The Kalam cosmological argument

quote:

---

The fact remains, that radioactive decay meets all of the tests for randomness. And that's pretty strong evidence that each decay event is uncaused.

---

Not so; you are making the same logical error as Victor Stegner. Each decay event has a clear cause: the nucleus is inherently unstable, and it decays according to the laws of quantum mechanics. Randomness does not preclude causation.

Couldn't we say that the "cause" of these virtual particles is the nature of the vacuum and the nature of quantum mechanics? If so, they DO have a cause.

Perhaps, but we need to be careful how we define both "causation" and "event". If you define "event" broadly enough to include a "state of being", I would agree. Yes, but don't restrict causality only to classical physics. Quantum physics is also "causal" in he sense used by philosophers (and by the Kalaam argument, which is a philosophical argument). No, the decay of an atom of C-14 clearly has a cause. Its cause is the inherent instability of the atom, which guarantees that it will eventually decay. Or if you want to speak of "events" in the normal sense of the word, you could trace the cause of its decay back to its production by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. The event of a cosmic-ray-induced (n,p) reaction on an N-14 atom creates a C-14 atom which is sure to decay. We don't know when it will decay, but its decay certainly has a cause.

quote:

---

You cannot begin with examples of creation that come about through the mere movement of matter around into different shapes and combinations to extrapolate to the creation of matter itself in the form of atomic particles. There is no proximal cause of atomic decay that we know of. Saying that it is the nature of some atomic nuclei to decay is just another way of saying you don't know why a particular atomic nuclei decayed when it did. The Contemporary form of the Kalam argument uses the term "external cause", and there is certainly no "external cause" for atomic decay.

---

If you create an unstable physical situation, it will settle to a more stable situation. It doesn't matter whether the situation is a ball placed on a slope or creation of an unstable nucleus; the principle is the same. And it doesn't matter how quickly or slowly it settles to a more stable situation. The cause of its eventual change is that it was placed into an unstable situation to begin with.One can attribute the cause of radioactive decay to the creation of the unstable nucleus in the first place. This is conceptually no different than saying the cause of a ball rolling down a slope is that it was placed in an unstable position.

I don't believe I'm assigning the label indiscriminately. My point is that if we are discussing a philosophical claim (which Kalaam is) we need careful philosophical definitions of our terms. In particular, we must not mix terminology from common usage, physics usage, and philosophical usage together. Doing so leads to a disingenuous "bait and switch" tactic based on different word meanings in different fields. The claim that you and Victor Stenger make about radioactive decay being "non-causal" is a prime example of this. It may be "non-predictive", but it certainly has a "cause" (in the philosophical sense)!If you look at Causality in wikipedia, you'll see your basic definition (one event leading to another event), but also this important qualifier:

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, people have done this for centuries. It became much more difficult after Penzias and Wilson found observational evidence that the universe had a beginning.

quote:

---

If Penzias and Wilson proved that there was a time BEFORE the universe existed it's news to me. Are you going to tell Shimbabwe that the Kalam argument is wrong on that point ?
  —PaulK

---

???I wrote that "Penzias and Wilson found observational evidence that the universe had a beginning."I did NOT write that "Penzias and Wilson proved that there was a time BEFORE the universe existed."

quote:

---

No, you wrote that it was harder to argue that the universe had always existed after Penzias and Wilson. Therefore you are, at the least, implying that Penzias and Wilson's work supports the idea that there was a time before the universe existed, contrary to the Kalam argument.
  —PaulK

---

False. I have repeated my words twice. Please go back and re-read them.(My comments regard Evlreala's conclusion "and therefore did not begin to exist", i.e. ONLY whether or not the universe had a beginning, not whether or not the universe has always existed.)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Which assumes that it is sensible to say that something that has always existed began to exist. That is far from obvious (in fact Shimbabwe rejected it as absurd and he supports the Kalam argument). Indeed, as I have already pointed out, everything must begin to exist if you allow existing at T=0 to be "beginning to exist".

---

It would be nonsense to say that something infinitely old (e.g. God) ever "began to exist". But it seems quite reasonable to say that something with a finite age (e.g. the universe) "began to exist."

quote:

---

But then we'd need a point in time for the universe to begin to exist from,
  —CS

---

We've got such a point (t=0, a starting point).

quote:

---

that is; a point in time where the universe does not exist. And we ain't got one of those.
  —CS

---

To "begin to exist" implies a t=0. But I don't believe it necessarily implies anything about t<0.

quote:

---

What you're saying is that the universe was non-existant at T=0
  —CS

---

False. As I've explained to PaulK, I am definitely NOT saying this.Rather, I claim that the universe "began to exist" at T=0.

quote:

---

and I'm pretty sure cosmologists would disagree.
  —CS

---

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.

quote:

---

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.
  —CS

---

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.I think you are inferring much too much from the phrase "began to exist".Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I believe that the problem is that CS and PaulK are trying to infer more from the phrase "began to exist" than is meant (more than is meant either by me or by WLC in his presentation of the Kalaam argument).

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".What do cosmologists mean that the universe "began" at the Big Bang? What did it "begin" to do? Obviously, it "began to exist".The universe "began" or "began to exist" about 13.7 billion years ago. Was the universe "nonexistent" 20 billion years ago? I suppose you could say "yes", but the answer is a bit meaningless since that time itself did not exist. Nothing is "different". I never used the phrase "from t=0"; it was always "at t=0".Why must negative times exist? 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. Likewise, mention of t=0 does NOT necessarily imply that t

This sounds accurate to me. As I read William Lane Craig's presentation of the Kalaam argument, when he says the universe "began to exist" he pretty much means that it does not have an infinite past, but has a finite age. Everything that began with the universe or later has a finite age.But not everything necessarily began at all, or has a finite age. For example, God. Or perhaps logical and mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4. God did not "begin to exist", of course. He has always existed. I don't understand your complaint.

Yes; because this is pretty much the way William Lane Craig (WLC) uses the phrase "begin to exist" in his formulation of the Kalaam argument: Oops--I missed this. You are correct. I disagree. Here is a quote used by WLC (emphasis mine): Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.