|
|
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
|
| |
|
| ===Kalam=== | | ===Kalam=== |
| | :''Main Article: [[Kalam cosmological argument]]'' |
| | |
| The kalam cosmological argument is different from traditional versions of the cosmological argument. The kalam calls for a first cause to actual time itself. It retains the traditional feel because it is still the First Cause necessary to endure existence of the world, but in conjunction with the position that it is the cause of the beginning of the physical space-time universe as well. | | The kalam cosmological argument is different from traditional versions of the cosmological argument. The kalam calls for a first cause to actual time itself. It retains the traditional feel because it is still the First Cause necessary to endure existence of the world, but in conjunction with the position that it is the cause of the beginning of the physical space-time universe as well. |
|
| |
|
| Line 27: |
Line 29: |
| # The universe began to exist. (Premise 2) | | # The universe began to exist. (Premise 2) |
| # Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Conclusion)<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5855 J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument] Response by William Lane Craig (requires free registration)</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos#p/a/E104D9B7DFE9B7F6/0/_EP4JsaLH6Q New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (1 of 5)] By William Lane Craig</ref> | | # Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Conclusion)<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5855 J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument] Response by William Lane Craig (requires free registration)</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos#p/a/E104D9B7DFE9B7F6/0/_EP4JsaLH6Q New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (1 of 5)] By William Lane Craig</ref> |
|
| |
| ====Premise 1====
| |
| Premise 1 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 but this is usually a fail safe last resort point on complete fabrication and irrational belief. It is considered by defenders of the cosmological argument that when critics question premise 1 the argument has been won. The appeal for existence from non-existence by atheists and naturalists becomes worse than magic.
| |
|
| |
| 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. The [[scientific method]] is a way to explore natural events within the cosmos, but metaphysics (and by extension philosophy) concerns being for beings sake grappling with why there exists a nature in the first place.
| |
|
| |
| =====Quantum physics objection=====
| |
| In the sub-atomic realm [[particles]] offer evidence for a contradiction or negation of premise 1 seemingly. Particles seem to just pop into physical space-time for mere moments not caused by anything, out of nothing they appear, and then immediately disappear out of physical space-time. This is due to the quantum vacuum fluctuations. When the quantum vacuum fluctuates it spins off particles which is what physicists observe as they are in the excited state. Then instantly the particles dissolve back into the vacuum. This can give the appearance of particles spontaneously popping into existence out of what seems, by many physicists, as nothing. However, this is misleading mostly due to popularized writings about the subject of quantum physics, only supporting the interpretation that particles do in fact spontaneously pop into and out of 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 behind their spontaneous actions, is not unfamiliar territory to defenders of the ''kalam'' cosmological argument like William Lane Craig. There are two important understandings of quantum physics that often go overlooked within popular works. First, the quantum vacuum is actually something, not nothing. What seems to be popping into existence are fluctuations of the vacuum, that in of itself is a determinate, 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>
| |
|
| |
| ====Premise 2====
| |
| The crucial premise of the argument. Before the [[Big bang theory]] was theorized in the 20th century, scientists and philosophers generally thought that the universe was eternal. An eternal universe did not have a beginning and thus always existed forever into the past. This eliminates the necessary supernatural creative power of a personal being like [[God]]. If there was no beginning to the universe and space-time then divine acts of creation were superfluous. When [[theistic]] characteristics of God are brought under [[materialism]] they deny their source within God, and thus gain natural explanations.
| |
|
| |
| =====Actual infinite cannot exist=====
| |
| Accomplished in the attempt to refute premise 2 by actually making the universe always existing or eternal is the need for an actual infinite. More specifically the actual infinite is of a specific type called an infinite temporal regress of events. Within completely physical and materialist [[worldviews]] this is a re-occurring issue. Along with being infinite it is also temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise also always existed. There then is an infinite temporal regress because it goes into the past forever. The universe must be explained this way in order to avoid an absolute cosmic beginning to all of space-time reality. It requires there exist an actual infinite within natural reality, because past causes and events have to go on forever into the past by definition given an eternal universe. This perennial philosophical problem is not an issue under theistic accounts which produce arguments for transcendent being like a personal God because traditionally God is considered the only non-contingent or always existing, non-caused cause. The infinite regress is stopped by an [[ontological]] commitment to a supernatural personal agent that is the ultimate cause of the existence, and according to the ''kalam'' cosmological argument, the beginning of the universe.
