|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I do not confer state-ness on an immaterial, timeless, beginningless, entity as you claim. How is a state-less, immaterial, timeless, beginningless thing different from something that just does not exist at all? What is the difference between its "existence" and non-existence? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
2. The universe is a being which began to exist That implies a point in time where the universe did not exist... but we ain't got one of those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:Therefore, any god postulated must also have a cause for it's existence, another greater god, maybe? In the end its turtles, all the way down. Unless you want to employ special pleading. You could postulate a god that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. Just sayin'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:Therefore, any god postulated must also have a cause for it's existence, another greater god, maybe? In the end its turtles, all the way down. Unless you want to employ special pleading. However, you could postulate that matter and energy always existed. We have evidence for the existence of matter and energy. Nothing for the existence of a god. Well sure, but you were the one who brought up god. I was responding specifically to this claim:
quote: That's just not true, for the reason I offered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
You could apply Occam's razer, postulate a universe that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist or require a creator to create it, as well. You could postulate a god that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. Just sayin'. So? That's beside the point that there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But it seems quite reasonable to say that something with a finite age (e.g. the universe) "began to exist." But then we'd need a point in time for the universe to begin to exist from, that is; a point in time where the universe does not exist. And we ain't got one of those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:We've got such a point (t=0, a starting point). What you're saying is that the universe was non-existant at T=0 and I'm pretty sure cosmologists would disagree.
quote:To "begin to exist" implies a t=0. But I don't believe it necessarily implies anything about t<0. First off, "begin to exist" implies a point of non-existence (regardless of what T equals). If you're saying that point is T=0, then you're saying the universe doesn't exist at that point. So the universe does not exist at T=0 and then at T=0+ it does exist. Are you saying it just poofed into existence from nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
False. As I've explained to PaulK, I am definitely NOT saying this. But you are, whether you realize it or not. Its the implication of what you're typing. Something cannot begin to exist if it wasn't non-existant at some point.
Rather, I claim that the universe "began to exist" at T=0. Well that's different... that implies a a T<0. Before, you were saying that the universe began to exist from T=0; which implies it didn't exist at T=0. It can't simultaneously begin to exist both from and at T=0. That's just not what beginning means.
I'm pretty sure that cosmologists DO agree that the universe began at the Big Bang. They wouldn't use the phrase "began to exist" because it sounds pedantic and philosophical. But that's exactly what they mean. But its not what they mean. Cosmology has the universe existing at all points in time, that is, there are no points in time, including T=0, where the universe does not exist. The universe always exists at all points in time. Now here comes the tricky part: there's a finite past. Its not at all intuitive, but so be it.
Did time itself "begin to exist" at the Big Bang? I would answer "yes". But you and PaulK are forced to answer "no". To both of you, a "yes" answer would imply the logical impossibility that there was a time before time existed. At T=0, "begging to exist" looses all meaning as there's nowhen to begin from. Spacetime curves back on itself like the northpole of the surface of the Earth. You can only go north so far, but it doesn't makes sense to say that the northness of the surface "begins to exist" at that point: you're still just at a point on the surface, itself. There's nowhere for the northness of the surface to begin from. The only thing close would be the point in outerspace just above the surface of the earth, but then you're no longer on the surface anymore so technically you're "nowhere". That would be northness comming from nowhere, like the universe comming from nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thanks for the discussion, kb.
Perhaps this is a matter of perspective, but I don't accept that this is a necessary implication of "begin to exist". I view the phrase "begin to exist" as essentially synonymous with "have a beginning" or "have a finite age". Why? Is there anything other than it ruining the argument?
What do cosmologists mean that the universe "began" at the Big Bang? They mean: "I'm trying to explain this complicated phenomenon as consisely as possible so I'll just use this word that everybody knows even though it doesn't adequately describe what's going on."
What did it "begin" to do? Obviously, it "began to exist". It began to exist as we know it, but it wasn't non-existant before that.
Nothing is "different". I never used the phrase "from t=0"; it was always "at t=0". In Message 110, you wrote:
CS:We've got such a point (t=0, a starting point). That's a "from".
Why must negative times exist? Negative time must exist if your postulating the beginning of the existence of the universe being at T=0 because you have to have a point in time from which it begins from, that is; a point in time where the universe does not exist. And any point in time before zero must be negative.
We could say that our measurements of latitude "begin" or "begin to exist" at the earth's North Pole. But this does NOT imply that there must be something north of the North Pole. When its analogous to the singularity at the initial conditions of the universe, that's exactly what it means.
Likewise, mention of t=0 does NOT necessarily imply that t<0 exists. Sure, the mention of it doesn't. Its the applying of a beginning in time at that point that does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
True, but your point is irrelivant, as it does pertain to the Kalam cosmological argument (the topic of this thread). Are you sure? I thought the Kalam Get-Outta-First-Cause-Free card was the eternal-ness of the god? That it being eternal meant that it, itself, didn't need a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I am sure, I meant: Are you sure my point was irrelevant...
just because I claimed my comment was pertinent to the Kalam cosmological argument, doesn't mean it was necessarily in favor of it. I didn't read it as in favor of it, but as being, itself, irrelevant.
Even if there is an eternally existing god, if the universe is eternally existing as well, the Kalam cosmological argument still falls apart. Sure, but that's just denying one of the premises of the argument. Which is fine, you can reject it on that bases... but if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises. And one of those is the universe not being eternal. This lead to the claim that any god postulated would also need a cause, which I rebut with the postulation of an eternal god (which wouldn't require a cause). Then you come in with Occams razor and an eternal universe and say that my point is off topic I'm not seeing the relevance of your point nor how mine is irrelevant. And I don't see how my rebuttal of any god also requiring a cause has been dealt with within the Kalam argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: If it had a state of infinite density, then it already existed. This cannot mean a begining of existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well this is getting silly... but I ain't gonna not reply.
Yes, I am sure your point was irrelevant. Odd that one of the proponents of the KA made my exact same point in Message 126...
That "there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist" is beside the point. Unless you can demonstrate how/why this "god" you are postulating is necessarily "without cause", your argument is unsound and is thus irrelevant. But I'm staying within the premises. Ya know, assuming them true for the sake of arguing? Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and an eternal god wouldn't begin to exist, so we don't have a reason for supposing its cause. You don't have to assume the premesis are true, but if I am for the sake of arguing, then its beside the point for you to start talking about the premises not being true.
Would you mind explaining how it was irrelevant? Sure, lets use the example you provided:
quote: I can assume your premesis are true and discuss the validity of the argument or come to the conclusion that I am a man-sized cartoon chicken. For you to come in and start rejecting the premises would be irrlevelant to the arguments that assume the premises are true.
So, by your account, I'm not discussing the premises by addressing the argument's soundness? Did I misunderstand that? Didn't you just point out that I was rejecting the premise? How is that not addresses the premises? Huh? I'm saying that rejecting an argument because the premises aren't true is perfectly fine, but if someone is assuming the premesis are true for the sake of argument, then its beside the point to argue that the premesis aren't actually true. Its just a different argument. In Message 93, the author was exploring one of the premesis:
quote:Shimbabwe1:Therefore, any god postulated must also have a cause for it's existence, another greater god, maybe? In the end its turtles, all the way down. Unless you want to employ special pleading. They've assumed the premise as true and are following it through to a conclusion. I chime in with this:
quote: I'm still assuming the premise is true, but showing that the conclusion that the author made doesn't necessarily follow. Then you reply with:
quote: Which doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there could be a god that didn't have a cause for its existence. As I said: its beside the point. Its irrelevant. And that's when you starting getting into whether or not what I was saying was relevant to the topic:
quote: And you still haven't addressed my point: Within the KA, how would an eternal god require a cause?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
...the universe has not always existed, but began a finite time ago. {snip} I do agree, for argument’s sake, that the universe has existed for all TIMEits own cosmological timebut I don’t think it is actually beginning-less. If it has not always existed, then there should be a point in time where it doesn't exist. If there isn't a point in time where it does not exist, then it has existed for all time. To get around this contradiction, you're introducing another time, "the universe's own cosmological time", that is presumably some superset to the time we actually know of. But you don't have any other reason to suppose this other kind of time than to save face in light of the Kahlam Argument falling into a contradiction. If you have to go through these sorts of mental gymnastics to maintain the veracity of an argument, don't you think its about time to start considering that the argument isn't really that good?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You seem to be having difficulty with this concept... No, I get it. I just think its wrong.
...because you wish to confer physical constraints on an immaterial entity. That has nothing to do with it at all. God could have created the universe last Thursday; its just that that, like this, doesn't have a good argument to suppose so.
This methodology is simply not applicable to a timeless, spaceless, beginningless, cause. How is a timeless, spaceless, beginningless thing different from something that just doesn't exist? It never exists and it exists nowhere.
This entity, on Kalaam, exists causally prior to both space and time. But that's just some nonsense that was made-up to avoid the problem of there a being time or place for said thing to exist... Oh, it exists "causally prior" Pah-lease.
There is no superset or subset of time; the only time we appreciate is the time within our own universe. I did not introduce this concept, as it is believed by most cosmologists. If a multi-verse is possible, its time would theoretically supersede our time in some way; nevertheless, time cannot go on forever in an earlier than direction, or else this moment would have never arrived, irrespective of any division of time presupposed. So we posit a timeless entity. There's a lot of erroneous nonsense there, and then you say that because of that stuff, you posit a timeless entity. But it doesn't really follow. Ultimately, you're just gonna rely on magic, aren't you? It doesn't have anything to do with the physics of time, you just need a place to put god so you can have your arguement, right? Its apparent that the argument assumes god, and then weasle words its way aroung things so that it can allow for a place for god to remain. Where else would the idea of "causally prior" come from?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024