Kalam Does Not Imply God

It seems I’m destined to answer the old arguments* again and again.
Take the Cosmological Argument** for example. Quite a simple argument:

Premise 1: Everything which begins to exist has a cause

Premise 2: The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

I find myself disagreeing with Premise 1 purely on the grounds that no-one has to date been able to give me an example of something “beginning to exist”. Sure, things are assembled, altered, given subsequent properties, etc. But it all requires previous materials/energy. Whilst this is probably a semantics problem, I do insist upon the precision of words.

Premise 2 is an interpretation of a laymen understanding of contemporary cosmology (i.e. Big Bang Theory) which does not lend itself well to “dumbing down”. The way we describe the functioning of the universe using “laws” only works within parameters we can test. Newton’s laws of motion for example are wrong, but are applicable within certain ranges/scales. Laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics again have set ranges they work within, but the measurements at the very first instance of the Big Bang can’t be measured the same using those laws. Our ability to describe the universe breaks down.
When we put this isn’t simplistic layman’s terms it often gets misconstrued as implying an absolute beginning with absolutely nothing prior.
Whilst this is true from the point of view of time because “time” as we understand it could only be a concept once the universe had space in which time can occur, to say “before time” is nonsensical.. This doesn’t mean that the state of the universe “before” just ceases to be.. “Nothing” isn’t a comparable state of being from which the universe arises. Models of the early universe either allow for creation of spacetime, radiation, and matter etc from fluctuations in quantum fields (which are necessary when there is space), or imply a state of “eternal” entropy.
An entropic singularity doesn’t have “time” and so fulfils the more ludicrous claims of theists regarding the Cosmological Argument***

Now the basic conclusion strangely I can agree with despite the premises both being either unfounded or nonsensical. But to go the leap and say that the “cause” must be sentient, or personal, or omnipotent?! There’s no justification for such claims.. None, whatsoever. Unless your standards of evidence are low enough to accept wishful thinking.

*

image

**

image

***

image

Advertisements

About (V)nemoni)(s

The views and opinions expressed here are purely my own. I am not affiliated with and business or political body. All content is either my own work, items in the public domain, or items used under the terms of Fair Usage for criticism, commentary, or education purposes. (Also; only a fool would take anything posted on here seriously.)
This entry was posted in Atheism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Kalam Does Not Imply God

  1. Alex Black says:

    Even if you do grant the cosmological argument, I have never seen a good explanation that goes from “the universe must have a first cause, let’s call that cause ‘God'” to “the first cause we have arbitrarily named ‘God’ is, in fact, the same thing as the god of the Bible”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s