Does This Defeat The Kalam?

[RazorSwift]

So I recently read a physicist that said "And quantum mechanics discounts the whole things needing to have a cause, plenty of things happen without cause." I'm assuming that he's thinking of virtual particles but I'm not sure. Does anyone know how to address this issue? Thanks in advance.

[Icthus]

No. This does not defeat the cosmological argument. Quantum mechanics does not do away with causality, and using the word "cause" might not be the best way to state a cosmological argument. After all, God is "uncaused." One might say that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence (like Craig would). If you want some good information about the classical arguments for God and how they relate to contemporary physics, Edward Feser has a number of entries on his blog, and if I remember correctly, he has dealt with this very question at least once before. Sadly, in recent years a number of scientists have entered the public religion debate without doing their homework first. I've heard this argument before, and frankly, it relies on a poor understanding of philosophy (funny how so many people think they can match wits with the greatest philosophers of the last few thousand years without any formal learning on the subject).

[RazorSwift]

Thank you so much for the info. Cheers!

[Kurieuo]

Thank you so much for the info. Cheers!

Physicists make poor logicians. Leave the fact finding to scientists, and logic to philosophers.

[Jac3510]

using the word "cause" might not be the best way to state a cosmological argument. After all, God is "uncaused." One might say that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence (like Craig would).

Actually, Craig would say "that which comes into existence has a cause." Since God didn't come into existence, He is excluded from needing a cause. What you are talking about is the principle of sufficient reason. I think that's more of Leibniz' gig. It's defensible, but much easier to attack than Craig's version.

You are right, though, that QM doesn't do away with causality. And you are right that Feser deals with this in detail.

[Icthus]

using the word "cause" might not be the best way to state a cosmological argument. After all, God is "uncaused." One might say that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence (like Craig would).

Actually, Craig would say "that which comes into existence has a cause." Since God didn't come into existence, He is excluded from needing a cause. What you are talking about is the principle of sufficient reason. I think that's more of Leibniz' gig. It's defensible, but much easier to attack than Craig's version.

You are right, though, that QM doesn't do away with causality. And you are right that Feser deals with this in detail.

Thanks for the clarification.