Kalam Cosmological argument debunked
OP - November 26, 2010, 01:28 AM
Hey everyone, just registered.
Ex Muslim who completely detests Islam. Anyways, that is all for a later time.
I want to start off by contributing something which is the easiest and most simple way of debunking the nonsense argument that is the Kalam cosmological argument (refereed to as KCA from here on in).
It is a lengthy read but well worth it.
I urge you to read this because I see way too many people spending too much time trying to debunk KCA and getting into lengthy discussions about big bang and whether things can come out of nothing etc etc when all of that is completely unnecessary.
The beauty of what I am about to post is that it shows why KCA fails independent of the science attached to it. It fails due to some basic logic principles.
So here it goes....
Here is the KCM:
-----------------------------------------------------
- whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1)
- the universe began to exist (premise 2)
- the universe has a cause
-----------------------------------------------------
The argument seems to follow the following structure:
- if X, then Y
- X
- therefore Y
But alas, if we take a closer look, we can clearly see a MASSIVE sleight of hand in KCM.
Consider the arguments below and it will start to become clear what it is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If someone is lying, they are not telling the truth
- My son is lying on his bed
- Therefore, my son is not telling the truth
OR
- whatever is not right is wrong
- my left leg is not right
- therefore my left leg is wrong
OR
- If it is bright, it gives off/reflects light
- My son is bright
- Therefore, my son gives off/reflects light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see what just happened?
Even though, the 3 arguments above follow the logical structure of "If x, then Y - X - therefore Y" , they are complete nonsense....
... because the words lying, right and bright change meaning in premise 1 and 2, rendering the arguments completely useless.
And this is exactly what is happening in KCA.
The phrase "begins to exist" changes meaning in premise 1 vs premise 2.
In premise 1, "begins to exist" is being used in the context of things coming into existence as a result of "REARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING MATTER/ENERGY".
things like cars, people, trees etc etc
Whereas.....
in premise 2, "began to exist" completely changes meaning to "THE ACTUAL CREATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY"
just like our examples above.......
lying as in deceiving somebody VS lying as in lying down on a bed
right as in what is correct VS right as in which side of the road you drive on
bright as in giving off light VS bright as in being smart
and .......Drum rolls.....
Begins to exist as in rearrangement of matter energy VS began to exist as in the actual creation of matter and energy.
the shift in meaning renders KCA completely useless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now lets have some fun and swap out the phrase "begins to exist" for either one of their meanings as they are being used:
- whenever matter and energy is rearranged, it has a cause
- the universe is a result of the rearrangement of matter/energy
- the universe has a cause
Now premise 2 is obviously very suspect
and
- when matter and energy is created, it has a cause
- the universe is a result of matter and energy being created
- the universe has a cause
now premise 1 becomes suspect because we have never observed the creation of matter or energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in conclusion,
KCA fails because the phrase "begins to exist" changes meaning in premise 1 vs premise 2.
Independent of the science, there is a logical flaw in the argument.
P.S Even if premise 1 and premise 2 are 100% true, you cannot draw the logical conclusion because of the shift in meaning.
thats like me saying
- The sky is blue
- I drive a car
- Therefore I like to eat apples.
Premise 1 and 2 are true in the argument above but the conclusion is nonsensical, just like in KCA.
If you have read this far, God bless you (lol old habits die hard)
Would love to get some feedback.
Topic: Kalam Cosmological argument debunked