|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kalam Cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
"If you want to support Craig's Kalam argument start a thread on it. I'll have fun showing the serious problems in it." -PaulK As per your request, I am starting an applicable thread on the subject of the Kalam Cosmological argument. For those not yet acquainted with the premise of the argument, I shall repost a link that covers the aspect. The brevity of the argument entails:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of anactual infinite. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility ofthe formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. 2.21 A collection formed by successiveaddition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of itsexistence. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html What personal belief's do the prospective posters maintain? Is a Creator inconsequential to the reality of time/space/matter/energy? Or is a Creator absolutely neccessary for anything to be actual? What is your take on the subject and how have you come to your conclusions? “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I placed this in Theological Creationism and ID, to allow more scope to nemesis_juggernaut than are permitted by scientific requirements of other forums. Although I did not make this a Great Debate with Paulk, I suggest that other members be careful to not overload nemesis_juggernaut. Let's take it slowly at first, till we see how it goes. Edited by AdminNWR, : Add comments. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. This premise needs a sufficient definiton of what constitutes existence.How do we define existence without referal to the world we live in and are trying to establish the beginning of existence to? Since this would constitute circular arguement we are left with a conundrum. The universe began to exist. Same as above. We cannot speak of beginnings until we establish what constitutes a lack of universe for which a beginning can be considered to have esatblished itself.
An actual infinite cannot exist. How are you able to establish this as correct? What are the upper bound of the finite then? Do we have any means to establish the veracity of the negative here?
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. This makes no sense since the simple equivalent statement of this phrase is "time has no beginning". What grounds do you have to establish this?
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist Any statement based on non-established premises is invalid as a conclusion.
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. This is hardly a profound statement since any amount of succesive addition is finite unless the iteration of succesive addition is first established as infinite. If it is so established then, of course, it is not impossible. What the author does not seem to appreciate here is not whether infinity is impossible or not but whether it is actually a property of the universe.
A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. This is a reiteration of the very same proposal as we found in 2.11,2.12 and 2.13
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This is not a valid conclusion based on the given premises
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You will note that the argument presented simply stops with the idea that the universe has a cause. As presented it is not an argument for the existence of a God. As I commented in the earlier thread more is needed and that is where the argument hits it's worst problems.
That is not to say that there are no problems in the argument as presented. Consider the definition of "beginning". If past time is finite, as Craig argues, does something that exists at the very start of time have a beginning ? If the answer is not a clear "yes" then how can we say that the Universe has a beginning ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
This premise needs a sufficient definiton of what constitutes existence. Is like when Bill Clinton asked define what "is" meant? Alright, for your sake, lets define what existence means, as it relates to us. Existence is matter, space-time, and energy. We won't go into the metaphysical aspects just yet. Does this fair? Matter/time/space/energy?
How do we define existence without referal to the world we live in and are trying to establish the beginning of existence to? Since this would constitute circular arguement we are left with a conundrum. What we know to be absolutely true is that everything comes from something, and we've never witnessed something coming from absolute nothingness. So, if we incorporate what we know with theoretics, perhaps we will be able to uncover some possibilities.
Same as above. We cannot speak of beginnings until we establish what constitutes a lack of universe for which a beginning can be considered to have esatblished itself. For many, many cultures it was long believed that the universe, and matter itself, was eternal. There was no compelling evidence to assume otherwise. That is, until Hubble came along, who noticed that the universe seemed to be expanding. This expansion indicated that it started out as a certain point in space-time and gets bigger as time goes on. After many other experiments, other astronomers and cosmologists disagreed on the Big Bang vs a static model, but, they all conclude that the universe has a definate beginning. So if something began to exist, then what is the cause of inexplicable actuality? What makes the Kalam argument so appealing is that everything that we know exists, only began to exist for a reason. i.e. "it" was the product of procreation, or "it" was a product of the Big Bang.
quote: How are you able to establish this as correct? What are the upper bound of the finite then? Do we have any means to establish the veracity of the negative here? Its a simple deduction. If you can add or subtract anything, then it isn't an infinite. You can't have infinity + 1 or 2 or 3. And because you were born, there is not an infinite amount of people. That suggests, very powerfully, that an actual infinite does not exist... At least not here on earth, other than on an abstract theorum. i.e. on paper.
