Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 4964 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


Message 16 of 177 (574751)
08-17-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nwr
08-17-2010 2:49 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
I have never understood why this argument is used anywhere ever. There are two main flaws that I see.
1. If scientists are correct (and I understand that there's some disagreement on this point), then the Big Bang was actually the inception point of time itself. Therefore, assuming that "come into existence" means "goes from a time of non-existence to a time of existence", then the universe never came into existence: it's like asking what is south of the south pole.
2. What is more likely is that the KCA means something different by "come into existence" than most people think. In which case, we may suppose that the universe had a cause. It may be an interdimensional bubble, or a fluctuation in dimensions unknown to us, or it may be a god, or aliens, or even the aftermath of a "Big Crunch", but there's nothing to favor the god interpretation over any other.
Help me out here, Creationists... what's the point of this argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 08-17-2010 2:49 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 08-17-2010 10:57 PM Fiver has not replied
 Message 18 by cavediver, posted 08-18-2010 4:56 AM Fiver has not replied
 Message 37 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-24-2012 6:45 PM Fiver has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 17 of 177 (574813)
08-17-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fiver
08-17-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
I have never understood why this argument is used anywhere ever.
You listen to the fast talking carnival barker, and before long you are buying something you didn't want.
The argument is used by fast talking apologeticists. The idea is for it to sound good, and you swallow it before thinking about it.
I don't know why it is brought to forums, where people are going to think about it first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 4:15 PM Fiver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 18 of 177 (574849)
08-18-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fiver
08-17-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
If scientists are correct (and I understand that there's some disagreement on this point), then the Big Bang...
I wouldn't phrase things this way - better to say "if the Standard Model of cosmology is correct (and I understand that scientists are working to go beyond this so this may not necessarily hold in a deeper theory), then the Big Bang..."
then the Big Bang was actually the inception point of time itself. Therefore, assuming that "come into existence" means "goes from a time of non-existence to a time of existence", then the universe never came into existence
Exactly. The Universe may well be created by some divine being, but if so, the Big Bang is no more likely the point of creation than last saturday under my bed. Any act of creation has to be completely outside our own time-dimension in order to qualify as an act of creation...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 4:15 PM Fiver has not replied

  
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 19 of 177 (575073)
08-18-2010 8:10 PM


I've always looked at the Big Bang theory as being incomplete at best.
It is generally accepted the theory means this:
One day there was a huge explosion in vacant space. And the pieces of this explosion dispursed through space with angular momentum.
They also cooled off and formed hard round balls of matter.
One of those balls of cooled off matter is the Earth.
Going back to the beginning of this theory, leaves one wondering where the Big Bomb came from.
Of course the currently held theory does not address the origin of the Big Bomb.
When any intelligent person discusses the origin of the Big Bomb, they immediately disprove the Big Bang.
Why?
Because, you are admitting there had to have been a time before Big Bang that a Big Bomb was formed slowly from highly reactive ingredients. Very flammable if you will.
So when I ask those staunch Big Bang supporters the simple question:
Where did the Big Bomb come from?
They disprove Big Bang if they attempt to answer it rationally.
If you yourself believe a Big Bomb was slowly formed through time with highly flammable ingredients, and then one day exploded in the event called Big Bang............You have just admitted Big Bang was NOT how the world BEGAN.
You have admitted that the slow forming of a Big Bomb did in fact occur before any Bang was noted. And any theory of creation must get to the root of the beginning, or it is not a theory of CREATION.....
Thank you, Nuimshaan

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 08-18-2010 8:23 PM Nuimshaan has not replied
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 8:24 PM Nuimshaan has not replied
 Message 22 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:29 PM Nuimshaan has not replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 12:38 AM Nuimshaan has not replied
 Message 26 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 5:04 AM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 20 of 177 (575075)
08-18-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:10 PM


It is generally accepted the theory means this:
No, it is not accepted as that. It is not considered to be an explosion, but more of a rapid expansion. You also forgot supernovae, which is what planets are formed from. Stars, were formed out of the heavier elements (didn't cavediver already say this?) which went supernova, creating planets (there is much more involved, but you were far off). I might suggest a further study of cosmology and, at the very least, star or galaxy formation.
I'll let cavediver or any of the other resident cosmologists address the rest, for I am but a rookie.
Edited by hooah212002, : clarification

