The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is a Sound Argument for God's Existance

I've learned a lot. I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of Its Existance This appearing and disappearing is so short that it is negligible. "However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles. "[1] "The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level. "[2] "In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event. ) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever. "[3] So here, a Quantum Vaccum is not nothing, rather it still has particles. Its creation could be considered spontaneous, but it still had causes. Nothing does not exist, and nothing cannot create something. Scientific laws cannot be broken. This vacuum is teeming with energy, has physical dimensions and is still governed by quantum laws. And, where did the quantum vaccum come from? "The answer to the question as to whether such models now provide plausible empirical explanations for the universe's origin is, of course, no, both because the theories are so problematic and underdeveloped and because there is no empirical evidence in their favor. Christopher Isham comments, None of the schemes proposed so far are in any sense rigorous theories. This stems partly from the lack of any proper unification of general relativity and quantum theory. However, even setting this aside, the extant proposals are incomplete; in particular it is by no means clear that they do in fact lead to a unique quantum state. Major conceptual problems arise when trying to apply quantum theory to the universe as a whole. This problem is so severe that many highly respectable theoretical physicists think the whole subject of quantum cosmology is misconceived. It follows from the above that theories of the quantum origin of the universe are highly speculative and do not have anything like the scientific status of, say, even the more exotic branches of modern elementary particle physics (Isham [1992], sec. 1.5). "[3] Your Hawkings entropy theory is merely speculation, and disregards the realities of the universe. The universe itself is not a quantum microworld, and is forced to obey the laws of physics, even if they could be broken. Energy cannot be created, and energy is constantly being wasted, so it is just a matter of time until there is no energy left. Chaos rises. Regarding the quote, again, a quantum microworld is not nothing. There exists energy in it. "The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time. There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws. The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe. In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence. With respect to the origin of the Universe, the quantum vacuum must have been the source of the laws of Nature and the properties that we observe today. How those laws and properties emerge is unknown at this time. "[2] These electrons have cause. See quantum fluctuations arise out of the quantum vacuum, which is not nothing at all, but is rather a complex structure of interconnecting vibrating fields of energy. Energy particles pop into and out of existence randomly out of this vacuum. For that, here are some good articles on these "electrons". . http://maverickchristian.blogspot.com... On a more peer reviewed note: . http://arxiv.org... As for my philosophical arguments: "Craig's favorite thought experiment is that of Hilbert's Hotel. In this experiment, Craig describes a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms filled with an actual infinite number of guests. He then proceeds to demonstrate the absurdities that would arise if such a hotel were to exist. For instance, if all of the guests in the odd numbered rooms leave and all of the remaining guests move to the room number that is half of their current room number, then all of the rooms would be filled despite the fact that an infinite number of guests had checked out (∞ - ∞ = ∞). To further complicate the situation, if all of the guests from rooms four upwards checked out, then only three guests would remain (∞ - ∞ = 3). This, Craig argues, is absurd. "[4] We could never reach infinite time because the starting from the beginning and moving anywhere would be infinite. An infinite number of moments would take eternity to reach. As for God's infinince, "The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. The whole point of the argument is to show that something CAN exist without a cause, namely, God. This is the "Impossibility of traversing an infinite rule. God escapes this because there is nothing successive about God's nature. He is traditionally viewed as unchanging, and this is metaphysically necessary as well. God did not have to endure through an infinite timeline as the world would have needed to. "[5] II. Why the KCA Is Wrong - The "B" Theory When I mean misconstrues some biblical ideas, I mean that they are misinterpreted. My point still stands. As an addition to my infinite time arguments, "A second argument against the B Theory has to do with the impossibility of the existence of actual infinites. It has now been almost universally agreed upon by mathematicians and philosophers that an actually infinite number of things cannot be actualized in the space-time universe. The idea of actual infinites creates many paradoxes. For instance, what is infinity minus infinity? Well mathematically one gets contradictory answers. For example, one could say that the answer is infinity. But the answer could also be 4, or 0, or any other number you want. This led the great mathematician David Hilbert to say, The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. .. the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea. {14} Thus, what we have in the space-time universe are not actual infinites, but potential infinites. For example, you can start counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and continue this process for a potentially infinite time (i. e. , you can keep going as long as you want). But you will never reach a moment when you can stand up and exclaim, Im done! Ive counted to infinity! In the same way a line three inches in length can be divided in half, and then in half again, and then in half again, ad infinitum. But it can never actually be divided an infinite number of times. For this reason, in addition to compelling scientific and theological evidence, essentially all philosophers and scientists have now come to believe that time is finite in the past. "[6] "Taking Tense Seriously: The verbal tenses of ordinary language (expressions like ‘it is the case that', ‘it was the case that', and ‘it will be the case that') must be taken as primitive and unanalyzable. "[7] IV. Why the KCA Is Wrong - Iterating to Infinity But the first negative number is not negative infinity with regards to the universe. I have already argued that the universe is finite, so the universe does not start at negative infinity, but at some finite number, like negative 14.7 billion for starters. We cannot ‘cram in' infinite time into a finite set of time. If there are infinite moments, you cannot get from the ‘first' moment to X moment because of the infinite time to get there. The amount of time is unchanging. Thank you again Microsuck. Sources: [1]: . http://universe-review.ca... [2]: . http://abyss.uoregon.edu... [3]: . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4]: . http://www.bsu.edu... [5]: . http://www.midwestapologetics.org... [6]:. http://www.probe.org... [7]: . http://plato.stanford.edu...