quote: This makes no sense since the simple equivalent statement of this phrase is "time has no beginning". What grounds do you have to establish this? To grasp the concept, Craig explains that it's important to juxtapose an actual infinite from a potential infinite. An actual infinite is a collection of things having a proper subset which has the same number of members as the original collection itself. In contrast, an actual infinite is not like a potential infinite, which is a collection of every point in time finite, but is growing toward infinity as a limit. In other words, a potential infinite can exist, but an actual infinite as it applies to time/space/matter/energy currently does not exist. "What is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get self-contradictory answers, unless you impose some wholly arbitrary rules to prevent this. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, who is perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought . . The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."{5} So as I understand the actual infinite, it is simply a conceptual idea; it is not something that exists in reality." -William Lane Craig
Any statement based on non-established premises is invalid as a conclusion. No, that's the only point that is established. Name me one infinite number of anything? An infinite number of penguins? An infinite number of goats? He's saying, an infinite is only a concept, thus far. We have never seen a never-ending number of anything. And because we can add or subtract to everything, then it couldn't possibly be an infinite number. Therefore, an actual infinite doesn't exist as it relates to matter/time/space/energy.
quote: This is hardly a profound statement since any amount of succesive addition is finite unless the iteration of succesive addition is first established as infinite. If it is so established then, of course, it is not impossible. What the author does not seem to appreciate here is not whether infinity is impossible or not but whether it is actually a property of the universe. I think you misunderstand him. He is aware, and has stated that a potential infinity does exist. The potential is there. In fact, if God exists, then He is infinite. He is the only thing that could be, according to Craig's argument. However, he is arguing that an "actual" infinity does not exist in time/space/matter/energy. Its paradoxical if you view it only by existential means. But he makes a point of distinguishing potential infinites from actual infinites. "The second philosophical argument is the argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. This argument is independent of the first. It's claiming that even if an actual infinite can exist, it cannot be formed by successive addition. And this argument goes this way: (2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. (2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. (2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. The first step in the argument, a collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite, is true by the very nature of infinity. You can never get to infinity by addition because you can always add one more. Sometimes this is called the impossibility of counting to infinity, or another way it's referred to is the impossibility of traversing the infinite. Now if the past were infinite, it would be as though someone had claimed to have just finished counting down all the negative numbers ending in "0," and surely this is absurd. If you can't count to infinity, how can you count down from infinity? If you can't traverse an infinite distance by running in one direction, how can you traverse it by simply turning around and running in the opposite direction?" -William Lane Craig “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You will note that the argument presented simply stops with the idea that the universe has a cause. As presented it is not an argument for the existence of a God. As I commented in the earlier thread more is needed and that is where the argument hits it's worst problems. Hang on, lets tackle one problem first. If want to logically come to a final conclusion, we have to first address the previous issues in order to verify them. But if you want the whole syllabus, I'll post it. ------------------------The first premise----------------------------- 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause ofits existence. 2.The universe began to exist.2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite: 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition: 2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. 2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe. 2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of itsexistence. ------------------------The first premise----------------------------- ------------------------The second premise---------------------------- 4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, thenan uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. 4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator: 4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent. 4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions. 4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent. 4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent: 4.21 The Creator is uncaused. 4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23) 4.22 The Creator is beginningless. 4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1) 4.23 The Creator is changeless. 4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23) 4.24 The Creator is immaterial. 4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless. (4.23) 4.25 The Creator is timeless. 4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23) 4.26 The Creator is spaceless. 4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25) 4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful. 4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3) 4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent. 4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design. 5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of theuniverse exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. -----------------------The second premise----------------------------- Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Add italics “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
2.The universe began to exist. The immediate problem here is you are using a very old fashioned idea of time. To begin to exist, there must be some temporal aspect with respect to which something can "begin". Time, as we know it, is an internal aspect of our universe. Therefore, the universe cannot "begin to exist" as there is no a priori concept of time in which to "begin". This "Newtonian" cosmological argument is all very well in pre-relativistic days, but we are 100 years beyond that now... Edited by cavediver, : commas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well either you can address the issues over the question of "beginning" or we can get to the real problems, where the argument completely and irretrievably fails.
That would be your:
4.11 The universe was brought into being either
by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent. 4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions. 4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The immediate problem here is you are using a very old fashioned idea of time. Old fashioned idea of time?
To begin to exist, there must be some temporal aspect with respect to which something can "begin". Time, as we know it, is an internal aspect of our universe. Time and space are conjoined. One doesn't exist without the other. So, logically, if the universe began, then time began simultaneously. Are you actually arguing whether or no the universe had a beginning? Are you suggesting that the universe itself is timeless?
