|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3104 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
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. I am sure, just because I claimed my comment was pertinent to the Kalam cosmological argument, doesn't mean it was necessarily in favor of it. Even if there is an eternally existing god, if the universe is eternally existing as well, the Kalam cosmological argument still falls apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. No, it's fair enough to attack an argument on the grounds that its premises are untrue or unproven. Indeed, this is the most usual thing that's wrong with arguments. Subtle logical fallacies are actually fairly rare as opposed to the more common problem that the premises were extracted from their proponent's nether orifice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 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 2160 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
kbertsche quoting Gott et al writes: It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Please pardon the brief aside... I find the question of "what is north of the North Pole" in this context an interesting one, and certainly not meaningless. What we lack are meaningful answers. Don't blame the question."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I can assure you that you are wrong on this point. Craig comes up with his own definition of "beginning" (which has other problems but not the ones of your preferred definition). Indeed, his own arguments for a finite past would contradict an assumption of infinite age for anything, so obviously he is not using your definition, because he would see the problem.
quote: Nothing existed before the first moment of time (because there is no "before the first moment of time"), thus with the Kalam argument's assumption of a past finite time EVERYTHING "began to exist" (as you define it) at T=o or later.
quote: Only if you assume an infinite past. Which contradicts the Kalam argument. If past time is finite, nothing can have existed for any longer than that.
quote: Under the assumptions and definitions that we are dealing with the Universe has always existed and God "began to exist"... I am sorry that you can't let yourself see the contradiction.
quote: Of course not, that's the point, You are blatantly contradicting yourself and you can't let yourself see it. You can't just assume that past time is both finite and infinite depending on whether it is convenient to you - not if you are hoping to make anything like a rational argument. But you still do it, and you can't even see it, staring you in the face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
You're right; I don't see a contradiction in my position. I only see a contradiction for one who denies the possibility of a transcendent God. Under the assumptions and definitions that we are dealing with the Universe has always existed and God "began to exist"... I am sorry that you can't let yourself see the contradiction. ...You are blatantly contradicting yourself and you can't let yourself see it. You can't just assume that past time is both finite and infinite depending on whether it is convenient to you - not if you are hoping to make anything like a rational argument. But you still do it, and you can't even see it, staring you in the face. The universe began at a point in the past. It has a beginning and a finite age. The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age. He created the universe and time itself. He is not bound by the time of the universe which He created. I don't see a contradiction in this."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Calling God "transcendant" doesn't give you license for self-contradiction. And the contradiction is really obvious. The age of a thing - any thing - is the amount of time it has existed for. Infinite age is only possible if time is infinite. But the Kalam argument insists that time is finite - in fact it includes a sub-argument that (if it works at all) rules out the possibility of infinite age.
quote: So you're saying that the Kalam argument is wrong and time is infinite ? Is that your final word ?
quote: That's because you left it out. You can't sweep the contradiction under thee carpet just by ignoring it, though. You are defending an argument that expressly and intentionally rules out the possibility of an infinite past (in the sense that it denies it, not that it successfully disproves it). So how is it possible for anything to be infinitely old unless the Kalam argument is wrong on that point ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age. He created the universe and time itself. He is not bound by the time of the universe which He created. I don't see a contradiction in this But this means nothing. It is mumbo-jumbo and word salad. The words all have meaning but how you have put them together means nothing? This leads to another step back if this is correct. Where did this god character come from.
with no beginning and with infinite age.
means nothing. If anything it shows intellectual and philosophical laziness.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age. Paul's right. You can't say that God has infinite age unless past time is infinite. Moreover, under this formulation you'd have to say that time itself was not something that God created but something that exists independent of him. Finally, you'd run into the principle of sufficient reason. If God existed for an infinite amount of time and then decided to create the universe, why did he decide to create it then and not five minutes earlier or six trillion years later? If prior to that there had been a changeless god sitting about for an infinite amount of time and not creating the universe, then there would be no motive for him to create it at any given point in time. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shimbabwe Member (Idle past 3898 days) Posts: 47 From: Murfreesboro, TN USA Joined: |
We have seen a number of attempts to so define the beginning of the universe on such terms as to imply that the universe has always existed AND that it had an absolute beginning in the finite past. Under close examination this refutation of the causal principle (premiss one of the KCA) may be reduced to a mere tautology, e.g. the universe has existed as long as it has existedin effect, for all TIME.
One can similarly argue that my own consciousness had a beginningwhether shortly after birth, or at two years of age, or any other arbitrary time along the wayAND that it has always existed, so long as I have been aware. Nevertheless, no one I knowaside from a mysticwould assert that my conscience self has always existed. In the same way the universe can be said to be known finite to observers, and yet have existed for all TIME. The objection is not a very strong one, and presents a false dilemma for the first premiss. (Bear in mind that this example has already considered the objection of fallacy of composition, and is immune because it is merely presented as an analogy.) The fact that the universe did have a finite beginning X number of years ago belies the aforementioned contention. Moreover, current cosmological models including any multi-verse hypothesis, alongside the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, have only reinforced the first premiss of KCA, in that the universe had an absolute beginning, and that there is a causal entity without the known universe. Therefore, no insuperable difficulties have yet been presented contra the first premiss. The question that remains before us is: Is the causal principle invalidated by some other means? Neither radioactive decay nor virtual particles have been shown to be plausible defeaters of the first premiss. So far, it appears that the first premiss is on very strong footing. As to the discussions on time and timelessnessmostly attacking a straw manI will happily deal with that issue as we reach our conclusion. For now, I hope to strengthen the first premiss, which appears to have warded off all challenges thus far. Edited by Shimbabwe, : Squigglies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024