BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT PART 2
This blog post continues the previous post, apply named “Brief analysis of the Kalam Cosmological argument Part 1”. It is highly recommended to have read that previous post before reading this post.
This previous post briefly discussed the Kalam Cosmological argument in general. Recall that this argument goes as follows:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This cause is a timeless, space-less, immaterial, transcendent personal mind with unimaginable power. This is what is traditionally called “GOD”.
As promised, this post will discuss the objections that have been given on premise one (at least the ones I know of).
_
WHY?
The first premise, “whatever begins to exist has a cause”, is a very obvious metaphysical necessity. If, for some reason, you do not see the metaphysical necessity for this, please follow the following reasoning. Logically speaking, if nothing could create something, why does it create this particular universe, with these particular laws of nature, with these particular constants and quantities, and just with these particular properties we have in this universe in general? In fact, why does it create anything at all? The point of these questions, is not to say "everything happens for a reason". The point of these questions is to show that for 'nothing' to create something, it must make certain choices. The first choice is, of course, to create any universe (or multiverse) at all. Moreover, 'nothing' has to decide which laws of nature will govern the universe, how strong gravity is, and so on. Even for a multiverse, the laws that govern the creation of sub-universes must be decided upon. But in order to do so, 'nothing' has to be able to specify something. Yet, obviously, 'nothing' cannot discriminate. Nothing is the absence of something, it is 'no-thing'. And thus, nothing has no powers, no potentialities and definitely no abilities to choose. If one has to put it into a classic analytic philosophical argument, it would go as follows:
1) To create anything at all, that which creates must be able to create in the first place.
2) Nothing is the absent of something (it is no-thing), and has no powers, potentialities, and no abilities.
3) Therefore (following 1 and 2), nothing cannot create anything at all.
As David Hughmes (an 18th century atheist philosopher who still has many atheist fans today) wrote to John Stewart:
“But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause: I only maintain’d, that our Certainty of the Falshood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Source.” (“David Hume to John Stewart, February 1754”, in The Letters of David Hume, ed. J. Y. T. Greig, Oxford – Clarendon Press, 1932, volume 1, page 187.)
This leaves one unavoidable question: What caused the universe to exist?
Please forgive me for writing this, but I cannot help but notice the strength of an atheist’s faith: As obvious as this premise may be, in order to refute the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological argument, some atheists are willing to go as far as to deny the first premise. But to deny the first premise is to deny logic, implying that some atheists are willing to let go of pure logic.
What I find so ironic about the first premise, if the atheist argues that nothing could make choices, than this "nothing" is no more no-thing; instead this "nothing" essentially becomes a deity: it can make choices, and is beyond time, space and matter.
It may be noted that there are not many objections against this first premise, as it is very hard to try to argue against this first premise. This post will deal with these few objections.
_
THE QUANTUM VACUUM OBJECTION
The first premise in the Kalam Cosmological argument is always confirmed in the physical world, and never refuted. One popular objection to this comes from physics - or rather: the popularization of a misinterpretation of physics. The objection is that quantum-physics has shown that virtual particles could come into being in a quantum vacuum. This objection assumes that a quantum vacuum equals “nothing”. This is what popularizers say to uneducated people, but not what physicists say. On the contrary, according to contemporary professors of physics, a vacuum is FAR from nothing; it is not “no-thing”. A quantum vacuum, even a pure quantum vacuum ("pure" in the sense that it is completely devoid of "regular" particles) is a real physical object that contains a violent sea of fluctuating energy and has a true physical structure. Moreover, a vacuum can have actual pressure. In fact, the properties of protons, neutrons and electrons are not determined by protons, neutrons and electrons themselves, but by their interaction with vacuum.
Keep in mind that nothing is absence. It is no-thing. But, considering what has just been stated, a quantum vaccuum, no matter how pure it is, it is OBVIOUSLY not nothing.
Prof Alexander Vilenkin, an agnostic cosmologist, makes it clear that a vacuum is devoid from regular particles, but it is in no way "nothing" (see for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7I3uM-kMPI).
William Lane Craig (yes, a Christian), a philosopher of cosmology and astrophysics (PhD), researched whether it is even logically and quantum physically possible for something to come out of nothing. He concluded this is both physically as well as pure logically impossible. Moreover, he submits that the word "nothing" cannot responsibly be applied to a quantum vacuum. To do so is neither responsible in the terminology of physics, nor in the philosophy of science ("The ultimate question of origins: God and the beginning of the Universe", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 269 - 270, Number 1 - 4, pages 723 - 740).
Now, another assumption this objection makes, and this is more important to the KCA, is that virtual particles come into being without a cause. But this assumption is just an un-grounded statement. It is simply not known what the cause is. Simply because the cause is unknown, does not mean there is no cause at all. In fact, arguing in such a manner goes against the most basic and most basic principle in the history of science: Out of nothing, nothing comes. There is more. To say that (without "beyond-nature" interference) matter can be created out of absolutely nothing goes against one of the best established laws of nature: The First Law of Thermodynamics.
_
RADIOACTIVE DECAY
Another objection is that certain isotopes radiate particles (radioactive decay), and this happens without a cause. This objection is misleading: Like in the previous objection, simply because the cause is unknown, does not mean there is no cause at all. In this case, there is no cause for an event happening. The logic used here is “if the cause of an event is unknown, there is no cause”. But this is ridiculous. When Newton saw the apple falling, did he say “I do not know the cause of this event, therefore the apple falls without a cause”?? Of course not! On the contrary, he tried to explain the event WITH a cause, rather than without it. And this explanation formulated the famous “Newton’s Laws”, which Newton wrote in his book the Principia Mathematica, THE most important piece of scientific literature in the history of modern science.
Nonetheless, the BIGGEST problem with this objection, however, is that it has absolutely nothing to do at all with premise one. Premise one states that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”, NOT that every EVENT has a cause. And radiation is an event, not the creation/coming into being of something.
_
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCIENCE
If one really thinks science can proof something can begin to exist out of nothing, please consider the following. To deny this premise is to deny logic, and science requires and presumes logic. Imagine what science would be without it. Chemistry, which researches how certain chemicals come out of certain combinations of other chemicals, would be completely destroyed. Every time a chemist sees a new chemical, the chemist would say, "oh, look: another chemical that comes from absolutely nowhere out of absolutely nothing for absolutely no scientific reason whatsoever. I love my job". Surely, chemistry would be rendered useless! This counts also for biology and physics, of course. It is no coincidence that the most successful fundamental principle of science is: "Out of nothing, nothing comes".
_
NOTHING AS A NAME
Consider for a moment how “nothing” is used some times. Nothing has no powers and no potentialities, it cannot discriminate or choose. But if one does give nothing properties like powers and the ability make choices, and if one says this "nothing" created the universe, one is not truly talking about “no-thing”. On the contrary: such a thing would be immaterial, timeless, space-less, unimaginably powerful (as it can create a universe), and it can discriminate between creating a universe and creating some random object within the universe. Such a use of the word “nothing” seems like taking a deity, but giving it the name “Nothing”. Thus, the atheist becomes, albeit unknowingly, a believer in a Deity (GOD), and the atheist's name for this Deity becomes 'Nothing'.
_
I realize this was a rather short post, but that is understandable: It is very hard to argue against premise one, despite numerous people attempting to do so. The next blog will be a rather lengthy one, and it is doubtful it will be finished by the end of next week, not to mention I have to learn for my exams as well. So expect the next blog post after two weeks. I hope you enjoyed reading this post. Please, feel free to comment to give more objections (so I can deal with those also in my blog), or comment in any other way you like.