Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Kalam’s Cosmological Argument
P1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
P.2. The universe has a beginning.
C. Therefore the universe has a cause.
That is Kalam’s Cosmological Argument. The argument is valid but according to atheists it is not sound. They contend with the second premise, positing that the universe has no beginning. They substitute the theory abiogenesis as the reason.
Based upon that, here is a rewritten syllogism:
P1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
P.2. The universe does not have a beginning.
C. Therefore the universe does not have a cause.
Unlike Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, this is not valid argument. It commits the logical fallacy called Denying the.Antecednet. However, atheists could rearrange it like this and it would be valid but not sound:
P1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
P2. The universe does not have a cause.
C. Therefore the universe does not have a beginning.
The questionable premise is P2.
Theists believe the universe, including life, is created by God.
Atheists (at least some) believe that the universe did not begin but is eternal matter which became living through abiogenesis.
Notice two important truths:
1. Both theists and atheists “believe” which means each has faith.
2. Thesist’s are at an advantage because abiogenesis is a scientific theory and atheists need a scientific explanation. Theists don’t need a scientific explanation.
Let go deeper.
Abiogenesis is an unproven scientific theory. Since science must be based upon scientific proof, and there is none for abiogenesis, their contention therefore is nothing more than an excuse to deny God as the source.
“But wait”, an atheist would counter, “God is an unproven religious theory. Therefore how can you dismiss abiogenesis when your position is likewise unproven?”
I like their retort! First it admits abiogenesis is unproven! Second, while there is absolutely no supporting evidence for abiogenesis, there is plenty for God’s existence.
1. The apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and resurrection. Jesus believed in creation (Matthew 9).
2. There are no eyewitnesses for abiogenesis.
So basically it comes down to this:
1. There is no evidence to disprove for abiogenesis because there is no evidence that it happened.
2. There is evidence for creation, the question is whether the evidence is accepted or rejected.
Which is more plausible? That which has no evidence or that which has evidence which must face scrutiny?
Comments