Thought on Atheist Irrationality in Believing that Something Can Come from Nothing (Denying the Kalam)

One of the most interesting intellectual phenomena to observe is witnessing certain atheists–especially science worshipping atheists–deny the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (that everything that begins to exist has a cause) and thereby tacitly admit that some things might come uncaused from absolutely nothing, and the reason that this is so interesting is not only because it is, on its face, absurd to deny this premise, and also not only because all our empirical evidence, both scientific and commonsensical, constantly confirms the truth of this premise, but also because there is no evidence, even in principle (at least barring omniscience, which would prove God anyway), which can be marshalled to show that something can come uncaused from nothing, for the fact is that there would be no way for us to distinguish between something coming uncaused from nothing and something simply being caused to teleport and appear in front of us as if uncaused, and since we could never distinguish between either of these options, there could never be evidence for something coming uncaused from nothing, not to mention that the fact is that the teleportation option would be the most rational of the two given that it would be both more plausible and more congruent with our constantly-confirmed background experience; finally, this whole issue is made doubly interesting when we consider that atheists routinely tell us that we should not believe something without sufficient evidence for that belief, and yet many of those same atheists will claim that something can come uncaused out of absolute nothingness not only in the absence of any evidence for this claim but actually in the teeth of all the evidence that we do have against it…now that is blind faith (and note that even if the atheist claims that he is just agnostic about the possibility that something can come uncaused from nothing, we can wonder as to how he is legitimately agnostic about a position that is constantly confirmed versus a position for which there is absolutely no evidence, for in such a situation of overwhelming evidence on one side, the atheist should affirm the premise until and unless evidence to the contrary is presented, which, as stated, it never really can be).

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Thought on Atheist Irrationality in Believing that Something Can Come from Nothing (Denying the Kalam)

  1. The cosmological argument postulates that a god created the universe. It requires a premise that a god is required, which is yet to be shown true. Since the premise is baseless, there is no reason to believe the result of the tautology is true.

    There is also the problem that Christians cannot show that their god and only their god can be the creator.

    I would ask you to show that a god is needed as a creator and that your version of your god is the creator and no others are. Please also show that the laws of physics cannot just always exist, as you wish to claim your god does.

    Like

  2. Claiming that “something” can come from “nothing”, as you put it, would certainly be a ridiculous claim to make without any evidence. But claiming that it is potentially plausible is different from claiming that it must be true. Besides, “something” coming from “nothing” is not the only possible alternative explanation to the Kalam cosmological argument, and a person does not have to have an alternative explanation to say that they don’t find an explanation convincing. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know how the universe came to exist, but I am not convinced by your argument.”

    Personally, I don’t know if “something” can come from “nothing”. Maybe there has always been “something”, and the universe does not have a beginning. Or maybe “something” came from “nothing”. Or maybe there was some first cause, which caused all the rest to exist. But then, where did this first cause come from? Has it always existed? Did it have a cause, also? Was it “something” which came from “nothing”?

    And, more importantly, granting that there was some first cause, how do you get from showing there was a first cause, to showing that the first cause is your god, specifically? How do you know the first cause wasn’t some other religion’s god? How do you know if the first cause was a god at all, or if it was even sentient?

    Like

  3. Interesting. You who think that someone, who can’t be detected, who exists everywhere at all times, who had no beginning, created everything out of… Nothing dare to call people who are actually trying to answer the question you think you’ve already answered by nothing more than Faith in an an unproveable being… You are calling them irrational?
    Wow, interesting. Biblical god doesn’t get to win by default even if you show that naturalists are wrong in how the universe came to be.
    You are still required to bear the burden of proof for your claims that God created it all… Out of nothing… Too.

    Like

  4. Doubt in one claim cannot reasonably be considered tacit acceptance of its negation.
    Take, for example, my claim that I am taller than my brother. Do you believe that?

    If you answered yes, I have no idea why an intellectually honest person would do that. But, if you answered no, that still doesn’t mean you believe I am shorter than my brother (or that I even have a brother).

    So it is with something coming from nothing, ex nihilo. Is it possible? I don’t know (and neither do you). Is it needed to explain the universe? I don’t know (and neither do you).
    What is “nothing”? If God can make a universe from it, does that mean it had potential to be a universe? If so, is that really nothing? If so, the discussion is open about what the quality and behaviour of nothing might be. How could we know? I don’t know, but the scientists who study this exact thing reckon they’ve found something worth talking about.
    What about Aristotle’s nothing? That was empty space, but still consisted of spacetime and quantum fields. If you’re not accepting Aristotle’s definition and want it updated, who do you trust to redefine it?

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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