I was having a discussion with an over-enthusiastic Muslim by the name of “loveProphet” about the Kalam cosmological argument, along with some other matters, here. Mr. “loveProphet” presented the Kalam cosmological argument as “proof” of the existence of his god. He specifically referred to an article by James Watson. I then pointed out that this argument rests on a certain premise, the validity of which cannot be taken for granted. In fact, there is good reason to reject that premise. That, of course, leaves the conclusion of the argument, namely, that a god exists, in doubt.
The Kalam cosmological argument begins with the premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.“. However, quantum physicists have long argued that not all events have a cause, a point repeatedly made by physicist Victor Stenger in response to the Kalam cosmological argument.
Much to everyone’s delight, the noble Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī entered into the discussion to offer his characteristically brilliant insights. However, when I tried to ask the good Shaykh a few questions, they didn’t get posted. This was no doubt due to certain technical difficulties with their website.
Below, the questions I have for the dear Shaykh.
…..
“I will also not spend time arguing with someone who says that things can happen for no reason and without anything bringing into existence simply because we will never agree, because that undermines the use of logic. Arguing without logic is a waste of time.”
If we reason according to incompatible premises, then it may very well be the case that we will never agree. In that case, it’s simple enough to agree to disagree. That would be the simple and civil thing to do.
However, you’re going further than that. You’re now implying that anyone who disagrees with you on this point is arguing without logic. That’s going too far.
First, every physicist who studies quantum behaviour will point out that not every event has an evident cause; that at the quantum level, there are events that do not have an evident cause. He or she will point out that particle behaviour defies much of our common sense, which only imposes the view that every event has a cause. You are saying that because what a physicist describes defies your own understanding, the physicist must therefore be lacking in logic. In that case, you’d be accusing the entire community of physicists of being illogical. That would, of course, be a truly remarkable case of brazen arrogance.
When Einstein argued that time and space can bend, many people thought that he, too, was illogical. The scientific community later realized that he was right. When quantum physicists first described the mysterious behaviour of subatomic particles at the quantum level, Einstein himself was incredulous. In fact, he resisted quantum theory until the end of his life. He proposed experiment after experiment to prove quantum theory wrong, but each experiment only proved him wrong. Physicists have shown that quantum behaviour really is as they’ve described. No credible scientist has shown them to be wrong.
“I detect you are trying to get relief from anger rather than being reasonable. I do not think you understood what I was doing. All I did was to answer, ‘how would Islam explain randomness’ and I did. I did not write an article on Quantum Behavior.”
That was not my question. You answered a question I didn’t ask. I pointed out that the starting premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is not correct. In fact, unless you are able to successfully refute over 70 years of research in physics, one can safely say that the Kalam cosmological argument rests on a false premise, one whose origins lie in a thoroughly outdated scientific worldview. My question was simply this: if the starting premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is false, then doesn’t the entire argument fall apart? My question was not, “How does Islam explain randomness?” I’m uninterested in that question.
The rest of your post is more ad hominem nonsense. Again, it’s just silly for a poseur to make arrogant pronouncements about philosophy and physics, matters for which he clearly lacks any scholarly authority, and then to accuse others of boosting their own egos.
Again, I’m happy and willing to have a discussion about quantum mechanics. I’d actually be delighted to have you show me that the community of physicists is completely incorrect.
Posted by Sign of Saturn 