Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Kalam Argument

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on December 15, 2004 17:48:40 UTC

I'm a little skeptical about the Kalam argument in that there must be a cause for everything. My view is that a cause is preferable, but causation can be seen as an emergent phenomena.

The problem I have with a universe without cause is that it strikes me as very unlikely, especially since an infinite past of events must be treated as a aleph-null set. Even if the infinite past of events is not treated as a past that occurred 'at once', it still must be treated as an infinite past of events that happened in infinite time past (I believe this is an argument made by Quentin Smith).

Thus, whether you want to see an infinite chain of events as a set of past events all at once, or as a set of past events over an infinite time past, this aleph-null set is causeless. That's the problem.

It's one thing to say that one event is causeless, and from that one causeless event, cause emerges; it's quite another to say that an aleph-null set of past events are all causeless. That is extremely unlikely.

After all, every position has to state some causeless event/situation/condition/process to the beginning otherwise it sets up an infinite regress (what caused that and so on...) which itself would have to be causeless...

The kalam argument, if I understand it properly, is that everything needs a cause except God, and I don't buy into that premise in a direct manner. Indirectly, I do buy into it since it is unreasonable to say that everything in the universe (past, present, future) is without cause. However, if someone can show another way besides advocating a God that shows how cause can emerge from a causeless first event/situation/condition/process, then I think the kalam argument is nullified.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins