Problems with both Creationism and Evolution

Hi everyone, this is my first post. I found this BBS by accident and loved reading through it.I would like to respond to the post tearing apart the kalam argument.Despite your trying to strike out the previous points about infinity, even scientists believe the universe began to exist and is not infinite or eternal(big bang). So all of your points are irrelevant to the kalam arguments premisses. Its the implications of the kalam arguments conclusions that seem to be the important thing.the big bang expanded from a singularity. Time was created when the singularity expanded, creating space/time.If time did not exist before the expansion created it, then nothing could happen, since it takes duration for an event to occur in. So, what caused the singularity to expand? If it existed eternally (without time) then it should logically remain in that state, since nothing could happen without time for it to occur in. Further, since the singularity was infinitely dense, it is equivelant to nothing. Nothing should have remained nothing.The only way to get an action from a static eternal singularity would be from something acting deliberatly to cause the action. This points to an intelligence that exists in eternity.In the kalam argument article that the previous poster referred to the conclusion states what I tried to convey above much better than I can. I am including it below:=======
Quoted from http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html"In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator."
=====John

quote:

---

(there is an argument for a personal cause which has yet to be raised here, which is especially bad)

​

The "from eternity" argument is in my view rather silly. What would it mean for our universe to exis "from eternity" and how can we tell that it did not ? (And don't forget that the kalam argument denies the possibility of an infinite past, so you cannot insist that "from eternity" demands an infinite past unless you wish to deny that ANYTHING - includign God - exists "from eternity").
  —PaulK

---

I agree that the kalam argument did not show a personal god, and I propose not getting off track on that, since that takes getting into various religious texts and proofs. But I thought it was pretty good in showing an intelligent cause.I think it is very hard to discuss things outside of time because our language has no words for it. Our every experience is based on time. However, in the kalam argument, I believe the author was using Eternity to mean existence without time, not infinite time. So if something exists without time, it is by definition changeless, since change requires time to occur in. Something in that state should remain in that state eternally (there we go again, not having the words to express the idea, but I think you understand) - so it would be in equilibrium, stasis if you will, and therefore could never begin to expand in the first place. Unless some force acted on it. How could a force act on it without time? It would take an intelligent being/force with a will and ability to act outside of time to cause it to expand.and to reply to the other poster who said "how could it be nothing?" I meant "nothing" in the sense that 1. It is infinitely small, thereby having no dimensions (that's what a singularity means) 2. Space did not exist before the expansion so there was nothing for the singularity to exist in. Even black holes in our universe exist in space. There was not even space for the BB singularity to exist in. 3. it had no duration, since there was no time.So, if something isn't there (since there was no "there") and it wasn't there for any time at all (no time) and it had no dimensions, then it is pretty much "nothing"

quote:

---

Well, yes, but it was through the Casimir effect that these vacuum fluctuations can be detected. But my wording was unclear.

---

Crashfrog. I am not sure I am clear on your point, so if I am am misunderstanding you, sorry.The Casimir effect is not something from nothing. It is fluctuation in energy fields in a vacuum as far as I understand it. Nothing is being created.Even in quantum mechanics which has theories for particles appearing suddenly in empty space, they are still being converted into mass out of energy, which still means you are not getting something out of nothing.But in the singularity at the BB there was not even a vacuum, no sub atomic particles, no space, no time. Nothing to act on the singularity (except maybe God?) - so why did it expand? how could it, if time did not exist until it began to expand and create space time?Where did the singularity come from? If there was nothing and no time, how did such a singularity even exist?[This message has been edited by pixelator, 08-21-2003]

quote:

---

No, "from Eternity" cannot mean "out of time", because if it did the claim that if the cause existed from eternity, the effect must also exist from eternity does not follow. After all producing the effect IS a change and therefore the move from cause to effect would be locked, given a changeless state.

