The Collapse of the Kalam

I had an epiphany the other day. The epiphany I had was about the Kalam Cosmological Argument which goes.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. According the big bang cosmology the universe begin to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
4. Therefore God exist.
If you ever heard or read arguments from Christian Apologist like William Lane Craig they go on to define their god. They normally define their god as a timeless, immaterial, spaceless, personal being of great power and intelligence that created the universe and sustains its existence. I thought about this definition of god with the exception of immaterial, personal being of great power and intelligence, that timeless, spaceless were the conditions that existed before the big bang. My newest epiphany is that the big bang theory with inflation simply means that the universe begin to expand therefore creating space because prior to expansion there was no space, which is define as an interval between objects, and there was no time which is a continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2.a system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated. (The American Heritage Science Dictionary) The epiphany is that space-time begin to exist because prior to expansion there was no interval or interaction between two objects because everything was one there wasn’t anything for matter and energy to interact with. I think the energy within the universe has always existed, because according to the First Law of Thermodynamics as as it it commonly called the Law of Conservation of Energy (which includes Matter because from Albert Einstein’s famous formula: E = mc2 mass and energy are equivalent, in other words, all Mass has Energy and all Energy has Mass: in relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing and neither one appear without the other.); from the first law of thermodynamics energy (matter) is neither created nor destroyed it changes from one form to another, and what happen is an infinitesimal amount of matter-energy expanded thereby creating space and time. In other words, the universe did not begin to exist only space and time begin to exist when the existing matter-energy expanded to create space and time. If there was a cause to space and time it was the matter and energy that was already there. Think about it...

Meaning of Life Part 2

I think one of the best quotes I have every read came from a debate between William Lane Craig and Dr. Ray Bradley in 1994. In the Q and A section of the debate an audience member asked Dr. Bradley if there's no God then what's the meaning of life. Dr. Bradley answered "The quickest way I can answer is to invite you to consider the following analogy. You open a book, a good novel perhaps or a history. You read it. What do you read? You find all sorts of sentences that in the book have meaning. The book comes to an end. There's a period at the last page. There's nothing more thereafter. Does this mean that because the book--your life by away of analogy--has come to end, there is no meaning in life? On the contrary, I want to suggest the meaning of life lies in the little things that we do for each other in life. It lies in the texture of everyday existence. It does not lie in yearning for something in an afterlife. If it lay in the latter, if this life had meaning only by virtue of there being another life afterwards which gave it meaning, then what is the meaning of that life? It would have to be followed by a still a third, and so on." The entire debate with the exception of the Question and Answer section can be heard on Common Sense Atheism , this site have over 400 plus debates.

The Big Bang

I often hear apologist, discuss how it is impossible for the universe to have an infinite pass, this is one of the favorite arguments of William Lane Craig's Kalam Argument for the existence of god. Yet he uses the big bang for his argument. However, for there to have been a big bang there must have been something to bang. You cannot bang anything, if there's nothing to bang. Apologist also like to use the second law of thermodynamics, which in a close system energy experience entropy or things gets worse over time. They argue that if energy has existed forever then entropy would have destroyed everything by now. However, the apologist forgets the first law of thermodynamics which states in a close system energy is neither created nor destroyed, it changes from one form to another. If something is created then it comes into existence and did not exist before and if something is destroyed it no longer exist. Therefore if energy is neither created nor destroyed then it is reasonable to conclude that they have always existed, and if something has always existed then it does not have a creator or destroyer or point to something else. Therefore one could argue that energy could have always existed based on the first law of thermodynamics. Think about it....

The Elijah Challenge

Yesterday, on my drive home I thought about god and if there is such a being as we humans define him or her, i.e. omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. This led me to ask; why does this being with these attributes seems so inept and impotent: I would ask a terrorist, why do you have to act on behalf of your god, why doesn't this being do something himself or herself without the aid of the terrorist, why does a christian need to witness or proselytize on behalf of their god to an unbeliever, the best way to convince a skeptic is by evidence, why doesn't this supernatural being or supreme being do anything to authenticate his or her existence? How is it, that we humans have to act on our god(s) behalf, for example, Joyce Meyers and Creflo Dollar and others Christians have missions to feed, clothe, and built shelters in so-called developing countries, why doesn't their god do it himself to prove to these people that he exist, then his believers can start from that point. Why are there apologist like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Frank Turok, Norman Geissler, and Lee Strobel? Isn't this proof that their god does not exist, that he cannot prove himself directly, how is it, he always needs a middle man? The Christian will say, god gave us dominion over the earth and he watches over his word, so that it will not come back to him void, in other words, for him to go back on his declaration of giving humanity dominion is something he will not do, and therefore he does not interfere in human affairs, if the so-called death and resurrection of his son Jesus is not the biggest interference in humanity then what is? In other words, We are told that god does not interfere in human affairs but he did in Jesus, isn't this a contradiction. I think religious skeptics should have what I coin, the "Elijah challenge", if the believer's god(s) exist, the believer should be able call down fire from heaven. In 1st Kings 18 Elijah challenged the priest of Baal to prove whose god was the true god. Why don't skeptics challenge the next apologist to a fire calling contest with the believer having to prove their god(s) existence (the unbeliever does not have the burden of proof), this would end the debate. Think about it...