Does quantum mechanics disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Question

The Kalam Cosmological Argument says "Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe". However, as I understand it quantum mechanics says that existence is probabilistic, rather than deterministic, and is therefore uncaused.

Does QM therefore disprove the KCA?

Answer 1

way over my head..give me about 5 years to think about it.

Answer 2

Einstein objected "God does not play dice". Forgetting the irrational religious underpinnings of Einstein’s statement for a minute, Schrödinger and Heisenberg should have responded, "The probabilistic nature of quantum physics may simply be a limit of our descriptive tools (math, etc.) and not imply anything about the actual nature of the universe being described." The problem here is thinking that the description is the thing, like confusing a portrait with the actual person.

On the other hand, the problem with the KCA is that it uses space-time bound logic to “prove” a creator that is supposed to be beyond space-time. The concept of causality assumes the idea of linear time, before and after. We cannot apply the idea of cause to a “time before time” when something led to the emergence of space-time itself. Now, obviously any such “something” would have to be transcendent, but it merely begs the question to automatically identify such a source as God.

Answer 3

Well, it's certainly an argument against it... but QM does not 'prove' anything. A lot of people think that QM provides a description of objective reality... but it does not; rather, it allows us (with unprecedented accuracy) to predict how reality will respond when we poke it. The only thing that we know for sure about objective reality is that it is 'non-local'... that is proven by "Bell's Theorem" (John Bell... some time in the 1960's... too lazy to look it up).

Anyway... QM predicts that particle / anti-particle pairs pop into existence and then annihilate one another all the time... but because of the (near?) instantaneous nature of these events, the particles are deemed to be 'virtual'... not 'real'. According to Hawking, though, if such an event occurs at the event horizon of a black hole, one of the virtual particles might end up getting eaten by the black hole before the mutual annihilation takes place, in which case the remaining particle becomes 'real'. This (IRCC) is the basis for Hawking's assertion that "black holes have hair."

Despite QM's unprecedented descriptive and predictive power, it still might end up getting chucked, in whole or in part, if string theory ever finds its feet... or by something else that nobody has even thought of yet.

Answer 4

I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Quantum mechanics certainly revises our attitude towards physics and behavior of particles, but a metaphysical question cannot be answered either way, except that in the quantum world we live in a world governed by probabilities, not by hard and indisputable "Newtonian" rules.
Christian Thomistic philosophy has the same principle as the Kalam does, naming it "the Uncaused Cause."
However, we do not know, because it is impossible for mankind to be objective in metaphysics. Simply because "logic" tells us something is true does not necessarily mean that it is true. Logic is a human invention devised to make sense of a world that perhaps makes no sense whatsoever. If logic were infallible, all people of the world would agree completely on many many things, and that most certainly is not the case and never has been.

Answer 5

In the beginning of the 20th century amid an atmosphere of scientific revolution and discoveries, Albert Einstein fashioned his theory of general relativity. The basic tenet being that matter converts into energy and energy into matter (E=mc2). Relativity also proposed that gravity alters space and time; that the universe is decelerating; and that it is expanding. Deceleration and expansion implied an initial explosion of the universe, and indeed, a beginning. Einstein's Relativity completely uprooted Kant's science and philosophical notions. The universe is FINITE. Subsequent observations have continued to solidify the theory of relativity down to this very day. Roger Penrose, a leading astrophysicist of our day, declared in 1994 that Einstein's theory of general relativity was "the most accurately tested theory known to science." (This after confirming the theory to a precision of 99,999,999,999,999 parts in a hundred trillion.) Yet, Einstein's own theory bothered him as it bothered most scientists (and still does). The physics itself was not the problem but rather the philosophical implication of Einstein's findings. For, to have a beginning necessarily implies one who began it. To have a point in time which can be called "the first moment" in time and space and matter and energy means that before then there was nothing. The question then is: where did this come from? And how? and by who? The implication then is there must be a Supreme intelligence transcendental to space, matter, and time. The Big Bang implies God.

Answer 6

I think it's not. If universe had an ex nihilo beginning, there can't be quantum mechanics at all. It requires at least empty space and time.

Answer 7

yes it does, for it is only rare possibility's that are to blame for the creation of the universe.

Answer 8

Schrodingers cat knows the answer, but she disappeared!

Answer 9

Seems pretty basic that something can not come from nothing - energy is not created or destroyed, but transformed.

Answer 10

Only if you have enough dilithium crystals on board your starship