Kalam Cosmological Argument for God

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestrssyoutubeFacebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestrssyoutube

Rev 1.1

As far as Kalam goes, I think short of obtaining a much clearer definition of “existence” we can easily reject the theist’s entire argument immediately by not granting the validity of premise #2 and by noting the definitional incoherence between the two premises.

Kalam asserts:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.

It seems as if the first premise is referencing “existence” as being the result of observable cause and effect relationships that we see in our known universe. E.g. a particular human being “begins to exist” in the sense that, thanks to its parents, a unique configuration of molecules has become arranged in such a way that they give rise to a complex sentient entity. At no time did any constituent part of such a new human “come into existence”. All the atoms pre-existed and were simply rearranged and assembled.

Conversely, “existence” in the second premise is almost always used by theists in the context of the universe becoming “something” from literally “nothing” – as in the philosopher’s conception of absolute non existence. It’s a state where, by their own definition, no matter whatsoever pre-exists.

The simple fact is that we have no evidence of anything ever coming into “existence” in the sense of the former. From what I understand of current cosmological theory, this includes the known universe itself as well. As William Lane Craig likes to point out, cosmologists theorize that time and space were created at the Big Bang but he conspicuously leaves out the fact that no physicist ever makes the claim that mass was created as well. As far as I know, the definition of the Big Bang singularity includes a description of a point of “infinite mass”. Infinite mass sounds a lot like “something” to me. As far as we know, the universe did not come from the philosopher’s version of “nothing”.

On important aspect to note is that the philosopher’s concept of “nothing” is contrasted and confused (and in many cases, probably misrepresented) with the physicist’s current working definition (see Lawrence Krauss et al) which references the quantum vacuum of empty space which they’ve found not to be quite so empty.

One Response to “Kalam Cosmological Argument for God

  • Logically complete cosmological concept. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/
    In order to present the unlimited space originally Elementary:
    1. variety (homogeneous) сompleted – enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with SIMPLE and COMPLEX /closed systematically manifested the essence/
    2. heterogeneous completed – enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element – the Most High and Almighty God – with open exhibited systemic nature.
    Not hard to imagine that even at the lowest possible deployment intangible components the nature of God – the Spirit of God – for the level of the original downwardly directed continuous deployment the material component of the essence of God, there is a curtailment of SIMPLE and COMPLEX /i.e.. their decay occurs due to blocking of origin upwardly directed constantly deploy components of their intangible essences/, as the maximum possible heterogeneous nature of God to the minimum possible number of cell uniformity (№1h) and God on the basis of the material components of the minimum possible №1 deploys heterogeneous to its essence as possible numerical element uniformity (№2H). The process of clotting №2H begins at a certain point in time God begins at the end of its deployment. Curtailment of the Spirit of God to the level of initial deployment again unfolds №1H – God’s potential for transformation into a №1H in №2H and №1H in №2H limitless!

Leave a Reply