One of the better anti-#Kalam take-downs I’ve read

I’ve held this so long, I don’t remember where I saw it so can’t credit it.


I really don’t like that argument.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This presupposes a fact not in evidence.
Why must it be assumed that causes are relevant or even occur? All of the universe is energy, some formed into matter, some waves, some particles. Some of this energy moves, some doesn’t. Everything in all of known reality is simply the forces of energy working in their specific patterns. If you kick a ball, both you and the ball are energy, both have energy. No energy was created.
2) The universe had a beginning.
The universe had no beginning according to what we know. All of the energy of the universe was stored in an incredibly small point. It was released. There is no evidence, even in the least, that it had a beginning. This also leads to the quandary of what created the creator. The argument is that the universe must have had a creator because nothing can come from nothing. The very next breath is that god came from nothing in order to create a universe that could not have come from nothing.
3) The universe has a cause.
This result could only be true if numbers one and two were accurate. Even then, it has nothing to promote it’s accuracy. Having a beginning is not the same as coming into existence. A pearl has a beginning, a grain of sand. It does not "begin to exist."

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: