The Cosmological Argument, also known as the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, is best explained by a video clip from William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith ministry. The same video clip can be found at RF's website.
The argument claims that: Premise 1: Whatever that has a beginning has a cause Premise 2: The Universe had a beginning (Big Bang/Singularity)
Conclusion: Thus, the universe has a cause (God)
Concerning Premise #1, while we know from everyday experience that effects have causes, some atheists have asked, "What do you mean by 'beginning' or 'begin to exist'?" This line of questioning comes from those who believe in a static universe as well as from materialists who do not accept that something can come from nothing. Christians believe in creation from ex nihilo, or "out of nothing." That is, out of nothing came everything, including time, space, and matter. And, any being that can create the entire universe out of nothing, well, sounds a lot like the "God" of the Bible (cf. Genesis 1:1). But, materialists will not accept this conclusion: they contend that religious people believe in "the God of the gaps" (unknown phenomena). This disagreement, in my opinion, cannot be reconciled since materialists will not acknowledge supernatural phenomenons. Theists can only point out that materialism can never fully explain the world we know.
Premise #2 is hotly contested. Atheists argue that the universe has always existed, so there was no beginning. But, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that things are cooling down in the universe or losing energy/heat. Plus, by measuring the Red Shift, in 1929 Edwin Hubble confirmed Alexander Friedmann and George Lemaitre's independent predictions that the universe is expanding. So, based on these evidence, as well as observations made by powerful space telescopes, if we were to go back in time, that should take us to a point where there was an incredible amount of energy/matter concentrated in one place and time (singularity, cone shape). The explosion and subsequent expansion of the universe, a.k.a., the Big Bang, is accepted as the most convincing explanation by both lay persons and scientists, including the late Stephen Hawking. Yet, Hawking believed in the Big Bang but not the "Big Bang-er." For him, the universe is the way it is due to gravity: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." His answer is not satisfying since he cannot tell how gravity was created or where it came from. For Hawking, it's just the way it is--gravity is part of the system. But, that's absurd since the effect cannot be the cause.
Parenthetically, Fred Hoyle derogatorily coined the term "Big Bang" in a radio show back in the 1960s. Hoyle himself believed in a static universe. While the static universe argument has lost steam, the new theory in vogue is the Multiverse Theory: there are many (or infinite number of) universes out there replicating themselves. It is an idea that still requires a "cause." In fact, a being that can create multiple universes must be truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
Speaking of multiverses, Richard Dawkins speculates that there are many universes out there, and that some advanced species (biologically evolved, of course; not created) from another universe (or ours) may have planted the "seed of life" on Earth long, long time ago. Dawkins is a biologist by trade, so, here, he's making some bold claims beyond his area of expertise.
Anytime a person makes claims beyond his/her knowledge/profession, we need to remember that those claims are representative of that person's worldview or framework, not professional expertise. Just because someone has an advanced degree doesn't make what he/she says more accurate or factual.
Getting back to the Cosmological Argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, too. While atheists and materialists such as Dawkins, Carroll, Hitchens, Dennett, Krause, or Harris do not accept Premises 1 or 2, they cannot disprove them either. So, in the grand scheme of apologetics, the Cosmological Argument has a lot to offer. But it is rejected by atheists who "believe" that the universe is either static or self-replicating.
Comentarios