Initial Event of Physical Reality Without a Cause?

Continuing the discussion from Is It Correct to Say There is "No" Evidence For the Supernatural Part 1:

Just to make it clear, Vilenkin is essentially arguing against the first premise of the Kalam argument saying that even though everything else has a cause, the universe itself didn’t. He does not deny the second premise that the universe began to exist.

1 Like

No. He is demonstrating that the universe could have a cause that isn’t God.

Thereby driving a stake thru the heart of the already-moldering corpse of the ludicrous Kalam Cosmological “Argument.”

1 Like

“I would now like to take issue with the first part of the argument. Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause.” Alexander Vilenkin

1 Like

I stand corrected.

The KCA remains dead, regardless.

By authoritative decree.


Do you understand the implications of your own insistence upon the presupposition of Atheism?

We are trying to reach Christians who feel torn between modern scientific methods and their religious calling. The hope is that @swamidass can meaningfully demonstrate to new generations of Christians that there is a way to be a sincere Christian and not interfere with Christian principles generally, and more specifically, not to interfere with Romans 5 and its implications for how atonement works in Christianity.

Now let us suppose you actually got someone to listen to your bi-daily screen on atheism, the Christians who might have been drawn to PeacefulScience and its scenarios of Genealogical Adam would suddenly have no reason to learn any more Gen.Adam.

And we would be right back to where we were when we were working with BioLogos.

So… is it at all conceivable that you could just SHUT UP about your insistence on Atheism?

Not only are you counter-productive, but you increase the “tension-and-conflict” load on a site that is trying to find the middle ground for PeacefulScience…

You may not realize it or approve, but our plan is NOT to exhaust the other side of the conversation by making them jump through your hoops.

I make no such presupposition.

Ah. So is your comment there an example of how we should reduce the “tension and conflict” on this forum? Forgive me if I do not quite grasp your position.


My tone is intentionally harsh… because “Zealous Atheist” types seem to have no comprehension of the purpose of this site … with the surprising exception of @Patrick.

It is very hard to build trust with some groups of Creationists with rabid anti-Religious “monks” roaming the halls and frightening the children…

I see. So you are already preparing your excuse for when Peaceful Science proves no more effective in eliminating creationism than BioLogos has been: “It was all the fault of those darned atheists.”


One, this is a multi-generational effort.

Two, only the most cantankerous of Atheists would eventually be restricted from interfering in the process…

Are you a moderator of this group?


Ha!.. do i need to be a moderator to try out my skills of prophecy?