Therefore, the universe cannot "begin to exist" as there is no a priori concept of time in which to "begin". Again, Einstein noted that space-time is same thing and are not mutualy exclusive, but homologous. That means that whenthe universe (space) began, so did time. So any argument counter to this is rendered moot and ineffectual in that regard. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Well either you can address the issues over the question of "beginning" or we can get to the real problems, where the argument completely and irretrievably fails. The question of "beginning"? What concept stumbles you? I'm not really understanding your objection to the beginning. Do you believe that the universe is eternal or do you believe that it had a beginning, i.e., the Big Bang? I can't really answer your question until you define your objection to "beginning."
quote: 1. What's the problem with this? Either the universe came into being by set of physical laws that came together in such a way as to make it the "right" conditions for life to be actual, or it came by way of a Creator who fashioned it. {4.11} 2. The universe could not have come into existence by itself because it didn't even have the potential to become actual. For an action to begin there has to be a cause. If there is no cause, then there is no action. This all said, unless of course, you believe that nothing has the ability to create something. {4.12} 3. Therefore, the universe's existence must have come from a free agent that exists outside of the time-space domain. We need not define what the "Agent" is, but only recognize that it could not have come any other way. {4.13} Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The problem with "beginning" is as I said the one from Message 4 whicvh you did not answer.
quote: quote: It assumes that the only alternative to the actions of a free agent is the deterministic working out of physical law. It is not logically necessary that non-intelligent actions must be deterministic.
quote: As presented 4.12 was simply a bare unsupported assertion. This is even worse, since it completely ignores the possiblity of a non-intelligent cause outside of our universe. In other words you have gone from simply making an unsupported assertion to begging the question, which is even worse than what I remember of Craig's argument. Point 3 is simply the conclusion drawn from the preceding assertions. THuis it stands - or in this case falls - with them. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Time and space are conjoined. One doesn't exist without the other. True enough for this discussion.
So, logically, if the universe began, then time began simultaneously. I know exactly what you mean, but there-in lies the problem: for time to "begin" it requires some metric (i.e. a measurable scale) against which we can define where it was that time didn't exist, and where it was that time did exist. And the boundary is your point of "begin". BUT such a temporal metric does not appear to exist. The only one of which we are aware is our "time" which only has existence whithin the universe. A hard concept to get across, I admit.
Are you actually arguing whether or no the universe had a beginning? I would describe it as the universe having no "beginning". It may well have only a finite regress into the past, such as predicted by the Big Bang theory, but the point or region described by T=0 is not a beginning, but merely one end of the universe, from a certain point of view. Just as the North Pole is one end of the Earth, from a certain point of view. To explain that analogy, imagine the surface of the Earth as all moments of the universe - the North Pole is the Big Bang, the South Pole the Big Crunch. Time, as we understand it, is merely how far South you are. The universe is a the whole Earth - the North Pole is not the beginning of this universe, nor is the South Pole the end. The Universe simply exists, and time exists within it.
Are you suggesting that the universe itself is timeless? In the analogy above, yes. Time is an internal coordinate of the universe, telling you how far South you are. It is meaningless to try to assign that time to the Universe as a whole. It is like asking, at what longitude and latitude is the Earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
One big problem with the first premise is right off the bat. It assume that everything has a cause. There are strong indications in QM that not everything has a cause.
So, if that is the case, then the premise is incorrect. The second problem is that the 'Creator' is uncaused violates the first premises's that everything has a cause. That makes it a 'special pleading', and therefore as a piece of pure logic invalidates itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
THink of time as the north pole. THink of traveling backwards to time as traveling to the north pole. Once you get to the north pole, which way is north?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
Hi Cavediver.
Reading your post, I must say it is most intriguing, regardless of whether or not I understand it in its entirety. However, reading over The Universe in a Nutshell, Stephen Hawking, (the layperson's edition of A Brief History of Time), Hawking claims that he and Penrose had proved time had a beginning by using mathematical theorums.
Hawking writes: As one follows our past light cone back still further, the positive density of matter causes the light rays to bend toward each other more strongly. The cross section of the light cone will shrink to zero size in a finite time. This means that all the matter inside our past light cone is trapped in a region whose boundary shrinks to zero. It is therefore not very surprising that Penrose and I could prove that in the mathematical model of general relativity, time must have a beginning in what is called the bing bang. Similar arguments show that time would have an end, when stars or galaxies collapse under their own gravity to form black holes. We had sidestepped Kant's antinomy of pure reason by dropping his implicit assumption that time had a meaning independent of the universe. Our paper, proving time had a beginning, won the second prize in the competition sponsored by the Gravity Research Foundation in 1968... There were various reactions to our work. It upset many physicists, but it delighted those religious leaders who believed in an act of creation, for here was scientific proof. I am probably misunderstanding what exactly you are trying to get across. It appears you are claiming time only exists within our universe, and that a "beginning" is questionable. However, Hawking seems quite adament that time did have a beginning. Do you think you could lend a helping hand to an interested yet greatly uninformed science enthusiast? Thank you, Cavediver.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024