Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Discussion

You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 7 + 1 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)

 

Title Author Date
Actually, it's a GOOD ARGUMENT. Magarshak, Gregory Dec 16, 2009
But we do find something interesting in considering this line of reasoning. Namely that there must be SOME THING that has no cause. Either it is within the universe we can observe, or the universe we can infer from the observed universe and a scientific model.

Now, scientific models are nothing more than hypotheses that produce necessary predictions that can be tested experimentally or evaluated
logically. There may be nothing logically wrong with the existence of an uncaused effect in our universe. Indeed, many events in quantum theory seem to be of this nature.

Either way, I don't see how the existence of an uncaused event within the observable or inferred universe, is any more or less likely than the existence of an uncaused creator of the universe, who may be outside our ability to infer anything about this creator.

At the very least, the Kalam argument shows that there is very likely some sort of uncaused thing. Even if we consider time as an emergent
property of our universe, we have to admit there is either an infinite progression of time -> big bang, or a finite sequence of time units (say, no larger than planck time) in which case there is a FIRST UNIT OF TIME. And the question is, how did that first unit of time come about?

So to be put more accurately, either there is an infinite progression of time units (it seems unlikely that they would get infinitely shorter and converge to something) or there is an UNCAUSED THING.

If there is an uncaused thing, as we said it could be a creator, or it could be a mundane thing like an infinitely existing (e.g. non-expanding) universe, which gave rise to ours through the creation of a new black hole
or something.

Either way, it seems that we can logically deduce that if we go back far enough, there was a "time" when there were only UNCAUSED THINGS. This happens after all the finite chains of causation have been exhausted.

If these uncaused things were completely devoid of intelligence, it seems strange that our universe began at all, if the uncaused things
existed for an infinite amount of time. So either they existed for a finite amount of time, or they had to have some sort of "infinite" intelligence to decide when to create this universe (by that I mean, cause the universe to come into existence). Unless of course we are a non-special universe among
infinitely many.

The possibility that the uncaused things were finite in time seems problematic, as we can once again ask about the "first unit" of time.

Thus we are left with: either there really are infinite chains of causes, OR there is an infinitely intelligent first cause, OR we are a
non-special universe among infinitely many. Either way, something must be infinite, and that something can be considered "God" :)

 

Title Author Date
Rebutting the blatantly empty discourse Rossow, Amiel Jun 20, 2004
In Mr.Tremblay’s essay he argues against William Kane Craig’s supposed proofs of God’s existence.
I fully support Tremblay’s thesis according to which Craig failed to provide anything even remotely close to the proof he endeavored to offer. In view of that it strikes me as odd that Tremblay, while rebutting Graig’s arguments, nevertheless joins the chorus of Craig’s admirers and claims that Graig’s work is a sophisticated discourse providing arguments deserving a serious consideration.
I submit that Graig’s literary output is mostly a puerile attempt to resurrect pro-theistic arguments that have a very long history: the so called Kalam argument, quite popular in the Islamic apologetics, is known, I believe, since the 10th century and Craig has not added to it an iota of any novel idea.
I also submit that Graig set out to perform Mission Impossible – to prove the existence of God through pure logic. This is an utterly impossible task – neither existence nor the absence of God or gods can be proven by any logical manipulation of notions – it has always been and remains the matter of faith, and faith of any kind, theistic or atheistic, requires no logic.
Therefore Graig’s quasi-logical constructions, which all are variations on the well-worn Kalam argument, are doomed to remain inconsequential plays with words incapable either prove or disprove anything of substance.
While rebutting Craig’s arguments, all of which contain at some points leaps of faith, and unveiling the illogical steps in Craig’s arguments, in some instances Tremblay unfortunately is losing his way himself.
Here is one example. Tremblay writes, “It seems here that Dr. Craig is committed to the illogical position that something can come out of nothing.”
While correctly pointing to Craig’s inconsistency in treating this notion, Tremblay seems to attribute to the statement in question the status of a statement belonging to a certain category within the “logical vs illogical” dichotomy. I submit that the statement “something can come out of nothing” is neither logical nor illogical. It may be true or false, it may be believed or not, but it has nothing to do with logic or the lack thereof.
Logic is just a system of rules determining the path from a premiss or premises to the conclusion. The statement in question is a premiss which may be either postulated or rejected, but the choice between the two options is not based on any logical procedure and therefore is neither based on logic nor contradicts it. Logic itself cannot vouch for the validity of a premiss or the lack of such validity.
Overall, Tremblay’s essay has, in my view, many good points and reveals the fallaciousness of many of Craig’s quasi-arguments. However, even if we forgive the few disputable points in Tremblay’s essay, its main shortcoming is, in my view, that he takes Craig too seriously. Craig’s arguments blatantly lack logic and hardly deserve a serious discussion.

Amiel Rossow

 

Title Author Date
Tremblay contra Craig Meeker , Brent Jun 20, 2004
Francois Tremblay points to several flaws in Craig's Kalam argument. But one is dubious; that nothing can come nothing is a logical truth. That may be in some formal system of mathematics or logic, but the argument isn't about formal systems but rather about physical existence. Can something physical come from physical nothing? We haven't observed that and, as Tremblay notes, conservation of energy is a well established principle of physics. But that doesn't mean that you can't get something from nothing. As a quick perusal of recent cosmogony papers on arXiv.org will show, many theoretical calculations of the total energy of the universe find the value to be zero. The negative potential energy of gravity balances the positive energy of matter. So it may well be that something, in fact everything, came from nothing. All that we see is just "nothing" rearranged.

Brent Meeker