By Ryan Hemelaar
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a very strong argument for God's existence. However, the leader of the Brisbane Atheists thinks that he has found a way to refute it. To summarise his argument:
1. There is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter in the universe.
2. Negative one plus one equals zero.
3. Therefore, the sum of the total matter of the universe is equal to zero.
4. Therefore the universe does not exist.
5. Therefore the universe never had a beginning.
6. Therefore there was no cause to the universe
As you can probably already see, there are many problems with this argument.
Firstly, there is no evidence to think that there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter in the universe. Some Big Bang theorists speculate that there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter made at the Big Bang. However, no anti-matter domains have been detected in space within 20 megaparsecs (6.17*10^20 km) of the Earth.
Even one of the leading advocates in the search for antimatter in space, Samuel Ting, laments:
"At the beginning, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created [in the “big bang”]. Now there seems to be only matter. There have been theoretical speculations about the disappearance of antimatter, but no experimental support." [1]
Secondly, it is a total misunderstanding to think that even if there was an equal amount of matter and anti-matter in the universe that therefore nothing exists. That is as illogical as saying that if I have a certain amount of debts and a certain amount of money, therefore I have zero money. Even if on balance it does equal out as nothing, the debts still exist and the money still exists, they're not nothing. Similarily, even if the matter and anti-matter were on balance, equal, the anti-matter still exists and the matter still exists!
Thirdly, his conclusion that the universe does not exist I think is absurd. As Descartes said, I at least exist. Even when I doubt that I exist, who is there to do the doubting? I doubt, therefore I am. There simply must be something that exists.
So in conclusion, this Atheist's attempt at refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument falls down at numerous points. Therefore, if one cannot refute the Kalam argument, a rational person is still obligated to believe that God exists.
Notes
[1] Antia, M., Ready to takeoff, antimatter experiment takes some flak, Science, 280:1339, 1998.
Take a look at http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
ReplyDeleteNice one Frode
ReplyDeleteRyan 0 = 3 + -1 + -2
The division of forces, energy and matter in the universe is not divided equally. In fact, if matter and anti-matter were evenly distributed evenly then the universe would have collapsed at an earlier point in time.
While you may be able to look up basic facts on the web, you really don't understand this field at all. I suggest just reading a copy of Stephen Hawkings' Brief History of Time. It should help you out a lot.
PS: I see you have moved form measuring weights to debts. Still, your analogy is faulty as a point outside space would reconcile all things at one time, that is, it would require all debts and assets to be put against each other simultaneously and equal 0.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, if space did not exist (which it technically doesn't, but I'm not going to bore you with that, except to say that space is an expression of particles) then all matter and anti-matter, forces and their opposites (energy and matter for instance) would be atop one another and result in 0.
Of course, keep researching, just try and grasp the knowledge for knowledge sake rather than to have an argument.
I suggest just reading a copy of Stephen Hawkings' Brief History of Time. It should help you out a lot.
ReplyDeleteHmm might do that, how about you try reading something also from a physicist of like standing. Have a read of "Questions of Truth" by John Polkinghorne. Let me know what you think.
Polkinghorne is an odd example to use, after all, he is not "a creationist in that curious North American sense, which implies interpreting Genesis 1 in a flat-footed literal way and supposing that evolution is wrong" which he is "certainly not"
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Polkinghorne agrees that evolution is true, the Bible is not literally true, its just that he simply falls on one side of the argument "why is there something rather than nothing?".
Of course, Polkinghorne actually agrees that he does not understand the God that he believes in. Half his book argues that there may be a God but he is simply unintelligible to humanity. Ultimately, an intellectually bankrupt view as one cannot say something exists with any certainty unless it can be described.
Polkinghorne, nonetheless remains open to science (something clearly not on your organisations agenda).
Of course, this is irrelevant to the present discussion and, I have no problems with Polkinghorne's beliefs and view of the world. They do not impede society or science.
Alex that is completely true, your entire comment regarding biology and theology has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion of physics! So why post it....?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I posted the comment on Polkinghorn is because of his recognition that this fine tuned universe we live in indicates there is an inteligence behind it's existance. This is a salutory contradiction of your assertion that the universe doesn't really exist (greatly twisted physics arguement that that is...) and that there is no God behind it's making.
I don't bring his biological and theological opinions to the table in support of what Ryan says, just his physics.
Incidentally you're idea that God cannot exist because He cannot be described relys on one HUGE assumption, that all things must be able to be measured empirically. This doesn't stack up as can be seen with truth, you cannot empirically measure truth or beauty or even joy. You've committed a logical falacy again.
