Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Kalam cosmological argument

If you just want to counter the all effects have a cause argument then the Quantum Mechanics outlined in the Wiki article seem to be the way to go. Of course, arguing from quantum mechanics is not the easiest thing to do with lay-folks (even clergy folks) or even with me! 😉 There are enough examples there of events for which we cannot specify a cause that even if not absolute proof of the concept, the evidence strongly leans in that direction.

Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics, emeritus
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, Indiana

Free Physics Instructional Software
Windows and Mac

-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l <> On Behalf Of Antti Savinainen via Phys-l
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:22 AM
Cc: Antti Savinainen <>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Kalam cosmological argument

Hi again,

to clarify my position: I'm not personally interested in proofs for or againts the existence of God. However, my friend asked a physicist's opinion on the Kalam cosmological argument, and I promised to do so. I suppose that physics has something to say about the following premises:

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

Causality appears not to be fully preserved at a quantum level. For instance, one can talk only about statistical causality, say, in a double slit experiment with electrons. The interference pattern is formed only after enough electrons have passed through. The position a given electron will end up in a screen cannot be predicted, only the pattern formed by many electrons. Hence the term statistical causality.
Or have I missed something?



Forum for Physics Educators