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:10 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 177 (575076)
08-18-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:10 PM


It is generally accepted the theory means this:
This is nothing even approximating the notion of the Big Bang.
To begin with, you've failed to understand that space itself was what expanded immediately following the Big Bang, not merely the material in the universe.
Where did the Big Bomb come from?
The Big Bang was not the explosion of a bomb, it was the expansion of space from an incredibly small area. Not just everything in the universe, but the space of the universe, as well. Not just the space of the universe, but the time as well, because the Big Bang is the origin of spacetime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:10 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 22 of 177 (575077)
08-18-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:10 PM


Either you admit God was formed in the mind of man......
Or from man's physical experience with a real God.
Either way....IT IS NOT AS THOUGH THE WORD OF GOD...HATH TAKEN NONE EFFECT
IT IS NOT AS THOUGH WORDS ABOUT GOD HAVE TAKEN NONE EFFECT
Even the best scientist will concede his ignorance of origins....and entertain thoughts of God.
Thank you, Nuimshaan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:10 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 08-18-2010 8:52 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 23 of 177 (575089)
08-18-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:29 PM


Perhaps you should click on the message you are yelling at instead of yelling at yourself.......

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:29 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 177 (575159)
08-19-2010 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:10 PM


It is generally accepted the theory means this:
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:10 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 25 of 177 (575182)
08-19-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Deleted
08-13-2010 5:47 AM


Syllogism 1
Premise 1: Entropy always grows (second law of thermodynamics)
Premise 2: The universe has not reached total entropy.
Conclusion :The universe has started/has not excisted for an infinite amount of time.
There are a couple of flaws in this.
One is that the 2LoT does not say that the entropy of a closed system always increases, but that it never decreases. One could then imagine a situation in which the entropy has stayed the same for an infinite amount of time.
The other is that the math is broken even if the premise was correct. Imagine a quantity (call it x) such that x increased by a quantity of 1 today, 1/2 yesterday, 1/4 the day before that, 1/8 the day before that, and so forth. Now, x is strictly monotonically increasing, and yet clearly if x has been increasing for an infinite number of days, the present value of x would only have increased by 2 over all that time.
One moral of this is that two premises and a conclusion do not make a syllogism. In this case, the conclusion is simply not a necessary consequence of the premises. There is a hidden premise --- that if something always grows, and if it has been doing so for an infinitely long time, then it will have "reached totality" (whatever that means). And this hidden premise is, as I have demonstrated, false in general, since the behavior of x supplies a counterexample.
Of course, there does exist a good argument that our universe (as cosmologists would use the term) has only existed for a finite time, but as this involves knowing the actual history of the Universe, it would be hard to sell it to the sort of people who are attracted to the KCA, i.e. creationists. They are therefore obliged to used bad reasons to argue for what scientists can prove using good reasons.
---
Syllogism 2 is a valid syllogism but the premises are open to question.
---
"Syllogism 3" just isn't a syllogism. It's a non sequitur --- the term "first cause" doesn't even occur in the premises. As with "syllogism 1", someone is aping the superficial forms of logic without actually using it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Deleted, posted 08-13-2010 5:47 AM Deleted has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(2)
Message 26 of 177 (575219)
08-19-2010 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:10 PM


Hello Nuimshaan and welcome to EvC!
I've seen you've gotten quite some responses from people, I just felt like adding to them.
Nuimshaan writes:
I've always looked at the Big Bang theory as being incomplete at best.
Big bang theory is complete. It desccribes the universe from t=10-43 seconds and onwards.
It is generally accepted the theory means this:
No, not really, let me see if I can correct it for you.
One day there was a huge explosion in vacant space.
No, there was a rapid expansion of space and time itself, there was no space yet, and no explosion to happen within it.
And the pieces of this explosion dispursed through space with angular momentum.
No. Since there was no explosion, there were no "pieces", what was there was superheated plasma.
They also cooled off and formed hard round balls of matter.
No. They first formed hydrogen and helium, the hard round balls wouldn't come about until much later.
One of those balls of cooled off matter is the Earth.
No. The earth is a result of the acumulation of matter of the accretion disc left after the sun formed.
Going back to the beginning of this theory, leaves one wondering where the Big Bomb came from.
There was no "Big Bomb".
Of course the currently held theory does not address the origin of the Big Bomb.
Since no one claims there should be a "Big Bomb" (except you, of course), no one is addressing it.
When any intelligent person discusses the origin of the Big Bomb, they immediately disprove the Big Bang.
Since the "Big Bomb" has nothing to do with the Big Bang, I wouldn't see how.
Why?
Indeed.
Because, you are admitting there had to have been a time before Big Bang that a Big Bomb was formed slowly from highly reactive ingredients.
Perhaps, but no one is saying there had to be a "Big Bomb".
Very flammable if you will.
Since there was no "Big Bomb", not really, no.
So when I ask those staunch Big Bang supporters the simple question:
Where did the Big Bomb come from?
They disprove Big Bang if they attempt to answer it rationally.
I'm a "Big Bang supporter", and if you ask me that question, I would say: "What "Big Bomb"?"
If you yourself believe a Big Bomb was slowly formed through time with highly flammable ingredients, and then one day exploded in the event called Big Bang............You have just admitted Big Bang was NOT how the world BEGAN.
I don't know anyone who proposes that.
You have admitted that the slow forming of a Big Bomb did in fact occur before any Bang was noted. And any theory of creation must get to the root of the beginning, or it is not a theory of CREATION.....
No one admits that, making the rest of your point rather moot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:10 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Deleted, posted 08-20-2010 6:14 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Noetherian Atheist
Junior Member (Idle past 4553 days)
Posts: 7
From: London
Joined: 08-19-2010


(1)
Message 27 of 177 (575370)
08-19-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Deleted
08-13-2010 5:47 AM


What's wrong with Kalam
Hi all, I'm also new to EvC: been reading for some time & learned a lot of stuff I didn't know. Great!
I wanted to go back to the oirginal question: what wrong with KCA. Anyone correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe this argument is more or less the original Cosmological Argument, if brought up to date some what:
1. Everything which exists has a cause to its existence which is outside of the thing itself,
2. The universe exists
Therefore: the universe has a cause to its existence which is outside of the universe.
And therefore God exists (that which caused the universe)
Your argument is slightly refined in terms of inserting "begins to exist", to head off the obvious challenge.
The classic challenges to this argument are, firstly that it's a long way from establishing the universe has a "cause" to God in terms of any of the religions I'm aware of and, secondly, and more problematically, because the argument may be turned against God himself to prove that he must also have a cause, God2 say, who must (by the same argument) have a further cause, God3 say... for ever.
The response to this latter (seemingly fatal) challenge was to introduce the concepts of contingency and necessity: somethings are contingent, they don't have to exist, while others are necessary, they could not fail to exist. Only contingent things need causes. So the argument was reformulated in terms of contingent things to try to avoid the problem of it being applied to the cause (God) of the universe which the argument supposedly proves.
This, however, dodn't stand up for long firstly because it's not obvious that the universe is contingent (included premise 2 of this version of the argument), and secondly because it assumes God is necessary: you cannot prove God exists by starting with the assumption that God is necessary (a stronger assertion surely?).
Finally the argument was given another run, this time as Kalam. The point of KCA was to drop all the suff about contingency and necessity, and to go back to the original cosmological argument. But this time, when the objection is raised that the argument may be applied to the conclusion, to show that the cause of the universe must itself have a cause, and that cause must have a further cause etc, instead of permitting this to go on forever, Kalam appeals to the "fact" that nothing infinite can exist in reality, only "potentally infinite" things can exist - numbers, say, are potentially infinite because they can in theory go on forever, but in practice we can only every count up to a finite number. Thus, the argument goes, the chain of causes cannot go on forever and must stop. And that's your God.
Of course, this is as open to attack as all previous versions:
- how do we know that nothing infinite can exist in reality: the geometric series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8+ ... is infinite in length, but finite in sum (I know - numbers aren't real, just a thought).
- doesn;t the final conclusion rather blow a hole in KCA: the final cause contradicts the argument in being a thing which exists without cause. Also, if God can exist without cause then why not the universe?
I think, however, the argument is really smoke and mirrors - misdirection. Everyone looks at premise 1 and the conclusion (and what it implies about causes of causes), whereas the real problem is premise 2: "the universe exists", the statement which apears utterly incontravertable. It should say "the universe is a thing which exists", after all premise 1 is "Every thing which exists..." so to apply premise 1 to premise 2, you must be talking about a "thing" which exists. And here's the problem: the universe is not a "thing" in the sense of other things - it's "everything".
The argument should be stated as (note the spacing):
1. Every thing which exists has a cause to its existence
2. Everything exists
Therefore... nothing: 2 does not meet the conditions of 1.
It's a bit like arguing that since every person has a mother, therefore mankind has a mother: it's absurd, and obvious class error.
I believe this line of attack can be attributed to Bertrand Russell, who saw the problem of thinking of the universe as a "thing" in terms of his famous paradox concerning the set of all sets: the universe would be the thing of all things and we'd be able to define other "things" which could neither exist nor not exist.
So, really even if you accept premise 1 (I don't - some very excellent posts already on this) and find a way round the obvious problems of infinite regress, frankly the argument just doesn't work.

