The Kalam cosmological argument

Message 1 of 177 (573919) 08-13-2010 5:47 AM

I've been reading this forum for some time, and I must say that it is not what I expected.
From previous experiences forum discussions are half spam, many arguments are said dozens of times, maybe a few new ones, and a lot grapped out of thin air without saying the sources.

Here it is much better, discussions have a good topic, no jumping from argument to argument.

If you dont mind I will use this forum also to gather arguments, as on creationists sites they only say arguments for creation, on evolutionists for evolution. And maybe sometimes a reaction on a argument.
You'd probable get my point now.

---------------------off topic ends here---------------------------

The Kalam cosmological argument, pretty simple to put in a syllogism.
(for those who dont know that term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)

Syllogism 1
Premise 1: Entropy always grows (second law of thermodynamics)
Premise 2: The universe has not reached total entropy.
Conclusion :The universe has started/has not excisted for an infinite amount of time.

Syllogism 2
Premise 1: The universe has started
Premise 2: Everything that happens/starts has a cause.
Conclusion : The universe has a cause (to excist/what started it)

Syllogism 3
Premise 1: The universe has a cause
Premise 2: Within spacetime there is the law of causality (cause and effect)
Conclusion: The "First cause" isnt inside spacetime.

I would like to hear what you think of this/where the problems are in this argument.

Message 4 of 177 (573938) 08-13-2010 7:57 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Deleted 08-13-2010 5:47 AM

May I ask if English is not your native language ? I ask because it is usual to use "begins" or "has a beginning" rather than "starts" in the Kalam argument, and "begins" is a better choice of word - although the distinction is one that a non-native speaker might easily miss. Not that your English is bad - it's certainly understandable

quote:

---

Syllogism 1
Premise 1: Entropy always grows (second law of thermodynamics)
Premise 2: The universe has not reached total entropy.
Conclusion :The universe has started/has not excisted for an infinite amount of time.

---

This raises some issues for later points Either past time is finite or the 2LoT only applies within our universe and not to any hypothetical reality beyond our universe.

quote:

---

Syllogism 2
Premise 1: The universe has started
Premise 2: Everything that happens/starts has a cause.
Conclusion : The universe has a cause (to excist/what started it)

---

Premise 2 is questionable, but there are some subtle issues here.
If past time is finite, then it may be the case that the universe has existed for all time - there was never a time when it did not exist. Is Premise 2 true in that case ? Can we even call that a beginning, since it is so different from the beginnings we are familiar with ?

And we should point out that Premise 2 is what is often called "the law of cause and effect" and therefore Premise 2 must insist that this law applies outside of our universe.

quote:

---

Syllogism 3
Premise 1: The universe has a cause
Premise 2: Within spacetime there is the law of causality (cause and effect)
Conclusion: The "First cause" isnt inside spacetime.

---

This is just invalid. If Premise 2 is meant to claim that cause and effect only apply within spacetime then the conclusion must be that the universe exists within spacetime - and presumably its cause would, too. We cannot have causes without cause and effect.

However, if our universe is not embedded in a surrounding spacetime, and everything beyond it is timeless then the existence of the universe must also be timeless - time is something that only applies within the universe. And how can we have cause and effect without time ? With no time there can be no change, with no change there can be no effects.

Thus it seems that the best options are either a cause within spacetime or a universe that exists timelessly (as seen from "outside") with time merely a feature within it - an uncaused universe.

Message 5 of 177 (574363) 08-15-2010 1:54 PM

Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard 08-13-2010 7:33 AM

But the average trend will be towards entropy, otherwise the second law of thermodynamics doesnt goes ...(what is the right word? Up? count?)

But premise 1/2 can be replaced by anything that proves the universe is not infinite, like: if the universe excisted for an infinite time, we could not have a tomorrow. As we would have more than infinite days.

But the question I have, is: what caused the big bang?
Because it either must have a cause, or a supernatural power created it. (To translate in your example: When you're reached the north pole, you've found the cause for it being the north pole the magnetic field. If you've reached the big bang, you would find the cause.)

