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) |
m (→Versions) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
=====Objections===== | =====Objections===== | ||
=====Quantum physics===== | |||
In the sub-atomic realm, virtual particles and other types of [[particles]] offer evidence for a contradictory to premise 1, particles seemingly come into being for a moment uncaused out of nothing but then disappear. When the quantum vacuum fluctuates it spins off particles and then they dissolve back into the vacuum. This gives the appearance of particles spontaneously popping into existence out of nothing, but this is misleading due to popularized writings about the subject of quantum physics that support things spontaneously popping into existence.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-are-some-physicists-so-bad-at.html Why are (some) physicists so bad at philosophy?] Edward Feser blog</ref> Appealing to the realm of quantum physics and trying to question premise 1 because the particles seem not to have any causal determinate is not unfamiliar territory to defenders of the kalam cosmological argument. There are two important understandings of quantum physics that go overlooked; firstly the quantum vacuum is something so that what seems to be popping into existence are fluctuations of the vacuum and secondly there are viable alternative models of quantum physics that give causal determination and maintain [[mathematical]] consistency.<ref>[http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040502CosmologicalArgumentPart1.mp3 Cosmological Argument #1] Teaching class by William Lane Craig</ref> | In the sub-atomic realm, virtual particles and other types of [[particles]] offer evidence for a contradictory to premise 1, particles seemingly come into being for a moment uncaused out of nothing but then disappear. When the quantum vacuum fluctuates it spins off particles and then they dissolve back into the vacuum. This gives the appearance of particles spontaneously popping into existence out of nothing, but this is misleading due to popularized writings about the subject of quantum physics that support things spontaneously popping into existence.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-are-some-physicists-so-bad-at.html Why are (some) physicists so bad at philosophy?] Edward Feser blog</ref> Appealing to the realm of quantum physics and trying to question premise 1 because the particles seem not to have any causal determinate is not unfamiliar territory to defenders of the kalam cosmological argument. There are two important understandings of quantum physics that go overlooked; firstly the quantum vacuum is something so that what seems to be popping into existence are fluctuations of the vacuum and secondly there are viable alternative models of quantum physics that give causal determination and maintain [[mathematical]] consistency.<ref>[http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040502CosmologicalArgumentPart1.mp3 Cosmological Argument #1] Teaching class by William Lane Craig</ref> | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
* Potential infinite - Collection is at every point finite, but always growing to infinity as a limit. It is indefinite, finite in any point in time, but is always growing toward infinity but never reaching it. Potential infinite, is seen as a limit. Accept this. | * Potential infinite - Collection is at every point finite, but always growing to infinity as a limit. It is indefinite, finite in any point in time, but is always growing toward infinity but never reaching it. Potential infinite, is seen as a limit. Accept this. | ||
=====Objections===== | =====Objections===== | ||
=====Modern mathematical set-theory===== | |||
In set theory, the set of all natural number is said to be an infinite set, it contains an actually infinite number of members in the set. Not all mathematicians would agree on this however, some suggest that natural number sets are potentially infinite but is a minority view. Existence in the mathematical realm does not mean existence in the real world, because philosophical assumptions need to govern this realm but there isn't good reason to suggest that these assumptions are true. Infinite set theory still leads to the same type of self-contradictions as does the math of actually infinite number of members. | In set theory, the set of all natural number is said to be an infinite set, it contains an actually infinite number of members in the set. Not all mathematicians would agree on this however, some suggest that natural number sets are potentially infinite but is a minority view. Existence in the mathematical realm does not mean existence in the real world, because philosophical assumptions need to govern this realm but there isn't good reason to suggest that these assumptions are true. Infinite set theory still leads to the same type of self-contradictions as does the math of actually infinite number of members. | ||
