Thinking to Believe

Now that we have established that the Kalam successfully demonstrates that the universe has a cause, we need to determine what or who that cause is. Using a logical analysis, I explain the necessary properties of such a cause. I examine each one to determine whether they exhibit the necessary properties of the First Cause and find each one wanting.

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I answer several objections against the argument for the impossibility of an actual infinite that I offered in the last episode:

1.       Infinite set theory shows that infinities exist
2.       You can divide anything an infinite number of times
3.       God is said to be infinite
4.       God’s knowledge is infinite

Then, I explain the last two philosophical arguments against an infinite past, namely (1) that an infinite cannot be formed by successive addition and (2) it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite.

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

In this episode, I deal with a few objections to the scientific evidence for premise 2 of Kalam before proceeding on to provide the first of three philosophical evidences for premise 2 (the logical impossibility of an actual infinite).

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I address the concerns that cause many Christians to reject the Big Bang theory, show how the theory has come to be accepted as fact by the consensus of scientists, and why all of the new models being put forward by scientists hoping to escape a cosmic beginning fail in their attempt to do so. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

While the Big Bang theory has become the standard model in science and accepted by the vast majority of scientists, that was not always the case. Initially, many scientists rejected the theory because of its theistic implications. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I continue my examination of the Big Bang theory. I look at what scientists think of the theory and why the theory is so important. Then, I look at the concept of the singularity in more detail, arguing that it was not a thing that existed, but a scientific description of nothingness. That morphed into a brief discussion of the meaning of "nothing." Finally, I offered four lines of empirical evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I begin my examination of premise 2 of the Kalam (the universe began to exist). I present three scientific evidences in support of the premise:

1. Radioactive decay
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics
3. Big Bang

The Big Bang theory takes a lot of unpacking, so I've only just begun the conversation in this episode by explaining the theory and its historical development. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I conclude my examination of objections to the first premise of the KCA that everything which begins to exist must be caused to exist. I focus on scientific objections related to quantum mechanics such as virtual particles, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the indeterminate nature of radioactive decay. I also address the objection that it is nonsensical to speak of efficient causation in the absence of material causation. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I continue my examination of objections to the first premise of the KCA that everything which begins to exist must be caused to exist. The objections I cover in this episode include:
(1) The argument equivocates on the meaning of "begins to exist"
(2) Science cannot support the first premise it only shows that the transformation of matter from one state to another requires a cause - not that the origin of matter itself requires a cause. 
(3) We have no experience of things coming into being from nothing to know that they require a cause

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I address what I consider to be the best argument against premise 1, namely Stephen Hawking's objection that the universe cannot have a cause because causes must precede their effect in time, and there was no time prior to the universe. I spent the entire episode on this single objection. Other objections will be addressed next episode. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve