On What Grounds Do You Reject The Kalam Cosmological Argument?

On What Grounds Do You Reject The Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• On
• What
• Grounds
• Do
• You
• Reject
• The
• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Argument
• God
• science
• bible
• theology
• theism
• atheism
• christ
• jesus
• chr

[TheisticThinker]

Nice, it first sounded like you were going to say that virtual particles is a valid objection for proving that something can appear out of nothing. But the creation of virtual particles in the Quantum vacuum is never Creation ex-nihilo. To treat the Quantum Vacuum as nothing is a huge mistake.

[TheHonestTheist]

@TheisticThinker I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of this response. WLC said the same. But virtual particles aren't being used to show something can come from nothing (at least not in response to the KCA). It's more being used to show that "something can begin without a cause". Personally I don't find it a very convincing argument though. It seems to be "we don't know the cause, therefore there isn't one, therefore something can begin uncaused" (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

A video (watch?v=dJIWobQh9WI) about the Big Bang, virtual particles, and "something from nothing" was just uploaded. It refers to a new article in the (non peer reviewed) magazine New Scientist.

[TheHonestTheist]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo Watched the vid, very short though and nothing new. It's all still very new science, I haven't been convinced of it myself as the theories are still babies. Maybe once they are better validated I could go along with it, but for now, if we are honest, no scientist knows that cause of the universe (or whether there was no cause, as the case may be). So far, it's guess work, educated guess work but guess work none-the-less.

[srvntoflrd]

did u make a movie? if so whats the name of it?

[bryan23271]

To put it simply, the argument is flawed because of a fallacy of equivocation.

P1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

begins to exist meaning the reconfiguration of matter and energy that already exist.

P2 - The universe began to exist.

began to exist meaning ex nihilo (out of nothing).

[bryan23271]

@TheHonestTheist You said someone please correct me if I'm wrong so here goes. It's not that we don't know the cause, therefore there isn't one. It's more like we don't know weather or not there is a cause. If you say everything that begins to exist has a cause and you don't know if virtual particles have a cause then your first statement is flawed because you're claiming to have knowledge that you don't have. If you say that they do have a cause then you have to demonstrate it.

[bryan23271]

@TheisticThinker Part 3 - Lastly, cause and effect applies to things that already exist. If we say, at some point the universe began to exist and that God caused the universe to begin existing, how does something that exist cause something that does not exist to do anything? If God created the universe out of nothing, then there was nothing to have an affect on. You can't cause nothing to do anything.If God always existed and created the universe out of himself then the universe always existed.

[bryan23271]

@TheisticThinker Part 2 - Secondly, I agree that you can't get something from nothing unless we talk about quantum fluctuations. I agree that there must have been something that always existed. What that something is, I don't know. And no, we don't know weather or not the universe began to exist. Big Bang cosmology starts at t = 10 to the -43 sec. That's as far as general relativity takes us. We can only speculate about anything before that point. Given that, the second premise also fails.

[bryan23271]

@TheisticThinker Part 1 - You asked why I reject the argument. The argument is unsupported, that's why it fails. Can you point to something that begins to exist? By that I mean, something that is not just the reconfiguration of matter and energy. If not, the first premise is not supported. You could say a table began to exist as a table but the wood that makes up the table already existed. The wood is just reconfigured into the shape of a table.

[TheisticThinker]

@bryan23271 You failed to adress the argument and make any valid point, sorry. Something can't spring into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, that's the metaphysical principle that out of nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness does not carry any potentiallity. And yes, the Universe did begin to exist. I'd like to know your reasons for doubting that. The arguments conclusion is that an unnatural cause exist that brought the Universe into existence out of nothing.

[bryan23271]

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause. - We don't know of anything that begins to exist.

P2 The universe began to exist. - We don't know if the universe began to exist or if it is infinite.

C The universe had a cause. - Since the first 2 premises have failed the conclusion does not follow. Even if they did you would still have to demonstrate that the cause was god.

[socrates856]

@chriscoolguy15 You still fail how we know that everything that has a beginning has a cause. In fact you haven't even given one example yet. And you fail to demonstrate that indeed "time" cannot be infinite. You simply assert these things. So yeah you'd have to actually show these things to then deduce the others, but you haven't deduced anything.