jim on the pros and cons of the Kalam argument (mentioned when you were on the Cutting the Gordian Knot podcast). Is that available, or could you point me to it if possible? I'm currently researching and evaluating various formulations of the cosmological argument and I think that would be extremely helpful. Thank you so much and thanks for creating this excellent content.