Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fails

William Lane Craig has said, "I am stunned, frankly, by how weak the responses are to this argument..." So, I though I'd make my own response.

Also, I'm just kind of sick of hearing about how great of an argument Kalam is.

SOURCES---

Dr. Craig's book on kalam:
http://www.amazon.com/Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-William-Craig/dp/157910438X

Dr. Craig breifly explaining Kalam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xWZ36Spbak

Video w/ Dr. Jim Al-Khalili:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m08H33bfUIo

Video w/ Dr. Jenna Levin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV6aQbnHSRo

Dr. Sten Odenwald's statement about nothingness:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11831.html

A good FAQ about Virtual Particles:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

Dr. Craig's response to Virtual Particles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow

Dr. Craig's quote that I used in the beginning of this side bar just above this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YyI29iL-XQ

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• fails
• refutation
• why
• William Lane Craig
• craig
• WLC
• existance
• god
• physics
• big bang
• quantum mechanics
• something from nothing
• sten odenwald
• Jim Al-Khalili
• Jenna Levin
• vacuum
• virtual particles
• antybu86

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

The reason this video have 1100 likes is because it is anti-theist, an attempt to put christian faith in a bad light, and that mentality pleases alot of mindless americans. The content have already been dealt with from an apologetic point of view and is worthless already.

[mandolinic]

"Either the first speaker has no idea of cosmology or the author of this video is misleading us."

More likely, both are trying to simplify the complex nature of the vacuum so that it can be more readily understood by a lay audience. To my mind, Craig's argument is completely destroyed by virtual particles, because they are a counter-example that falsifies his first premise.

[maxavail]

Listen to 01:47 and then 03:02. First it says the universe came from literally nothing, "there was no time, no energy", later Craig explains that the vacuum is actually a sea of fluctuating energy.

Either the first speaker has no idea of cosmology or the author of this video is misleading us.

[sweetsweatyfeet]

@ubermechazillatron Eternity (like infinity) is a theoretical concept. Far from being irrelevant to time, the concept of eternity requires time as a framework to give it meaning. Your use of the term "eternal past" makes time a necessary precondition since "past" means---occurrence in another (earlier) time which in turn relies on the constancy of time. But we know in any discussion of cosmology that time is not a constant.

[ubermechazillatron]

@sweetsweatyfeet Um, no. The very definition of an eternity is that time is irrelevant. Look up some definitions of eternity and you'll see how it's also sometimes described as timelessness. Unless matter/energy popped into existence from absolute nothing (which is ridiculous) they've existed eternally and the problem still stands.

[sweetsweatyfeet]

@ubermechazillatron The concept of "eternal past" is predicated on the absolutism of time but we know from relativity that time & space are not absolute. So if the universe is in a state where matter/energy and time/space are compressed to a point there can be no "eternal past"---concepts of cause/effect and past/future become meaningless.

A renowned cosmologist said that our common sense thinking model of thinking cannot begin to appreciate the actual nature of the universe.

[ubermechazillatron]

Your explanation still fails the "eternal past" problem. If this quantum vaccum is eternal and never had a beginning, it means it must possess an infinite or eternal past. But if that's the case, you can never reach the present with an eternal past. No refutation here.

[ParadoxEternal]

Most people make really weak responses about randomness to this argument yes, and fail to understand it, and fail to understand that randomness is whitenoise, and following the atheists "refutation", intelligent design can at no moment enter the atheist argument, and so the universe is a random series of numbers. A random series of numbers is whitenoise, not an ordered universe.