Argumento cosmológico Kalam

O argumento cosmológico Kalam é uma versão do argumento cosmológico fundada dentro da filosofia da religião islâmica medieval. Kalam é diferente do argumento cosmológico mais geral quando a história de seu desenvolvimento é analisada. Isso ocorre porque kalam contende pela causa primeira ou inicial do universo. O argumento cosmológico apenas argumenta que existe uma causa necessária que resiste às coisas contingentes existentes o tempo todo. Não há um requisito para um início do universo com o último.

Embora postulado pela primeira vez por al-Ghazili dentro do Islã, a filosofia cristã, através do trabalho de William Lane Craig, deu continuidade ao legado. William Lane Craig, um filósofo de renome mundial é o defensor mais proeminente do argumento cosmológico Kalam na esfera pública. É de seu trabalho contemporâneo sobre o assunto que o argumento é retirado. O argumento cosmológico Kalam contém duas premissas e uma conclusão. É a partir das premissas que a conclusão segue necessariamente. Todo o argumento é internamente lógico e, portanto, consistente. Não há invalidadores para as premissas autoevidentes também, uma vez que argumentos a priori e a posteriori são apresentados em defesa das premissas. Existem, no entanto, invalidadores para uma causa natural do universo, que é a posição dominante atual dentro do estabelecimento científico sendo oposta ao teísmo. Portanto, o argumento leva inexoravelmente que a causa da origem do universo é coerente com e é melhor explicada pelo teísmo, em vez do ateísmo.

O argumento cosmológico Kalam é;

1. Tudo o que começa a existir tem uma causa. (Premissa 1)
2. O universo começou a existir. (Premissa 2)
3. Portanto, o universo tem uma causa. (Conclusão)

Premissa 1

A premissa 1 é um tipo de primeira lei fundamental da metafísica basicamente afirmando que as coisas não surgem do não-ser, o ser só vem do ser. Este fundamento da metafísica é paralelo à biogênese que é uma lei científica da Biologia. Qualquer outra via que tentasse negar a premissa 1 estaria tentando provar algo muito menos óbvio. Isso ocorre porque a premissa 1 está do lado da experiência cotidiana dos humanos. Alguns ateus vão realmente argumentar contra a premissa 1, mas este é geralmente um último recurso à prova de falhas na fabricação completa e na crença irracional. Os defensores do argumento cosmológico consideram que, quando os críticos questionam a premissa 1, o argumento foi vencido.

David Hume, um famoso filósofo cético escocês, disse;

“

Mas permita-me dizer-lhe que nunca afirmei uma proposição tão absurda como "que qualquer coisa pode surgir sem causa": Eu apenas sustento que nossa certeza da falsidade dessa proposição não procedeu nem da intuição nem da demonstração; mas de outra fonte.

”

Uma distinção muito importante é que a premissa 1 não é um princípio físico, mas um princípio metafísico. Ela se dirige apenas a todo o universo, não à observação dentro dos eventos locais do universo, preocupando-se com pressupostos filosóficos em outras palavras. O método científico é uma forma de explorar eventos naturais dentro do cosmos, mas a metafísica (e por extensão a filosofia) diz respeito a ser para o bem dos seres, lutando com a causa da origem da vida e do universo.

Objeções

Objeção da física quântica

No reino subatômico, as partículas oferecem evidências de uma contradição ou negação da premissa 1 aparentemente. As partículas parecem simplesmente estourar no espaço-tempo físico por meros momentos não causados por nada, do nada elas aparecem, e então imediatamente desaparecem fora do espaço-tempo físico. Enquanto em alguns modelos essa pode ser a hipótese, mas há algo causando o aparecimento dessas partículas. Behind physical observation there is a rich field of energy called the quantum vacuum that fluctuates, spinning off particles giving them an excited state, which creates empirical observation by the physicist analyzing this phenomenon. This can give the appearance of particles spontaneously popping into existence out of what seems and is argued for, by many physicists, as nothing. This becomes characterized and popularized that particles do in fact spontaneously pop into and out of existence.

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 a very popular theory within science generally. 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.

Premise 2

The crucial premise of which seems to spawn the most public debate and discourse is premise 2. Premise 2 states that the universe began to exist. There must be some type of cause whether transcendent (supernatural) or natural.

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

In the attempt to refute premise 2, actually makes the universe always existing or eternal and necessarily needs 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 temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise 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.

“

... 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.

”

Positing that the universe is eternal then does two things for supporters;

1. reduces supernatural characteristics of a personal being to naturalistic mechanisms
2. 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.

“

An actual infinite cannot exist. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

”

• An actual infinite is a collection that has an actually infinite number of members. The number of its members 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." This is why within transfinite arithmetic such procedures are prohibited.

• 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. The theorem is based on, what Alan Guth calls a "well-known fact", something traveling on a geodesic through an expanding universe becomes redshifted. Geodesics within general relativity are what describe the motion of what are called "point particles". A meteor, a satellite or anything traveling in space has geodesics within space-time, and are also considered point particles. Words like expansion and contraction of the universe have to do with "congruences of timelike geodesics (the potential trajectories of test particles)." Important to the 2003 finding was the assumption of a single congruence "with a positive average expansion rate throughout some specified region." 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=H₀d, where the constant of proportionality H₀ is known as the Hubble constant." 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. A timelike or null geodesic have a tangent vector with a norm of negative and zero, respectively. A spacelike geodesic has a tangent vector that is positive. A vector is for example the velocity and acceleration of an object. While a tangent is the point on a curve of a vector. So that a tangent vector is the velocity and acceleration at a particular point on a curve. The world line of a geodesic is the sequence of events that relate to the point particle in question. Under some circumstances the blueshift will reach "infinite rapidity" or the speed of light within a "finite amount of proper time (or affine parameter)". Along this trajectory with an affine parameter shows that such trajectory is "geodesically incomplete."

The BGV theorem is a groundbreaking and widely respected scientific theorem. Not only does it prove a space-time boundary and thus cosmic beginning. It is used by defenders as a specific a posteriori argument (empirical) for premise 2 of the kalam cosmological argument.

Objections

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.

Ligações externas

Why Christians should not use the Kalaam argument David Snoke, University of Pittsburgh.

• Question 246: A Contradiction in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Response By William Lane Craig