The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[A Tripolation]

I'm not speaking as a scientist, but I think Krauss is talking about nothing in the only real sense that we have, whereas KCA is speaking from ignorance.

 

I could define the universe or the multiverse as existing uncaused and eternal. It assumes far less than a God.

 

Krauss is talking about the quantum oddities that arise in empty space. Some sort of quantum manifold that allows many things to happen.

 

That is not "nothing." Therefore, it is completely irrelevant to the KCA.

[john5746]

If KCA is irrelevent to empty space, then I say it is irrelevent to the beginnings(or transformations) of the universe. Quantum oddities in empty space are far more applicable to an early universe than a chicken and an egg.

 

Basically, as soon as an explanation is given, you will say that isn't "nothing". You are demanding magic and a magician.

[Crispy Bacon]

While Kalaam is valid, it is nowhere close to sound.

 

The first premise ("Whatever begins to exist has a cause") is unsupported and unsupportable:

 

"Begins to exist" is the bit we need to pay attention to. There are two kinds of "begin to exist"; one kind is previously existing stuff being rearranged into other effectively new things and the other is stuff popping out of nothing. The first is called "Creatio ex materia" and is the only one we have any evidence for requiring causes. The second is called "Creatio ex nihilo" and is the one the argument claims applies to the universe (which, it actually doesn't).

 

These two things are radically different and barely resemble each other. To use evidence for one as evidence for both is incompetence at best and lying at worse.

 

The second premise ("The universe began to exist") is false:

 

The universe has always existed and will always exist. This is true whether or not the past is infinitely long (bringing up arguments against an infinite past is called a "red herring" and is more evidence that apologists are being disingenuous). The fact is, at every point in time, there is a point in time. There is no such thing as "before" the universe. So, it is not the case that there was nothing then there was the universe. It is also not the case that there was other stuff then there was the universe. Not only because there is no before the universe, but also because there is no such thing as other stuff when we are talking about the universe.

 

There is one option that they could take to try to disingenuously say the universe has a cause (which, they sometimes do) by defining "begin to exist" as something like "Object O begins to exist at time t iff object O exists at time t and there is no time prior to t at which O exists". On that definition, the universe begins to exist only because there is no time prior to t.

 

And, here's the kicker. That definition of "begins to exist" (and anything else that could be used to accurately describe the universe) also applies to God. So, if the universe began to exist, God did as well. This leaves open, by the Kalaam argument (assuming the first premise is true), the question "Who created God?" and we have infinite regress.

 

You said it also applies to God. Well I don't know which god you are talking about. Certainly not the Christian God. The Christian God is "everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90.2) "who lives forever” (Isaiah 57:15) "before the beginning of time" (Titus 1:2)

 

As for the Universe being eternal or not, I don't know. I'm not a physicist and I'm not going to pretend to be one. I can only site experts on the matter like Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin.

 

Alan Guth "as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning."

 

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Tufts University Many Worlds in One, p. 176

Check the "Q&A" section for answers to these charges, maybe specifically these:

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/objections-to-the-causal-principle

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-everything-that-begins-to-exist-have-a-material-cause

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/past-and-future-in-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

[Moontanman]

You said it also applies to God. Well I don't know which god you are talking about. Certainly not the Christian God. The Christian God is "everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90.2) "who lives forever” (Isaiah 57:15) "before the beginning of time" (Titus 1:2)

So you are talking about the christian god... Before you posit the christian god don't you think you should show some evidence of any gods?

 

As for the Universe being eternal or not, I don't know. I'm not a physicist and I'm not going to pretend to be one. I can only site experts on the matter like Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin.

 

Alan Guth "as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning."

 

I am willing to grant the possibility universe had a beginning and a cause but how do you posit that cause as a god?

 

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Tufts University Many Worlds in One, p. 176

Again, how do you get to a god from a cause? AND HOW DO YOU KNOW IT IS THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD?

 

How do you know the cause of the universe isn't some multidimensional brobdingnagian creature that ingests dark matter and excretes universes?

