Kalam Cosmological Argument _ A Response

Edward Oleander offered his rejection of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, succinctly stated as follows:

Edward Oleander: There is so much wrong with the Kalam argument that it would take several volumes to refute it properly and in completeness.

 

In summary: it is the God of the Gaps fallacy, compounded by pride and wishful thinking. It revolves around a bunch of assumptions that have either (been) shattered by recent science, or were never sound in the first place.

 

For consistency sake, I'll use the Sheffield definition for the working definition of the Kalam Argument. See also the. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument"

 

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. BUZZ! This has not been shown to be true. It is based on intuition, observation, and "common sense." NONE of these are reliable on either a cosmological or quantum level. I just finished reading Stephen Hawking's, "The Grand Design," where intuition and common sense have lost their power to blind us. We actually had the evidence for this back in 1928, but no one wanted to believe it. Now the mathematics supports the testable, observable effects (Google the Soccer Ball Effect). Logical observation, "Well, ANY fool can plainly see..." only implies a lot of fools, and is proven NOT reliable at the quantum level. In fact, the "http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html">Gorilla Experiment</a> shows that personal observation isn't very reliable at all...

 

 

Tom's Response: OK, you have already lost me with your bringing up the quantum level, and your rejection of intuition and common sense. Make it simple for me by giving me an example – what is something that begins but does NOT have a cause.

 

I kind of get the mathematical concept of something that does not have an origin. For example, a line goes infinitely in both directions, with no beginning or end. In my (yes, somewhat simplistic) mind, I have thought of God in the same way – He does not have a beginning, and stretches infinitely forward and backward. While people like you and me are simple points or line segments on that line.

 

 

2) The universe had a beginning. BUZZ! Since the actual flash-point of the Big Bang is still under controversy, one cannot say what state (if any) this universe was (or wasn't) under before the Big Bang. The possibility that there had been a previous universe is at least as likely as the opposite. You can't even talk about this previous universe occupying the same physical and virtual space as ours, because if it existed, it may have had totally different boundaries and governing principles. For all we know, our universe is only one of many, and may have "budded" off an older universe, again with possibly differing set of physical and virtual laws. Hawking estimates that under "M-Theory," the latest and greatest naturalogical explanation of everything, there could be 10^500 universes. I don't pretend to understand the math, but he uses that figure repeatedly. Under 'Brane Theory (now subsumed, along with all five String Theories, into M-Theory), these universes could have propagated very quickly, perhaps in the space of minutes (as we know minutes).

 

 

Tom's Response: I am not sure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that you do not believe in the 'Big Bang' theory, and that you do believe in the alternate universe / 'Brane' theory? You know that I am not a big student of science, so take my comment in that light. But doesn't the presence of background radiation in our universe show that the universe was started with the Big Bang? I did see that on the CalTech website (link here), and they used such terms as "just about every scientist" and "overwhelming" (scientific) evidence to support the 'Big Bang' theory. Here is their quote: "…Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible..." If you really do not believe in the 'Big Bang' theory, what is it about the alternative 'Brane' theory that makes you believe it is true?

 

 

3) The universe has a cause of its existence. BUZZ! - Until you come up with valid premises, you cannot claim a valid argument, let alone a conclusion.

 

So much for the Kalam argument. So let us set out the Kalam "theory" as it should really read.

 

For this section, the scientific labeling process goes:

 

Pride: An ego-based idea that we are better than all other life forms on Earth (or even the universe), as witnessed by our unique intelligence and capacity for altruism and self-sacrifice.

 

Wishful Thinking: Something that a person really, really wants to be true, but has no solid evidence to go on.

 

Conjecture: The sketchy outline of an idea, often with large gaps in the total process.

 

Assumption: A conjecture that is assumed to be true ONLY for the sake of advancing an argument or thought exercise.

 

Hypothesis: A fleshed out conjecture that appears okay on paper, but has not yet been tested for repeatability or predictive accuracy)

 

Theory: A Hypothesis that has been shown repeatable, testable outcomes and has satisfied predictions based on its tenets. The most well documented Theories are considered facts.

 

Law: A Theory which is so strong, and has proven so accurate that it is deemed unassailable for nearly all cases. Gravity and Thermodynamics are examples.

 

Tom's Response: I'll wait to address your response to Kalam's Argument #3, until you have answered my responses provided above. But as to your divisions ranging from Pride to Law, let me ask you two quick questions: Where does the Big Bang Theory fall on your scale? And where does the alternate theory that you believe in besides the 'Big Bang' fall on this scale?

Thanks for the discussion. I praise Jesus for being our Lord, Savior and Teacher, and may He bless us this upcoming week. /s/Tom Wolff