Q&A: Cosmological Argument
Cosmological Argument
Question
The Rabbi, in his booklet, rejected the scientific refutation of the cosmological argument—quantum theory and free creation, something that has already been proven in our time.
Assuming this violates a logical law called the law of conservation of being
(a law that the Rabbi came up with and no scientist ever did, and also a law that might have been appropriate to exist but does not actually exist in reality)
That is, the Rabbi wants to reject the refutation with a claim that is completely unfounded.
I don’t understand how the Rabbi can be so irrational.
Answer
It is hard for me to respond to declarations. I usually answer—or at least look for an answer—to questions or difficulties.
Discussion on Answer
The man,
are you hinting that the Big Bang is the beginning of creation? Even though before creation there was no matter at all beforehand.
Rather, the prime matter exists only nowadays—what is this matter? And how exactly does it work?
By the way, if there is a law of conservation of being, then the world will never be destroyed! Could that be? Where did this matter come from? And why don’t we see it?
There is no spontaneous creation in a vacuum. Particles can be formed that are balanced in their total charges and disappear immediately. And all this is on tiny scales. A complex, macroscopic reality created from the vacuum is something unknown to us and impossible according to the laws. This is really the foolish nonsense of ignorant atheists…
Before creation there are no conservation laws.
Why does that matter?
For removing the need for a Creator.
I think the question is simple:
we see in reality that spontaneous creation in a vacuum exists.
The Rabbi wants to attribute this to the fact that in today’s world there exists a kind of prime matter that preserves being, something that did not exist before the Big Bang.
But the small problem is that the Rabbi is proposing a totally unsubstantiated and ad hoc theory that dismisses all the atheists’ arguments.
This is really an evangelicals’ tea party here.