More than a mouthful, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not likely a theory you heard in when you were in school even though its basis was formulated by Christian philosopher John Philoponus in the 4th century and later adopted and made mainstream by Muslim philosopher al-Ghazali. His argument was that the universe had a beginning rather than being eternal. It gained wide popularity in Islamic religious circles and has made a resurgence among Christian Apologists who support the Big Bang Theory (yes, Christians do believe in the Big Bang Theory). The Kalam Cosmological Argument has has three statements that make up the argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Now to totally grasp this first concept, think of everything that you see in nature and how they interact with one another to form complex ecosystems that scientist in biospheres can't even replicate. Now if you look at an ecosystem as a whole, you can see it operates from many different components (plants and animals) operating individually with no apparent purpose. But if we look more closely, we see that nature is essentially an organic factory that produces micro-civilizations of subspecies whom contribute to a symbiotic relationship with one another, thus creating the ecosystem. More importantly we understand that each species of plant and animal has a purpose. For that matter, every element in the Periodic Table of Elements has a purpose because they form compounds that are essential for life. I challenge you to rack your brain and come up with one observable object on this planet that doesn't serve a purpose (or cause if you will) and defend that argument. Now let's take a look at the second statement and see if there is scientific evidence to support the claim that the universe began to exist rather than being eternal.
In the early 20th century, Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was vastly larger than had previously been predicted. Not only that, modern technology discovered that the universe is expanding and is currently expanding at a slower pace than it was billions of years ago. Scientists today have determined that there must've been a large explosion (Big Bang) that set the universe on its present course. This evidence has lead even the most ardent atheists to use the word "miracle" when describing the Big Bang.
Even with these developments, the argument was made that the universe has always existed and will always exist, i.e. infinitely. The problem with this argument is that there is mathematical evidence to suggest that actual infinity is impossible in the physical world (what have you ever observed or know to be infinite in the physical world?). The study of mathematics has also weighed in exposing the possibility of actual infinity to be impossible. For more information on this see http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html. This leads us to our third argument.
The universe has a cause. If you are still with me after outlining the first two posits of the the argument, lets take a look at the last one and draw the only conclusion that seems viable. Hebrew texts dating thousands of years explain the creation of the universe and our Earth. With what we now know about our universe, these texts seem all the more likely to be correct and some agnostic scientists are seceding that point based on the evidence. So if Christianity is the cause for the universe and the eventual abolition of our souls, shouldn't you be getting more acquainted with your Bible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Brian, just a thought here for the non-believers and the believers who are currently "on the fence". This Kalam Theory, does Christianity support the theory, or does it disprove the theory. And does Christianity prove or disprove the Big Bang Theory?
I would have to say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument supports Christianity by knocking down many atheistic principles using science, mathematics, and philosophy. As far as the big bang theory is concerned, that is a huge asset to the Christian belief. Nothing, including time, space, and matter existed prior to the big bang. This supports creationism.
Given the fact that the exact conditions prior to the bing bang were such that time, space, and matter did not exist, the catalyst for the explosion that created the Universe must be something that exists outside human experience. The question then becomes whether that catalyst was intelligent or not (creation vs naturalism). To resolve this question, the Kalam Cosmological argument examines the mathmatical/scientific evidence surrounding the big bang to show that there is an intelligence behind this initial cause. The term "big bang" was initially a derogatory term coined by fellow scientists, many of whom regarded the Universe as eternal prior to accepting this now commonly held belief. Science in the last 50 years has pointed more towards the theistic world view than towards naturalism.
Post a Comment