The Arabic word “kalam” means “speech” and refers to the Islamic tradition of seeking theological principles through dialectic. Adapting the term to the Western mind, perhaps one could say that the “kalam”, among other things, is a kind of natural theology that seeks to deduce the existence of God from natural cosmos.
The cosmological argument “kalam” is rooted in the works of the Christian Byzantine theologian, John Philoponus (490-566 AD), and the Sunni theologian al-Ghazali (1058-1111 AD). Recently, the American philosopher and Christian theologian William Lane Craig, specializing in metaphysics and philosophy of religion, has done important work to adapt that old argument in contemporary philosophy
This argument is an effective case for theism in general, not necessarily the Christian God. It is designed to prove that the universe is intentional and answer the philosophical question that science can answer or atheists:
“Why is something rather than nothing there?”
The primary exhibitor of this argument today is Dr. William Lane Craig, although it is acompilation of scientific and philosophical thoughts that come to Aristotle. Here‘s theargument:
#1 premise: Everything that comes into existence requires a cause.
#2 premise: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe requires a cause.
Most importantly, understand that nothing they can sustain in a debate unless it can be phrased in a valid argument, according to the rules of inference. (In logic, a rule of inference, inference rule, or transformation rule is a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) In other words,you must have some logical conclusions and which can be deduced, given that thepremises are true.
Therefore, the idea of defending an argument like this is to establish the truth of thepremises so that the conclusion is true.
Analyzing the premises
1. “everything that begins to exist requires a cause.”
This premise is self-evident. There is something that comes out of nowhere. If something has a beginning – or came into existence – then something had to bring it into existence. Some try to define “nothing” as a quantum vacuum, but still are somewhat empty; They have energy and quantum particles. There is no empirical evidence that something has come out of absolute nothingness. The ancient Greeks were right when they said: “From nothing comes nothing.” This is more likely to believe that what comes into existence does not require a cause.
At this point, the opponents of Christianity they ask: “Then who created God?” but thisis an erroneous interpretation of the premise. Which requires a cause is everythingthat begins to exist, not all that exists. God is eternal. Therefore, it did not begin toexist. As God did not begin to exist, it does not require a cause.
2. “The universe began to exist.”
This premise is one that requires more analysis
First, the quantum mechanics cannot save the atheist. In quantum mechanics, virtualparticle arise in a vacuum. This vacuum is caused by a scientist. The particle exists for aperiod of time inversely proportional to its mass (while more mass, less time there).However, in the case of the “Big Bang” theory, do not even have a vacuum - there isnothing. There is no scientist - there is nothing. Not only that, but that the universe istoo very massive and to last 14 billion years old, as a virtual particle…
Second, some atheists who have mentioned that the “Big Bang” theory is physicsspeculative and can change at any time. However, the trend is an absolute principleemerged from nothing. We have a series of scientific discoveries - solid and recent - that point in a definite direction:
For these reasons, among others, if atheists questioned these findings and the origin of the physical universe from nothing, in a way, they are opposed to scientific progress.
This article was written by Psalm Triginta