Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
137 online now:
AZPaul3, Christian7, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 134 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,272 Year: 4,918/14,102 Month: 516/707 Week: 71/176 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 45 of 177 (653989)
02-25-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nwr
08-17-2010 2:49 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 08-17-2010 2:49 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 65 of 177 (654738)
03-03-2012 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
03-03-2012 11:44 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Shimbabwe writes:


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Percy writes:

This is falsified by the existence of virtual particles that flit in and out of existence with no cause whatsoever.

--Percy


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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 03-03-2012 11:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-03-2012 2:57 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 76 of 177 (654788)
03-04-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
03-03-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Percy writes:

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.


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.

Percy writes:

One billiard ball striking another billiard ball causes it to move.


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).

Percy writes:

Phenomena like the Casimir effect, virtual particles and radioactive decay have no cause. Some things have a cause, some things don't.

--Percy


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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-03-2012 2:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 1:23 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 80 of 177 (654830)
03-05-2012 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
03-04-2012 1:23 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
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.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 1:23 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 8:59 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 85 of 177 (654876)
03-05-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
03-05-2012 8:59 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Percy writes:

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


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:

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 8:59 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 10:44 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 12:24 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 97 of 177 (655842)
03-14-2012 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Evlreala
03-13-2012 11:55 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Evlreala, posted 03-13-2012 11:55 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 2:28 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2012 11:55 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 102 of 177 (655876)
03-14-2012 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
03-14-2012 2:28 AM


Re: Always existing.
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 ?


???

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 2:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 10:44 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 104 of 177 (655882)
03-14-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by PaulK
03-14-2012 10:44 AM


Re: Always existing.
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.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 10:44 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 11:09 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 7:39 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 106 of 177 (655888)
03-14-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
03-14-2012 11:09 AM


Re: Always existing.
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."

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 11:09 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-14-2012 12:04 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 12:11 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 110 of 177 (655901)
03-14-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by New Cat's Eye
03-14-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
But then we'd need a point in time for the universe to begin to exist from,

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-14-2012 12:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-14-2012 2:20 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 112 of 177 (655904)
03-14-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by New Cat's Eye
03-14-2012 2:20 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
What you're saying is that the universe was non-existant at T=0

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.

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-14-2012 2:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-14-2012 4:24 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2012 6:04 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 116 of 177 (655916)
03-14-2012 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dr Adequate
03-14-2012 7:39 PM


Re: Always existing.
Dr A writes:

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.


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).

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2012 7:39 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2012 2:22 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 118 of 177 (655920)
03-14-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by New Cat's Eye
03-14-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Always existing.
CS writes:


Something cannot begin to exist if it wasn't non-existant at some point.


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.

CS writes:


KBertsche writes:

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.

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<0 exists.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-14-2012 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2012 2:32 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2012 10:16 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 126 of 177 (656036)
03-15-2012 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by PaulK
03-15-2012 2:32 AM


Re: Always existing.
PaulK writes:

Since "have a finite age" is the only one of the two to have a clear meaning at this stage I will use that.


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.

PaulK writes:

Now, according to the Kalam argument past time is finite, so everything 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.

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:

So yet again, we see that supporters of the Kalam argument cannot let themselves understand the issues.


I don't understand your complaint.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2012 2:32 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2012 2:42 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 127 of 177 (656037)
03-15-2012 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2012 10:16 AM


Re: Always existing.
CS writes:


KBertsche 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".


Why? Is there anything other than it ruining the argument?

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:
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:

In Message 110, you wrote:
...
That's a "from".


Oops--I missed this. You are correct.

CS writes:

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.


I disagree. Here is a quote used by WLC (emphasis mine):
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2012 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Omnivorous, posted 03-16-2012 12:08 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-16-2012 8:39 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021