So in other words, you think the argument that "there has to be something intelligent out there because we are here" is a logical one?
ReplyDeletePlease read up on the anthropic principle.
Furthermore, what do you note about the equation 0 = 1 + -1? Well, it can simultaneously be 1 + -1 = 2 + -2, etc ad infinitum. Thus, this universe is simultaneously every possible parallel universe simultaneously.
It just happens to be that this one supports life.
You know, if you guys actually understood (or read) the science behind this, rather than just (blindly and ignorantly) criticising it, then you may actually be able to make sense of it.
In relation to "Incidentally you're idea that God cannot exist because He cannot be described relys on one HUGE assumption, that all things must be able to be measured empirically. This doesn't stack up as can be seen with truth, you cannot empirically measure truth or beauty or even joy. You've committed a logical falacy again."
ReplyDeleteYou are the one committing the fallacy. If I cannot describe the feeling then how would I know when I feel it? The mere act of experiencing it allows for description because you can say - "there, I am experiencing [joy, beauty, truth)". Your argument is a petty word game against the full might of logic. Of course you fail.
Alex, Alex please wake up and smell the logic. Firstly your last comment:
ReplyDeleteIf I cannot describe the feeling then how would I know when I feel it?...Your argument is a petty word game against the full might of logic.
Ahem, that is all well and good for joy mate but really are you asserting that truth is just a feeling??!! Blind and ignorant you just called me I think? Is that (or anything you've said) true or is this just a feeling you've got?
:) No Alex that doesn't cut it. Nor does it refute the argument against empiricism.
Furthermore, what do you note about the equation 0 = 1 + -1? Well, it can simultaneously be 1 + -1 = 2 + -2, etc ad infinitum. Thus, this universe is simultaneously every possible parallel universe simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteNow I don't know a lot of high level physics. And incidentally, you don't either so quit with the patronising! But to me this looks like an increasingly complex dance you are doing with increasingly arcane "reasons" for why the world "could not" have been created. You no longer offer evidences in the realms of more concrete sciences but rather resort to this sort of quasi-reasoning and rhetoric.
As one of your fellow atheists has put it so rightly a system of thought cannot be overturned by just one arguement but by a convergence of evidence. Why do you fail to offer evidences throughout the different sciences (or even refute the problems we've raised with your world view)? Is it because you have none? Or do you see the shakey ground they rest on and not want to open your faith to scrutiny?
David
ReplyDeleteYou aren't reading it properly. What is the word joy but a description of the thing. Thus, the thing [joy] is described by the word [joy].
Also, I think you should look into modern physics. The evidence and consensus IS that the universe began from nothing. Ever wonder why they refer to there being nothing before the big bang. My statement, by the way, is actually a restatement of models put forward by CERN, (Prof) Garrett Lisi and numerous others to explain why there is something rather than nothing. I am not pulling this out of nowhere (pun intended). It is the modern view of the formulation for the standard model.
Of course you have nothing more than whinging about things not being within your understanding, your universe of discourse is so shallow.
Alex
ReplyDeleteRe Impericism and God: Joy and truth exist because we have words for them, right? So on your logic then God MUST exist given I and you both use words to describe Him....? Surely you are not being that simplistic?
Also, I think you should look into modern physics. The evidence and consensus IS that the universe began from nothing.
Do you enjoy reiterating what I've already said? I am going to do some reading into the physics of this assertion of yours.
As to the universe begining from nothing.... Horay for me I get to be the first to update you on a millenia old doctrine that all Christians affirm. Its called creation ex nil hilo, God made the universe some nothing. So as for the universe coming from nothing thats old news.
As for what is outside this universe... unless I'm very suprised there is nothing we have that can observe anything beyond the limits of the universe. So all you are really saying is that "my theories tell me...." which is all well and good but why should I believe you?
BTW ad homini only make you look desperate rather than adding to your position.
Re Impericism and God: Joy and truth exist because we have words for them, right? So on your logic then God MUST exist given I and you both use words to describe Him....? Surely you are not being that simplistic?
ReplyDeleteCan you point to a thing that expresses that concept? Where is it? What can you point to and say, "that is God", in the same way that you can say "that is joy"?
As you do not seem to understand, language is a human invention that provides for both real and imaginary things to be described. "God" is merely a concept, whereas "Joy" is an experienced state of the human mind. So please, if you have something that you can actually point to, then do so.