---

I think that was the point! Anything natural that could cause the singularity to expand would be limited by two things:
1. Nothing natural existed outside the singularity
2. Time did not exist until the expansion began.This means that any natural cause (whether internal or external to the singularity) could not actually do anything, because it would be locked in the changeless state.Conclusion?
1. Something DID cause the universe to expand. We are here to argue about it.
2. Nothing natural could have because there was no time to act within. and everything was within the singularity, which had no time. Stasis. Unchangable.
3. God is supernatural, He exists outside of any physical reality, he needs no "Time" to work in. Only such a being could have effected the state of the singularity. Whether he is personal or not, that is for other discussions.

quote:

---

But you don't know there was nothing. It was outside the universe. Who's to say what was there? Some kind of meta-spacetime, maybe?

​

For all we know, nothing can't even exist. We certainly don't see any "nothing" in this universe.

---

Nothing can't even exist... Hmmm.... Hey, that's pretty good! If it did exist it wouldn't be nothing anymore would it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK:
I see the argument - in your view - is (or amounts to) it is logically impossible, therefore God did it.

---

Whew! I was tired of trying to explain myself over and over again

quote:

---

I think a better view is to take time as a dimension - much like the spatial dimensions, as in modern physics.

​

Then we can take some alternative possibilities. For instance in Stephen Hawking's no boundary condition theory the universe itself exists timelessly - time is a component of the universe.

​

Or we can take Linde's "Eternal Inflation" in which our universe is one of many bubbles in a greater, infinite space-time. If we take time as a dimension we can even do away with the necessity to traverse an infinite past. Why should there be any need to do so if time is a dimension and any acausal event may happen at any point on the infinite continuum ?

---

OK so then we just push the question back farther. Where did this meta universe come from?Look, I know I can't PROVE that God did it. I just want to show that it is just as valid and logical to say God created the universe as it is to come up with some mythical uber-universe which we can never prove either. Physics and Math break down at the singularity as someone above pointed out. We can't use physics or math to prove any natural formation of the universe. Basically all we are left with is logic and philosophy. So a supernatural cause is just as valid as it explains the fact of the universe and fits the facts as we do know them. It allows for a possibility of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->1. Something DID cause the universe to expand.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Not necessarily. Causality breaks down at a singularity. Cause and effect no longer apply. None of our physics and mathematics work at a singularity, so it is very hard to tell what must have happened.

​

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->2. Nothing natural could have because there was no time to act within. and everything was within the singularity, which had no time. Stasis. Unchangable.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Same problem as above really. No one quite knows what happens at a singularity. Also note that 'no time' is not the same as 'time stopped' just as 'no water in the river' is not the same as 'the water in the river stopped flowing.'

​

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->3. God is supernatural, He exists outside of any physical reality, he needs no "Time" to work in. Only such a being could have effected the state of the singularity. Whether he is personal or not, that is for other discussions.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

You are just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge. There is no support for any of this.

​

---

Basically you just said that physics and math break down at the singularity. Therefore all we are left with is logic. Logically the universe could not have happened naturally (see my previous posts for my position on this, so I dont have to go over it all again)Logically my conclusion is that an intelligence outside of time and physicality caused the expansion. Prove me wrong. By implication of your previous statements, anything anyone comes up with (since physics and math cannot help us) is also "just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge" so their theories are no more valid than mine. There is no (can't be any) support for their theories either.My theory fits the evidence and logic of what we know. Beyond that, I have other reasons to believe in God, so that is why I propose that God is the first cause of the universe instead of some undefined made up natural cause that no one can prove or find evidence for.Basically anything you can throw at me can be thrown right back at you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashfrog:
< !--UB

-->

< !--UE-->Basically you just said that physics and math break down at the singularity. Therefore all we are left with is logic. < !--UB -->

< !--UE-->

​

No, logic is math, so you don't have that, either.

---

Nope, Logic is deductive reasoning, not math. More akin to philosophy.BTW in my message above I said:

quote:

---

Basically anything you can throw at me can be thrown right back at you.

---

I just wanted to say that I did not want to come across as being smug with that comment, I was just trying to lighten things up by pointing out the humor in the situation. Just wanted to clarify that.