Bye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Deleted, posted 08-13-2010 5:47 AM Deleted has seen this message but not replied

  
Deleted
Inactive Junior Member


Message 28 of 177 (575667)
08-20-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Huntard
08-19-2010 5:04 AM


Nuimshaan, please first learn where you are talking about, instead of drawing conclusions for someone who knows better...
Noetherian Atheist, your main point is (correct me if I am wrong) that for God to excist there must be a cause for Him.
But you forget one thing, God is almighty. This is pretty much the end of the discussion about it, God is almighty and infinite.
This is one point where you can't argue about, this is one thing that we (as christians) believe. Simply because god2 is totally unbiblical you cant discuss it.
I am not trying to end this discussion but it is of no use, I cant proof the whole bible, thats why you call it believing, science covers the part you dont believe (thats the proven part). Some parts you cant proof so you believe them (whether you like it or not )
Dr Adequate, you are correct there could be a time at which the entropy stays the same, but I guess the chances for that arent very good?
Btw Noetherian Atheist, why Noetherian? All I could find is theorie in mathematics?
Edited by PrinceGhaldir, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 5:04 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 08-20-2010 6:46 PM Deleted has seen this message but not replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 7:27 PM Deleted has seen this message but not replied
 Message 31 by Noetherian Atheist, posted 08-24-2010 8:17 PM Deleted has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 29 of 177 (575668)
08-20-2010 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Deleted
08-20-2010 6:14 PM


But you forget one thing, God is almighty.
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Deleted, posted 08-20-2010 6:14 PM Deleted has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 30 of 177 (575675)
08-20-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Deleted
08-20-2010 6:14 PM


Dr Adequate, you are correct there could be a time at which the entropy stays the same, but I guess the chances for that arent very good?
Since we have only studied one universe, and that universe apparently has only existed for a finite time, thinking about this is rather like trying to think about the probability that a dragon could talk.
---
As for the argument as a whole, it seems to me that they run the risk arguing rather like this:
Proposition 1: Every point on the globe has a point to the north of it.
Proposition 2: There is no point on the globe which is north of the north pole.
Conclusion: The point to the north of the north pole is not on the globe.
The analogy here is that just as "north" only makes sense on the surface of the globe, so ideas of beginning and causality only seem to make sense inside spacetime.
"Point to the north of it" has to mean "point to the north of it on the globe", and so the first two propositions are implicitly contradictory.
Now consider the proposition that the universe has "started". What we mean when we say something has started is that there was a time when it didn't exist/happen and then a time that it did. But this only makes sense within time --- the idea of spacetime itself starting is confusing, because it implies a time when there wasn't any time.
---
Similarly with "cause": a cause precedes its effect, so when one talks of spacetime itself having a cause this seems to imply something preceding time in time.
Though this is less clear. Consider an eternal universe which always has and always will consist of a single planet on which a bowling ball sits on a cushion. One might then reasonably say that the cause of the cushion being depressed is that the bowling ball is sitting on it, without implying a cause preceding the effect ...
... I just remembered why I like biology better than metaphysics.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Deleted, posted 08-20-2010 6:14 PM Deleted has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024