| |
| {{cquote|... if there has been a sequence composed of an infinite number of events stretching back into the past, then the set of all events in the series would be an actually infinite set.<ref>William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ''The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology'' (Blackwell Publishing 2009), pg. 115</ref>|}}
| |
|
| |
| Positing that the universe is eternal then does two things for supporters;
| |
| #reduces supernatural characteristics of a personal being to naturalistic mechanisms
| |
| #requires an actual infinite to exist in reality
| |
|
| |
| If good arguments are supplied for the existence of an actual infinite, then the infinite temporal regress problem is not only solved for the atheist and materialist but premise 2 of the kalam cosmological argument can be regarded as illegitimate or not as self-evident as is implied. The implicit question of premise 2 is: Can an infinite collection actually exist? The argument against an actual infinite existing, is put succinctly by William Lane Craig.
| |
| {{cquote|
| |
| An actual infinite cannot exist.<br/>
| |
| An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.<br/>
| |
| Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.<ref>Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, ''The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science'' (Intercollegiate Studies Institute 2011), pg. 905 </ref>|}}
| |
|
| |
| * An actual infinite is a collection that has an actually infinite number of members. The number of its member is greater than any other natural number (0,1,2,3 etc). It is not growing toward infinity, it is infinite. There literally exists an actually infinite number of things in the collection. This is irrational or presents logical impossibilities like "subtracting identical quantities from identical quantities and finding non-identical differences."<ref>Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, ''The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science'' (Intercollegiate Studies Institute 2011), pg. 906</ref> This is why within transfinite arithmetic such procedures are prohibited.<ref>[http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040509CosmologicalArgumentPart2.mp3 Cosmological Argument Part 2] By William Lane Craig</ref>
| |
|
| |
| * 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. Christians would accept this view of whether or not there could be an infinite number of past events.
| |
|
| |
| =====BGV theorem=====
| |
| :''Main Article: [[Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem]]''
| |
|
| |
| The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in 2003 by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. Subsequently in recent years since, the BGV theorem has become widely respected and accepted within the [[physics]] community.<ref name="wlcnt">William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ''The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology'' (Blackwell Publishing 2009), pg. 142</ref> The theorem is based on, what Alan Guth calls a "well-known fact", something traveling on a geodesic (made of light, straight structural elements) through an expanding universe becomes redshifted.<ref name="natureofnature">Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, ''The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science'' (Intercollegiate Studies Institute 2011), pg. 498</ref> Words like expansion and contraction of the universe have to do with "congruences of timelike geodesics (the potential trajectories of test particles)."<ref name="2003paperpg1">A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin, ''Inflationary space-times are not past-complete'', Phys.
| |
| Rev. Lett. 90 151301 (2003), pg. 1[http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012]</ref> Important to the 2003 finding was the assumption of a single congruence "with a positive average expansion rate throughout some specified region."<ref name="2003paperpg1"/> Discovered by Edwin Hubble (1889 – 1953) expansion of the universe has become a law. According to [[Hubbles law]]; "The apparent recession velocity of a galaxy v is proportional to its distance ''d'' from the observer: ''v=H<sub>0</sub>d'', where the constant of proportionality ''H<sub>0</sub>'' is known as the Hubble constant."
| |
| <ref>Peter Coles, ''Routledge Companion to the New Cosmology'' (Routledge 2004)[http://books.google.com/books?id=BgNGWVr5yhIC&pg=PA202#v=onepage&q&f=false]</ref> Borde, Guth and Vilenkin follow an imagined observer back into time by way of a "timelike or null geodesic", which according to Guth will be blueshifted within a universe obeying Hubbles law. Under some circumstances the blueshift will reach "infinite rapidity" or the speed of light within a "finite amount of proper time (or affine parameter)".<ref name="natureofnature"/> Along this trajectory with an affine parameter shows that such trajectory is "geodesically incomplete."<ref name="natureofnature"/>
| |
|
| |
| It is by this groundbreaking and widely respected scientific theorem that demonstrates the beginning of the universe, or premise 2 of the kalam cosmological argument.
| |
|
| |
| =====Modern mathematical set-theory objection=====
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Popular Criticisms== | | ==Popular Criticisms== |