[Crispy Bacon]

I am willing to grant the possibility universe had a beginning and a cause but how do you posit that cause as a god?

 

 

 

Like the video said, the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and powerful. Almost like... God.

@Atom

 

Hmmm well if that is possible, why didn't we end up in one of the universes with "radically different fundamental constants".

 

for example, the strong nuclear force were 1-2% stronger than it is, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.

 

Paul Davies,The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71

 

and like the example I gave in my first post, if the critical density of the universe was off by one part in 10¹⁵ would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.

 

Really hard to imagin life that could form in some of these conditions. There are many more examples...

 

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml

[Strange]

Hmmm well if that is possible, why didn't we end up in one of the universes with "radically different fundamental constants".

We did.

[Crispy Bacon]

We did.

 

No things could have been a lot worse.

 

We have gluons, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms (stable atoms), molecules, elements (heavy elements), planets, stars (long lived stars), galaxies, ect

 

Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123).

 

Lee Smolin calculated a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars is one chance in 10²²⁹

[John Cuthber]

You keep missing the point and I think it's deliberate, but here we go again

"Like the video said, the universe can't cause itself,"

Yes the video says that.

 

Saying something doesn't make it true- not even if you put it on youtube.

 

Do you accept that?

 

Also

As has been pointed out, you have not sensibly addressed the problem that I can equally well say " the universe God can't cause itself,"

 

And it is every bit as valid as the assertion about the universe. (please don't waste time with Bible quotes or special pleading here- they are logical fallacies and just make you look silly)

 

So the important difference is that we have evidence of the universe but no evidence of God.

 

Also you seem not to have understood the multivariate analysis you need to do, so you say

"for example, the strong nuclear force were 1-2% stronger than it is, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium."

without adding unless the electrostatic force were a bit bigger- in which case they would behave in much the same way as they do in this universe and we wouldn't know any different..

But, anyway, it would be better if you left that argument in the thread about the "fine tuned" universe (which isn't really very finely tuned at all when you remember that you can change more than one parameter at a time)

[Crispy Bacon]

You keep missing the point and I think it's deliberate, but here we go again

"Like the video said, the universe can't cause itself,"

Yes the video says that.

 

Saying something doesn't make it true- not even if you put it on youtube.

 

Do you accept that?

 

Also

As has been pointed out, you have not sensibly addressed the problem that I can equally well say " the universe God can't cause itself,"

 

And it is every bit as valid as the assertion about the universe. (please don't waste time with Bible quotes or special pleading here- they are logical fallacies and just make you look silly)

 

So the important difference is that we have evidence of the universe but no evidence of God.

 

Also you seem not to have understood the multivariate analysis you need to do, so you say

"for example, the strong nuclear force were 1-2% stronger than it is, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium."

without adding unless the electrostatic force were a bit bigger- in which case they would behave in much the same way as they do in this universe and we wouldn't know any different..

But, anyway, it would be better if you left that argument in the thread about the "fine tuned" universe (which isn't really very finely tuned at all when you remember that you can change more than one parameter at a time)

 

Since when can something "bring itself into existence"? That is more ridiculous than magic..

 

He closed my fine-tuned universe because I had c&p from other websites (even thou I sited those websites)

 

Btw do you have any links backing up your statement "unless the electrostatic force were a bit bigger", btw if the electromagnetic force was bigger it would overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. (0.74% bigger I think).

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

 

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml

[Strange]

No things could have been a lot worse.

Or better.

 

We have gluons, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms (stable atoms), molecules, elements (heavy elements), planets, stars (long lived stars), galaxies, ect

They have frumps, snodles, ponks, kemps, doings, ...

 

But they still have planets, stars, life and love. (Dunno if they have god or not).

 

Point being, we may be in one of a (possibly) infinite number of universes that could support life that would ask the question: "why is it just like this?" (where "this" is almost infinitely variable.)

Since when can something "bring itself into existence"? That is more ridiculous than magic..

