Friday, July 11, 2008

God is an ultimate “uncaused cause.”上帝是宇宙最終的起因

THE KALAM ARGUMENT

By Rob and Jacoba VandeWeghe


大爆炸不能發自宇宙本身,當時釋放的能量,(即使在今天,驅動宇宙的膨脹)必須有來自某處-唯一的來源,可能是一個創造的力量,即造物主。 進化論並沒有解釋這個初始的能量從何來--所謂起因和結果的難題。 根本是無法解釋-除了硬說所有物質都是永恆的!

The scientific community has made a lot of claims that 15-20 billion years ago some hard-to-define event, the Big Bang, started time, gave us spatial dimensions (length, width, height) and initiated the universe. Over time this model has been refined to explain how subsequently stars and galaxies, our own galaxy the Milky Way, our solar system, and our home planet earth were formed.

However, it intrigues me how little attention is given to the question: why did this Big Bang happen? How could it happen? Before the Big Bang there was nothing; no time/space, no universe, no energy, no matter. Then boom, suddenly all the energy and matter required to develop into our universe “pops” into existence. How can that be?

Assuming this would happen independently of an outside force such as a Creator directly violates one of the best proved and observed natural laws of science: the law of preservation of energy (or matter), technically known as the First Law of Thermodynamics. This principle states that within a closed system, during any transformation the net energy increase or decrease is zero.

This means energy (or matter) cannot be created or destroyed, and the net effect of any transformation is zero. Simply stated, without energy from the outside, no reaction or transformation alone can generate additional energy, nor will energy merely disappear.

For instance when you operate a car, all energy put into powering the car (by the combustion engine) will be transformed into mechanical energy (moving the car) and heat (exhaust). But the sum of the mechanical energy and the heat/exhaust produced will be exactly equal to the energy produced by the burning of the gas/oxygen. No net energy is created or lost.

This also relates to the Big Bang. The explosion cannot have just happened by itself, as the energy released then (and even today drives the expansion of the universe) must have come from somewhere – the ONLY source possible would be a creating force, i.e. a Creator. Evolution has no explanation for this initial energy, a dilemma also described as the cause and effect problem. There simply is no explanation – other than just to pronounce dogmatically all matter eternal!

Dr. William Lane Craig summarizes this cause and effect principle in what is called the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam argument is as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause (a Creator).

Atheists are eager to claim that this argument is invalid, because even the Creator would need a cause (something must have created the Creator). However, the Kalam argument does not claim that everything that exists needs a cause, but only whatever BEGINS to exist. As God, the Creator always has existed; He does not need a cause. He is the “uncaused cause.” The universe started to exist; i.e., according to the Big Bang theory and as can be proved by the concept of time and by the expansion of the universe. Thus the universe had to be caused by a Creator.

This principle (law) applies to all things in our cosmos. There is no dispute about this law in the scientific community. The only exception would the Big Bang. But, how can something come from nothing?

Science has no explanation for this; even its greatest minds are at a loss. Honest scientists are forced to admit that the Big Bang is strong evidence for the existence of a Creator. Steven Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientist alive, made this startling admission during the 1997 PBS program, Universe:

In this century (twentieth century), science has come to understand how the universe began from a tiny point, fifteen billion years ago. No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the church’s ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning.”



Posted at Windmill Ministrieshttp://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH28A.htm
http://www.answertheskeptic.com/index.php/the-kalam-argument/2008/07/11

No comments: