|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Shimbabwe writes:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Percy writes:
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. This is falsified by the existence of virtual particles that flit in and out of existence with no cause whatsoever. --Percy"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
Sure, we could say that. And we could say that the cause of the universe is the nature of nothingness. It's just another way of saying you don't know the cause. Causation means one event causes another event. Percy writes:
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).
One billiard ball striking another billiard ball causes it to move. Percy writes:
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. Phenomena like the Casimir effect, virtual particles and radioactive decay have no cause. Some things have a cause, some things don't. --Percy
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
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)! Hi KBertsche,You seem to be assigning the label "cause" indiscriminately. Instability is now a cause? The vacuum is a cause? Nothingness is a cause? Anyway, if nothingness can be a cause of the universe, then I'm fine with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. --Percy If you look at Causality in wikipedia, you'll see your basic definition (one event leading to another event), but also this important qualifier:
Wikipedia writes: Though the causes and effects are typically related to changes or events, candidates include objects, processes, properties, variables, facts, and states of affairs; characterizing the causal relationship can be the subject of much debate."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:??? 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.""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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." "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:We've got such a point (t=0, a starting point). quote:To "begin to exist" implies a t=0. But I don't believe it necessarily implies anything about t<0. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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: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: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."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Dr A writes:
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). You and PaulK are arguing at cross-purposes. When Paul says that the universe has always existed, he doesn't mean that the universe has existed for an infinite period of time, but that it has existed for all time, i.e. there was never a time when the universe didn't exist. Now this is in fact implied by a cosmological model model in which the universe starts at T=0 and there is no time before T=0. Your statements therefore do imply that the universe has always existed in the sense in which PaulK is using that phrase."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
CS writes:
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".
Something cannot begin to exist if it wasn't non-existant at some point. 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.
CS writes:
Nothing is "different". I never used the phrase "from t=0"; it was always "at t=0".
KBertsche writes:
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. Rather, I claim that the universe "began to exist" 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"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
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.
Since "have a finite age" is the only one of the two to have a clear meaning at this stage I will use that. PaulK writes:
Everything that began with the universe or later has a finite age. Now, according to the Kalam argument past time is finite, so everything 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.
PaulK writes: This means that everything that exists has "begun to exist" by your meaning - and therefore that according to the Kalam argument everything that exists must have a cause. But clearly this isn't your position, Therefore either you are opposed to the Kalam argument or this is NOT what you mean by "begins to exist". God did not "begin to exist", of course. He has always existed.
PaulK writes:
I don't understand your complaint. So yet again, we see that supporters of the Kalam argument cannot let themselves understand the issues."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
CS writes:
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:
KBertsche writes:
Why? Is there anything other than it ruining the 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".William Lane Craig, The Kalaam Cosmological Argument (MacMillan, 1979), p. 140 writes: I have argued that the scientific evidence concerning the expansion of the universe and the thermodynamic properties of closed systems indicates that the universe is finite in duration, beginning to exist about fifteen billion years ago. CS writes:
Oops--I missed this. You are correct.
In Message 110, you wrote:... That's a "from". CS writes:
I disagree. Here is a quote used by WLC (emphasis mine):
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.Gott et al, Scientific American, March 1976, p. 65 writes:
...the universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024