As to the universe begining from nothing.... Horay for me I get to be the first to update you on a millenia old doctrine that all Christians affirm. Its called creation ex nil hilo, God made the universe some nothing. So as for the universe coming from nothing thats old news.
Lol, ex nihlio means from nothing, not from nothing plus God. Lol, the fact that christian philosophers (and I use that term very loosely) would misname their own doctrine is not suprising. Self-criticism is always missing in Christian thought.
As I have previously noted, you need not believe what I say. Read for yourself.
PS: Ad hominem is valid if it is justified. I would say that calling christians ignorant of science is clear so.
Alex I didn't think you were that simplistic, but do me a favour in return seeing we're using your logic (I would never be so simple as to say all things that exist can be described). Give me an example of truth and beauty which are not truth or perhaps evil. You are being simplistic in an endeavour to remove God but it just makes you look silly.
ReplyDeleteRe creation ex nil hilo. Lol, you jumped too quick I think! The name of the doctrine is CREATION ex nil hilo, ie God CREATED the universe from nothing! You are inserting God as though He is part of the created universe. God is Spirit, much like the naturallistally untraceable concept of consciousness. It is not surprising that naturallistic science only comes up with one half of the concept (ie ex nil hilo). It is also sad but not really surprising that you claim there is no God when you reject the testimony of history, archaeology and literature (both Christian and not). You've decided to side with the fringe opinions of the above (eg the Christ mythers - a problem you've failed to answer) so this is not a surprise. Just more twisting of the facts, like I said why should I (or anyone) believe you?
Soz typo meant to say
ReplyDeleteGive me an example of truth or beauty which are not feelings, or perhaps evil.
At the moment I am typing this statement, I exist = truth.
ReplyDeleteWhat else do you want? Truth is a statement that is not false in any circumstances.
I have no doubt that beauty is subject to personal whim, that is part of its definition. But, I do not espouse to an objective beauty, which may be where you are being led astray.
Again, David, you are just playing silly word games and avoiding the point. You believe in a "God" that is a personal being, which makes decisions and (you hope) will not let you simply cease once you are dead (a mistaken belief BTW). I simply ask that you point to that being.
Anyway, the whole point was raised when I noted Polkinghorne said that "God" was undefinable and my argument was that one cannot rationaly believe in something that cannot be (or has not been) defined.
Here is the point, what if there is a God and he will only "save" you if you believe in Him/Her/It correctly. Well, if you say that God is undefinable then you are unable to meet that burden. Otherwise, my belief in a wonderous universe would be sufficient. Do you see the argument now? or are you still fumbling in the dark.
As I have always pointed out, I am not asking you to believe me. I just hope that by putting another side on your statements that you will be able to reflect more on your own beliefs and approach "truth". For instance, there is no doubt that numerous "saviour" type heroes existed pre-jesus, whether that is Horus, Prometheus, Mithras, etc. Many were born of virgins and born on the 25th and died at easter. The fact that you do not want to see that your god is just another myth (or, at best, an inflated and mysticised belief in a person that had no super powers other than charisma) is not my fault. I can only put the facts to you and hope that you make up your own mind without abjectly and ignorantly following the enslavement of religion.
Of course, as an atheist, I do not expect (nor want) you to believe me at my word. Or haven't you figured that out yet?
Alex that is A truth not truth per se, the issue that Polkinghorn was raising (not that I entirely agree with the wording) is that God cannot be EXAUSTIVELY defined.
ReplyDeleteMy entire point with raising the contradictions of your impericism is that you accept truth and beauty can exist even if you cannot define them exaustively with concrete "5-senses based" information (ie the science that you turn to as a cure for your philosophical woes).
You want me to point to God? Well I have numerous times, but here we go again. There is the testimony of nature which has all the marks of a designer any rational being could desire. There is the testimony of your personality and morality which indicates your maker was both rational and moral (far more of both than we are incidentally). There is the testimony of scripture that is the revelation of who God is and what He desires. There is the testimony of Christ, God in flesh so that we could touch and see Him and know Him at our basic level of knowledge. I believe that God exists and yet we cannot exaustively define Him. That is not a problem for any Christian. He has revealed sufficient of who He is and His nature for me to take Him at His word for the rest.
Do we now agree that there is one God over all because I have pointed to things that describe Him? No, because you will not believe it!
The fact that you do not want to see that your god is just another myth.....is not my fault.
So you are still clinging in blind hope that the consensus of the historical academic community is wrong? How odd given you put so much emphasis on what the physics community of CERN has "consensus" regarding....
