Physicist David Snoke thinks that Christians should not use the kalaam argument for God’s existence
|July 30, 2017||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Mathematics, Philosophy, Religion|
The kalaam argument:
The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the variants of the argument which has been especially useful in defending the philosophical position of theistic worldviews. The word “kalam” is Arabic for “speaking” but more generally the word can be interpreted as “theological philosophy.” (All About Philosophy)
From his article, “Why Christians should not use the Kalaam argument,”
The Kalaam argument is essentially as follows, although there are many nuanced variations of it. First, the argument is made that there cannot be any real infinity in the universe (real in the sense of physically obtained and occurring). It therefore follows that time cannot be infinite in the backward direction, since there are no real infinities. One therefore must have an initial starting point to time. But because something cannot come from nothing, that starting point must have some sufficient cause outside itself. That starting point, or sufficient cause, must be something outside of time, which can be identified with God.
My main problem with this argument is its starting point, in rejecting the idea of any real infinity. It may very well be that the universe has a definite starting point in time, which we can identify as the Big Bang. But in modern physics and mathematics, there is nothing inconceivable or illogical about the idea of an infinitely old universe. If we reject that, it is because of the data and observations, not because it is a logical impossibility. More.
See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?