Logic is not math. At least traditional logic isn't. It may use math, and mathmatical concepts, but it doesn't have to.see:Page not found – Memoria Press

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->Therefore all we are left with is logic.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

No. Logic breaks at a singularity as well, as it is nothing but a method for analyzing causal relationships. No causality, no logic.

---

Hmmm. according to that definition I have to concede that point to you.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->Logically my conclusion is that an intelligence outside of time and physicality caused the expansion.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

This may be your conclusion, but it isn't logical.

---

But then neither is any other conclusion, even by "science"

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->Prove me wrong.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

I already did.

---

Ditto.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->By implication of your previous statements, anything anyone comes up with (since physics and math cannot help us) is also "just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge" so their theories are no more valid than mine.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Current physics and mathematics cannot help. What future discoveries will unravel remains to be seen. A lot of people are working on the problem, and there are some interesting theories though none of them are yet verifiable.

---

Until then my reasoning is just as valid. If these theories do become verifiable, then I will most likely change my stance.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->There is no (can't be any) support for their theories either.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

To claim that there can be no support for a theory means that you know the future. Is this your claim?

---

Nope. not at all. I was just using your previous statement that everything breaks down beyond the BB, so if nothing can work (logic, math, physics, quantum theory, etc) at the point all physics end including causality.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->My theory fits the evidence and logic of what we know.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

A thousand things fit the evidence, because there is so little evidence. Essentially, anything that ends in '... and that is what caused the universe' fits the evidence, but that is a far cry from having a sufficiently supported position.

---

But you told me that there can be no sufficiently supported position. How can there be "sufficient" if there is so little evidence?

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->I have other reasons to believe in God< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Do you now?

---

No fair getting sarcastic. I am being civil with you, please be the same with me.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->so that is why I propose that God is the first cause of the universe instead of some undefined made up natural cause that no one can prove or find evidence for.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

And you choose instead an undefined un-natural cause lacking proof or even evidence? That makes little sense.

---

Pretty much, yeah. But I disagree about the "evidence" part.Look,
This thread is getting way off the forum subject of "evolution"I propose this:1. I will concede that it is possible that the universe came into being by a natural process that we do not yet know of, but may learn about in the future.if you will concede:2. There is a possibility that there might be a GOD or some intelligence, who started it all, barring any future proof that he did not.and we can end the debate there and not have to keep going over each and every word and definition over and over again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK:
But what you are retreating to is not the kalam argument at all. It's just "we don't know what did it so it might be God".

​

Well I suppose it escapes all the problems of the kalam argument - the logical problems of the "from eternity" thing and the question I asked at the start. But it isn't much of an argument.

​

Indeed if that is all we have to go on we cannto even say that it is a likely explanation.