Your idea that Jesus is another myth was roundly refuted in James Holding's article to which you merely replied in effect "this bibliography proves I'm right". The Christ-myth as well as many of your other arguements have very little support when scrutinised. Yet oddly you are patronisingly claiming that we are deluded children that have blinded ourselves to the truth that you are objectively giving us! Is there any wonder that I call you down for opinion based argumentation?
Incedentally I've had a look at your atheist meet-up think-tank site. If you think you are merely presenting the truth and don't care what others think, the lie of it is on that site. I was astounded at the antichristian, dogmatic, bigoted, rude, patronising, prejudiced and vitriolic comments. Interesting that you haven't gone for the more dangerous target of theistic muslims also. How noble. I was saddened but unsurprised at the millitant activism and planning for insitutionalising and propagating of your philosophy.
I return your comment to you, be honest with yourself now Alex. Make up your mind without "abjectly and ignorantly following the enslavement" of atheism. Just for once think about it, do some re-reading of our discussions. I've tried to talk with you as an equal and give you a rational dicussion of things. To be honest I dispair sometimes that you will even consider these things. I do read your material and think it through, do you do me that courtesy? It often seems that you just go to the nearest atheist blog or wikipedia and throw that back at me with a sneer. That saddens me but I will keep on praying for you. God Bless you.
Lol, David, you seem exasperated.
ReplyDeleteLook, the universe is evidence for a universe, not a creator. We can shown how this universe came about without any need to refer to a "creating" being.
The testimony of Jebus is about the same value as the evidence of Zeus or Mithras or Horus or any other being that you have never met. You may as well accept the evidence of L Ron Hubbard if that is the standard you are using.
The fact is that your beliefs are simply a means of separating yourself from those that you deem unworthy. It is nothing new, humans have done that in a million ways since our species first arose, whether that be through tribalism, racism, sexism or divine intervention. The psychological need is the same. You believe that you are saved and others are lost. Pretty simple really.
I can point to something and say "that is truth", "that is beauty". An idenitifiable thing which I can say carries those characteristics. You have failed to point to a single thing that resembles the infinite intelligent being that you believe to control the universe - not one single thing.
I would be happy if you accepted that your belief is purely based on faith and faith alone (after all, it is). Yet you continue to seek reason to aid you. But reason is not a valuable ally when you speak of imaginary beings and such it is that you will continue to fail by using it.
I ask this, abandon seeking to use reason to justify your silly beliefs.
BRB
I ask this, abandon seeking to use reason to justify your silly beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMy turn to laugh now! Alex what is the single most indeffendable position to hold in any philosophical system. It is the absolute negative. I am not the one positing such a position.
As for the rest of your comments, personal scepticism doesn't cut it.
No, David, the most indefensible position is one without evidence. Logic takes the absolute negative as the usual result. Take this argument:
ReplyDelete1. Triangles have 3 sides,
2. A square object has 4 sides;
3. Three is not equal to four
4. Therefore, there are no square triangles.
Logic, in fact, is based on its ability to determine that statements are false. Thus, your comment is (just another) example of a lack of understanding of logic or philosophy. I will again point to the argument that God CANNOT exist because it is defined as a being that DECIDES to commence time, the universe and everything, but time is required to make a DECISION and therefore the defined being of God CANNOT exist.
This is all apart from the point that you are trying to cover for the fact that you are exposed for not having any evidence for your "truths" and the resulting embarrassment that causes you. I will, however, post a way that you can get out of this predicament.
Alex's Guide to becoming enlightened.
ReplyDelete1. Realise that you will lose to an atheist in argument about God;
2. Become an atheist;
3. Go down to the pub;
4. Have three or four beers and reassess your belief system;
5. Have three or four more beers and reassess your belief system;
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until you realise that it is not important what you believe - but having a good time with other is cool.
7. Chat up some nice ladies who have carried out steps 4 and 5.
8. Go home with nice lady(ies - if you are lucky) and commit egregious sins against God while realising that life is not that serious and taking things seriously has ruined the past few years that you've had (while a christian that is).
After following this guide, you should be in a place of enlightenment. Afterwards, we will talk about the hangover.
PS: Always buy your protection while sober. Using a condom vending machine (a) while pissed, or (b) while in front of lady(ies - if lucky) can be embarrasing and ruin the mood.
Alex Stewart (current at stage6) - lover of women, even though they brought this evil "original sin" into the world - lol.
Am I the only one to notice the irony of a Christian group using a traditionally Islamic method of argument? Well, whatever works I guess... ^_^
ReplyDelete