Some Darwinists claim that the Kalem Argument or the Cosmological Argument has been refuted, not exactly by who though. The Cosmological Argument goes like this:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
In order for an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true. This is a valid argument, but are the premises true?
Premise 1 - Everything that had a beginning had a cause - is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. Science is a search for causes, that's what scientists do - they try to discover what caused what. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinkink requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). If there's one thing we've observed about the universe, it's that things don't happen without a cause. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or no cause.
Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true. What about premise 2? Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause was needed. If so, then the universe must have had a cause. Until the time of Einstein, atheists could comforted themselves with the belief that the universe is eternal, and thus did not need a cause. But since then, five lines of scientific evidence have been discovered that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did indeed have beginning. And that beginning was wat scientists now call "The Big Bang." This Big Bang evidence can be easily remembered by the acronym SURGE.
No comments:
Post a Comment