 

I think my irony meter is faulty.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

 

Since when can something "bring itself into existence"? That is more ridiculous than magic..

 

He closed my fine-tuned universe because I had c&p from other websites (even thou I sited those websites)

 

 

If it's more ridiculous than magic, you should stop relying on a God that must have done it.

Your thread was closed because it was redundant.

The other thread (in which you posted quite recently) is still open and is a better place to discuss the failures of the fine tuning argument.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69816-the-fine-tuning-argument-is-dead/page-2

[Crispy Bacon]

If it's more ridiculous than magic, you should stop relying on a God that must have done it.

Your thread was closed because it was redundant.

The other thread (in which you posted quite recently) is still open and is a better place to discuss the failures of the fine tuning argument.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69816-the-fine-tuning-argument-is-dead/page-2

 

That isn't my thread.

[ydoaPs]

You said it also applies to God. Well I don't know which god you are talking about. Certainly not the Christian God. The Christian God is "everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90.2) "who lives forever” (Isaiah 57:15) "before the beginning of time" (Titus 1:2)

So is the universe. It has always existed and will always exist. That's why it also applies to God. Maybe you could start pointing out flaws in reasoning rather than just disagreeing with conclusions. Pointing out flaws in reasoning includes pointing out false starting points. So, tell me: when did the universe not exist?

 

As for the Universe being eternal or not, I don't know. I'm not a physicist and I'm not going to pretend to be one. I can only site experts on the matter like Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin.

 

Alan Guth "as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning."

 

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Tufts University Many Worlds in One, p. 176

 

Check the "Q&A" section for answers to these charges, maybe specifically these:

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/objections-to-the-causal-principle

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-everything-that-begins-to-exist-have-a-material-cause

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/past-and-future-in-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Since you quote mined them and obviously don't understand the material (hint: nothing in their work at all contradicts anything I've said), it's far more likely that you're relying on dishonest apologetics people than the actual physicists.

Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123).

 

Lee Smolin calculated a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars is one chance in 10²²⁹

Yet neither of them has ever done so using the proper multivariable methods. Odd, no? I wonder why fine tuning disappears any time someone does the analysis properly. Could is possibly be that it doesn't exist? That's an honest question. Do you think it is even possible?

[John Cuthber]

 

That isn't my thread.

Indeed, and this one isn't "mine".

However a thread where only one person posted would be a bit silly wouldn't it?

So, what exactly was your point?

[Moontanman]

Like the video said, the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and powerful. Almost like... God.

 

 

Or a non sentient Brobdingnagian creature that unknowingly creates universe from it's own natural processes... what you are suggesting is simply not any more supportable

[Crispy Bacon]

I'm shocked to find scientist that believe something can just bring itself into existence... Everything which "begins" to exist must have a cause apart from itself, nothing can "bring itself into existence"

 

To think something can bring itself into existence is so illogical.

[ACG52]

 

 

I'm shocked to find scientist that believe something can just bring itself into existence..

Why?

That's your position vis-a-vis your god.

[Moontanman]

I'm shocked to find scientist that believe something can just bring itself into existence... Everything which "begins" to exist must have a cause apart from itself, nothing can "bring itself into existence"

 

To think something can bring itself into existence is so illogical.

 

 

You keep making that claim but insisting your god is exempt from it but you give no reason why god is exempt... care to support why god is exempt?

 

The video, and Krauss' idea, really do nothing to dispel the KCA. The ideas that Krauss espouse are not a true nothing in any sense of the word.

 

The Christian God, by definition, exists uncaused and eternally.

 

 

Yes... and super man by definition can fly...

[Greg H.]

Yes... and super man by definition can fly...

Flying's easy. Lots of things can fly. Heck I can fly, given a sufficiently large amount of thrust, and I'm as aerodynamic as your average rock.

 

What I really want to know is how he can emit varying wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from his skull without melting his own brain. It also makes me wonder if he could serve as his own radio transmitter.