Oh and you're right PaulK. I ain't a native English speaker, I agree with you that begins fits the context better.

Edited by PrinceGhaldir, : No reason given.

Message 6 of 177 (574364) 08-15-2010 1:58 PM

Reply to: Message 5 by Deleted 08-15-2010 1:54 PM

Not quite. Infinity plus one is still infinity.

Why? Why does something have to have a cause and even if it did, why could the cause not be something totally trivial?

Message 7 of 177 (574366) 08-15-2010 2:09 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Deleted 08-13-2010 5:47 AM

1. This is the fallacy of composition, your conclusion does not follow from your premises
2. Premise 2 appears to be false anyway (q.v. Quantum Mechanics)

Message 8 of 177 (574370) 08-15-2010 2:47 PM

Reply to: Message 5 by Deleted 08-15-2010 1:54 PM

Neither argument is valid. The Universe does not progress one day at a time. This is merely our own perception based on our consciousness. And the entropy argument is incorrect - in an expanding Universe, it is possible that there is no thermal equilibrium, and entropy can grow unbounded.

The Universe may or may not have a finite extent in the past time-like direction. At the moment, we do not know.

Three possibilities (amongst others):

The Big Bang is simply a squeeze point in cosmological evolution, and time simply extends backwards before the Big Bang.

The Big Bang represents a beginning of our own time and 3-dimensional space, and is caused by the physics of a higher dimensional space-time in which our Universe is embedded.

The Big Bang is the earliest moment in our Universe. There is no prior time, no higher-dimensional space-time, it exists as one point in the Universe just as the North Pole (axial, not magnetic) exist as one point on the Earth. It has no cause, other than being one point in the Universe, so is a necessary part of the Universe just as the North Pole is a necessary point on the Earth. There is no "before" the Big Bang, there is no "outside" the Universe. The Universe simply "is".

You may wish to suggest that a "divine being" brought this entire existence into being - and that is fine - but you have no tools to construct a proof of this. Cause and effect are merely concepts that exist within the Universe, where a well-defined time-direction can be chosen. Attempting to apply this to the 4d Universe as a whole is futile, as you have no concept of time nor of time-ordering.

The Kalam cosmological argument is far too simplistic in the light of 20th/21st century physics and cosmology. It is a good 100 years past any level of applicability.

Message 10 of 177 (574505) 08-16-2010 9:11 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Deleted 08-13-2010 5:47 AM

Why?

It's a general principle of logic. Perhaps it is also a general principle of life, but it is specifically, a general principle of logic. Roughly speaking, that general principle says:

• There is no such thing as free lunch.

In logical terms, the principle is that a conclusion can never yield more than is already implicit in the premises. All logic can do is rearrange the assumptions, so as to make more obvious part of what was assumed. Perhaps it is because of my background in mathematics, that this principle of logic is particularly apparent to me.

If a logical argument assumes nothing about the world, then it cannot logically derive any conclusions about the world. At best it can come up with some esoteric relation between logical connectives (the sort of thing that turns people away from mathematics).

When we see one of these arguments that purports to reach a conclusion about reality (such as that God exists), but without using any evidence, then we can immediately know that the argument smuggles in some assumptions about reality, and is using those hidden assumptions as the basis for the conclusions. So the way to examine the argument, is to look for the hidden assumptions.

Typically, in these arguments, the hidden assumptions are in the form of very general statements perhaps described as first principles. And then the argument proceeds to supposedly deduce a very specific conclusion from the very general assumption. The trouble here is that the very general statements are often only true in a very general sense - as a kind of broad average way of looking at things. If you try to pin them down to detail, then their truth becomes questionable. For example, look at premise 2 of syllogism 2 in the OP: "Everything that happens/starts has a cause." That's a good general statement that summarizes how things normally look to us. But when you get down to specifics you find that quantum physics does report spontaneous (i.e. uncaused) events. The thing to remember about logic, is that the logic requires that a premise not merely be generally true as a statement of what is typical. Rather, the logic requires that the premise be absolutely true in all details and in all relevant applications.