---

Well Paul,
My logic was based on the Kalam argument, and the conclusion I came to was the same, that God did it. I answered your "from eternity" thing, and other objections and pretty much the thread became, tear apart each other's posts word for word, down to arguing what logic and math is (I am not keeping myself out of this accusation).Basically I also agree that Math and logic do not "break down at the singularity", nor does "causality". It seems to be a defensive strategy that some use when they have no explanation to account for the singularity. It sounds good and staves off any possible attack on any position. So John and I started arguing about that, and were getting nowhere.Actual physics as we understand it now may not have functioned in the beginning of the universe, but just because we can't think of a cause is no reason to claim "causality" breaks down, and not proof that there is not an actual cause to the universe.Basically to reiterate the kalam argument:1. Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. The Universe has a cause.We can take number 1 as true based on all observations we have so far. And we all agree #2 is correct, then #3 must be correct.Your objection was to get debate semantics of "from eternity" which I tried to answer. BTW: here is a link to a defense of the kalam argument http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/k_dfnce.htmSo, then we are left with A>Natural Events B>God C>Something ElseAs John pointed out previously, basically anything that ends in "... and that is how the universe came to be" could be brought forth. For example, A giant orange that existed from eternity bumped into the singularity and caused it to expand.I don't think anyone could seriously entertain that idea and could come up with numerous objections, like where did the orange come from? How did it move without time to move in or something to move it? etc.So between God and Nature.
A> Nature. I argued that any natural cause that existed in eternity (without time) could never act. Stasis.B> God - I argued that it would take a free will choice from an agent who could act from outside the system to start the universe. God is such an agent. He is not bound by physical location or locked into acting within "time"So, my conclusion is that yes I believe God did it, but A> is still open too, depending if we can come up with verifiable theories to support it. But until we do have such verifiable evidence that can exclude B> then B> is the only logical choice remaining that explains how the universe began.So, basically after all that I feel any further arguments about the semantics of logic and causality and eternity, just drags us around in circles.There is no way to exclude "A> Nature" completely so it will always have to remain a possibility determined by any possible future "proofs".But B> God is also a viable explanation, and the only one that can explain how an timeless static singularity could expand in the first place.So I concede that A> is possible, but in my opinion not likely.And in order to conclude the long drawn out debate, I just ask that you all at least concede that B> is possible, even if not likely in YOUR opinion.[This message has been edited by pixelator, 08-22-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK:
Well you gave me AN answer on the "from eternity" point which made the argument nonsensical. And moreover it is one that is contradicted by the website you refer to (and the answer that gives is pretty confused, too).

​

However you misrepresent my argument, because as well as commenting on the "from eternity" point I also raised an important issue which you never addressed. The relationshp between the concept of beginning and a finite past. Even though I referred back to it in my last two posts you are now pretending that I did not say it. Let me put it simply - you cannot define MY strategy by the points YOU choose to address.

​

And since you chose to leave a point which calls the idea that the universe had a beginning into question, you can't turn around and claim that you have successfully defended the argumen even so far as showing that our universe had a cause.

​

Your version of the kalam argument is to set up a logical contradiction and then invoke God to get out of it, rather than looking at more plausible alternatives.

---

Paul,Sorry for not addressing your previous point. I believe you are referring to:

quote:

---

Here's one. Given that time is finite, if something existed from the very start of time can we say that it definitely did or did not have a beginning from that information alone ? If we need more information to decide then what is it, and how does it apply to our universe ?

---

If something is finite, then it must have a beginning. Finite existence means a non-infinite existence, right? If time if finite, then it began to exist. If something existed since the beginning of time, then it also is limited by the finite length of time. It also began to exist, and had a beginning. Or am I misunderstanding you?

quote:

---

Your version of the kalam argument is to set up a logical contradiction and then invoke God to get out of it, rather than looking at more plausible alternatives.

---

Actually that not MY version of the Kalam argument, that IS the Kalam argument: A logical contradiction that requires God to get out of it. God is the more plausible alternative based on the knowledge we currently have on the subject. If you don't agree, then fine. don't.

quote:

---

I assume that your answer to my question is that if we know something existed at the beginning of time then we can say that it definitely did have a beginning (obviously we cannot say that anythign existed prior to the beginnign of time).
It follows from that answer that everything has a beginning - and therefore requires a cause. Including God. The only way to escape this is to change your answer or to reject the idea of a finite past.

---

I had to reread that several times, but now I think I understand what you are implying.By "something" existing at the beginning of time, you were including God. And so if I stated that if something must have a finite existance if it "began" with time, then that includes God, right?My answer did not include God in "something" by "something" I was speaking of the contents of the universe and the universe itself.God is eternal and exists eternally as non-physical spirit and intelligence, even without a universe or "time". He created them both.so yes I have to "change" my answer by excluding God because he is uncaused and eternal.

quote:

---

And no, I don't agree with your version of the kalam argument because it relies on assuming a logical impossiblity - therefore making it impossible even for God to get out of it. It would be like asking me to agree with 2+2 = 5.

---

Maybe I am again not understanding YOUR logic. How is it impossible for God to "get out of it" - what is the impossibility of my logic you are speaking of?[This message has been edited by pixelator, 08-23-2003]