Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
→Versions
m (→Versions) |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Thomas Aquinas thought the beginning of the universe could not be understood by way of philosophical arguments but rather by divine revelation.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Objection 3</ref> | Thomas Aquinas thought the beginning of the universe could not be understood by way of philosophical arguments but rather by divine revelation.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Objection 3</ref> | ||
William Lane Craig is the current most prominent defender of the kalam cosmological argument. The argument is essentially that; | William Lane Craig is the current most prominent defender of the kalam cosmological argument. The argument now gets more specific adding premise 2 that involves the universe. Kalam is essentially that; | ||
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Premise 1) | # Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Premise 1) | ||
# The universe began to exist. (Premise 2) | # The universe began to exist. (Premise 2) | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Premise is a type of first fundamental law of [[metaphysics]] basically stating that things do not pop into existence from non-being, being only comes from being. This fundamental to metaphysics parallels [[biogenesis]] which is a [[scientific law]] of [[Biology]]. Any other avenue for the premise would be trying to prove something far less obvious instead of supporting the obvious. It is human common sense that being comes from established being. It is a premise that relies on the common experience of humans. Some atheists will actually argue against premise 1 by stating, the universe did pop into being out of non-existence. This is a fail safe last resort point they attempt to get across but rely on complete fabrication and irrational beliefs. It is considered by defenders of the argument when critics question premise 1, that the argument has been won. The appeal for existence from non-existence by atheists and naturalists is actually an appeal to a type of [[miracle]]. | Premise is a type of first fundamental law of [[metaphysics]] basically stating that things do not pop into existence from non-being, being only comes from being. This fundamental to metaphysics parallels [[biogenesis]] which is a [[scientific law]] of [[Biology]]. Any other avenue for the premise would be trying to prove something far less obvious instead of supporting the obvious. It is human common sense that being comes from established being. It is a premise that relies on the common experience of humans. Some atheists will actually argue against premise 1 by stating, the universe did pop into being out of non-existence. This is a fail safe last resort point they attempt to get across but rely on complete fabrication and irrational beliefs. It is considered by defenders of the argument when critics question premise 1, that the argument has been won. The appeal for existence from non-existence by atheists and naturalists is actually an appeal to a type of [[miracle]]. | ||
===== | A very important distinction is that premise 1 is not a physical principle but a metaphysical principle. It only addresses the whole of the universe not the parts within the universe. | ||
In the sub-atomic realm, virtual particles and other types of [[particles]] seem to come into being for a moment then disappear into the quantum vacuum. This gives the appearance that these particles are spontaneously popping into existence out of nothing, but this is misleading due to the popular interpretation given to the public. The quantum vacuum is a rich energy, and is something | |||
=====Quantum physics===== | |||
In the sub-atomic realm, virtual particles and other types of [[particles]] seem to come into being for a moment then disappear into the quantum vacuum. This gives the appearance that these particles are spontaneously popping into existence out of nothing, but this is misleading due to the popular interpretation given to the public. The quantum vacuum is a rich energy, and is something. When the quantum vacuum fluctuates it spins off particles and then they disappear back into the vacuum. This is not a viable objection simply because the quantum vacuum is something, and that there are many models of quantum physics that give particles causal determination.<ref>[http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040502CosmologicalArgumentPart1.mp3 Cosmological Argument #1] Teaching class by William Lane Craig</ref> | |||
====Premise 2==== | ====Premise 2==== | ||
==Natural Theology== | ==Natural Theology== | ||