There's a general class of paradoxes, known as the Sorites paradoxes, that illustrate what can go wrong when you base an argument of statements of general truth that fail to be true in all details. See the wikipedia entry or the SEP entry for examples and discussion.

Looking at the arguments in the OP, they are all of this kind. The second and third use general assertions about cause as their starting assumptions. The first uses a general statement about entropy ("entropy always increases") as a starting assumption.

Even without the evidence from quantum physics, we could look at assumptions of the form "everything has a cause", and we ought to realize that this is at most a general observation and not anything that we can prove.

The entropy assumption has similar problems. For all we know, there might be processes acting in the universe that tend to reduce entropy, in such a way that they counteract the general tendency of entropy to increase. The observed expansion of the universe might be reducing entropy. Or the total universe might be infinite, so that you can always keep the entropy down by pushing it somewhere else - that's like the way that there is always room for more guests in Hilbert's Hotel.

When you see arguments that seem to assume little, but prove much, it is time to be skeptical. Always remember that there is no such thing as free lunch.

Message 11 of 177 (574507) 08-16-2010 9:38 AM

Reply to: Message 10 by nwr 08-16-2010 9:11 AM

Hmmmmm you seem to be presenting an argument that assumes little but proves much........?

(I am only kidding. I agree with the sort of principle you are stating)

Message 12 of 177 (574513) 08-16-2010 9:58 AM

Reply to: Message 11 by Straggler 08-16-2010 9:38 AM

Obviously, people are free to ignore my statement. And, obviously, many will. I don't expect bogus arguments to suddenly stop coming.

What always amuses me, is that the people who I see presenting these arguments seem to think that they argue for the Christian god. But if the argument actually worked, it would make as strong a case for Thor or Zeus or the deist's god, or for the IPU or the FSM. I expect the presenters often know that, but they try to avoid publically admitting to that flaw.

Message 13 of 177 (574740) 08-17-2010 2:31 PM

Reply to: Message 8 by cavediver 08-15-2010 2:47 PM

The point is that time passes.

But with these, you are not saying/proving anything, you only move your problem somewhere else.

I dont really get what you mean with this (and the paragraph).

---------------------------nwr-------------------------

I totally agree with you, good piece!

About your quantum physics, a piece out of: "In Defense Of The Kalam Cosmological Argument" by William Lane Craig

"The central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which [virtual particles] depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which 'this dynamism of empty space is but a formal abstraction lacking physical reality.' The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause"

Ofcourse this is only one case, but I think that nothing happens without a cause. But what the cause is, if we can even see it, that indeed is doubtful.

That's right it is a falsifiable theorie, all we can do is disprove it we cant prove it. But you also could say, that you can assume its correct untill proven wrong. I dont really see a point in saying that it is wrong (in this case).

But if the universe is expanding for an infinite amount of time, the universe would be infinitely big. So I dont think that the entropy would reduce.

Message 14 of 177 (574744) 08-17-2010 2:48 PM

Reply to: Message 13 by Deleted 08-17-2010 2:31 PM

No, it does not. There is no concept of "time passing" in physics. This is simply our perception. There is no universal clock that ticks away, one minute, hour, day at a time. The fact that this misconception arises time and again in similar discussions simply demonstrates the lack of awareness of 20th century fundemental physics. With just Special Relativity we can see how flawed this concept is by considering (the lack of) simultaneity.

Excuse me - I was answering your question. Are you usuqally so rude to those that spend their time answering your questions?

I have no problem to move. You had a question. It was answered.

Fair enough - it is not an easy concept to appreciate. But until you can appreciate it, you will never be able to see one of the biggest flaws in the Kalam cosmological argument.

No, it would not. But nor would it necessarily have a maximum - i.e. there may not be a state of thermal equilibrium. So youe entropy argument fails either way.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.