Original Post
Kalam Cosmological Argument
Is still continually brought up.....despite being flimsy at best.
Here is a short version of Kalam argument commonly brought up by William Craig:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have a cause (presumably eternal god).
Of course, both premises are extremely naive.
First premise asserts that everything that began to exist has a cause....What began to exist, exactly? Can someone demonstrate? One can't just assert that properties which are found within our universe (like causation) necessarily apply to the universe itself. A 'beginning' of existence of a car (which is merely re-assembled energy/matter) is very different from supposed beginning of existence of ALL matter and energy. I'll forget for a second that first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed (matter is a form of energy).
To add to that, big bang theory does not claim that universe popped out of nothing, but rather that it went from super-hot condensed state (singularity) to a cooled, expanded state we live in today. And it is still expanding.
Logic and physical laws point to singularity being just another state of existence of energy, but scientific community is still undecided on that one.
So, here we are. Any thoughts?
Here is a short version of Kalam argument commonly brought up by William Craig:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have a cause (presumably eternal god).
Of course, both premises are extremely naive.
First premise asserts that everything that began to exist has a cause....What began to exist, exactly? Can someone demonstrate? One can't just assert that properties which are found within our universe (like causation) necessarily apply to the universe itself. A 'beginning' of existence of a car (which is merely re-assembled energy/matter) is very different from supposed beginning of existence of ALL matter and energy. I'll forget for a second that first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed (matter is a form of energy).
To add to that, big bang theory does not claim that universe popped out of nothing, but rather that it went from super-hot condensed state (singularity) to a cooled, expanded state we live in today. And it is still expanding.
Logic and physical laws point to singularity being just another state of existence of energy, but scientific community is still undecided on that one.
So, here we are. Any thoughts?
Last edited by Odlov; Sep 8, 2009 at 07:09 AM.
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte
You say: "nothing physically begins to exist, it's all a rearrangement of previously existing material".
Craig isn't referring to the notion of 'beginning to exist' as new matter coming into existence, as you are continually debating. I think he's quite familiar with thermodynamics. Instead he means it in a different sense- anything that comes to exist when at one point it didnt, like a fresh whole pizza out of the oven. He says that something must have CAUSED them to be that way. In other words, nothing that begins to exist can just pop into being for no reason. So the universe couldnt just pop into being somehow with no design or intention.
Taking into account structure of that argument, eternal existence of matter/energy makes much more sense than eternal deity. You ask me to name a cause for singularity changing state into present universe - i don't know - neither does anyone for certain. Think of endless inertial chain of causes. Some type of never-ending fluctuation perhaps. And what would including god into the mix solve BnW? I could ask you the same question about the cause of god's sudden creation of the universe.
oops, accidentally started typing my post onto here, I clicked "edit" instead of "quote"... I don't think I changed anything
-BnW
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte
And an endless chain of inertial causes is just a fancy phrase for infinity. An actual infinite amounts of causes is mathematically impossible. Thus the universe is not infinite.
You do realize that if you take that approach then god is "mathematically impossible" as well, right? It's irrelevant if god "didn't come into existence" because his actions certainly did at some point in time. What caused them? What triggered god to change the state from being one without universe to being one with universe? You can't selectively use principle of causality here and abandon it there. A theist/deist is faced with all the same problems.
It's hard to make sense out of existence without eternity. And infinity is actually possible in mathematics, but it's not so feasible in real world.
I'm starting to think string theory may explain things better after all, but to even grasp the basics of it requires extensive research.
For anyone interested, here's a nice site which chews it out for average joe:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte
The Kalam Cosmological argument actually stops with "the universe has a cause" and anything past that is irrelevant to it's validity. But that alone is still a powerful argument.
Powerful argument for what? Certainly not for for god, since adding god's actions into endless chain of causes solves nothing.
Last edited by Odlov; Sep 10, 2009 at 06:17 AM.
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte
Wow a week! But I told you oddy I would get to it sooner or later. :]
:V
Didn't time begin at the Big Bang? If so, there is no moment prior to creation. So it is logically bogus to ask, “What was God doing prior to creation?” because “prior to creation” implies a moment before creation.
Didn't we talk about it before? Time is merely a term we use to measure occurrence of one event relative to other events, it's not some giant rod on which everything hangs. Physicists use time to refer to matter and energy shifting position, hence for them it's healthy to assume that time did not exist when the only thing around was one single particle (singularity). Even then, i think if we could see what happened inside that dot, we would see that it was very much dynamic and stuff happened. But we can't know for sure, at least now.
Key point: time relies on actions, not the other way around.
There really is no excuse rooted in reality that you can give for god to be "outside of time". If god is a dynamic thing that has done anything whatsoever, he is not "outside of time". And we both know that in order to sport the definition of a "god" you need to do quite a bit.
Time theoretically can easily refer to any event, even those within one's mind. A thought arising, recollection of a memory, etc. When theists give the usual "space-less timeless and immaterial" property i (amusingly) imagine non-existence.
What timelessness entails is that one doesn’t do anything different, that is, that one does not change. Timelessness implies an unchanging state of being, and some activities don’t require change and time.
Some activities don't require change and time
? WhaaaaaAny activity IS change by itself, regardless of whether you are talking about atoms or thoughts being rearranged. Both are changes of state of something by something.
For example, knowing something doesn’t require change or time.
That's because knowing something is not an activity/action.
Now, acquiring, processing and applying that knowledge are all actions.
God can know all truths in that timeless state without any change. Similarly, one can have unchanging intentions. So long as one’s intentions don’t change they can be timelessly held. A person can exist changelessly and then freely execute a certain intention because free will doesn’t require any antecedent determining conditions. Thus, you can get a temporal effect(the universe) from a changeless cause(God). The very nature of God's free will is the absence of causal determinants. So a free choice has the appearance of a purely spontaneous event.
So he couldn't change his intentions? :P
And no, a person can't exist changelessly unless his consciousness and all other processes are somehow frozen. But for the sake of the argument, ok.
Alas, 'free' will is not logically possible. All scientific knowledge shows that it's not possible. What can god's free will possibly be if there are no external causes? A series of causeless intentions hard-wired into his nature? That doesn't sound very free/omnipotent to me.
If we arrive at the last statement- the Universe was caused - then we can therefore say that, as a metaphysical law, what created the universe has to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and personal.
What is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial?
1. abstract things (numbers, equations)
2. the mind
LOL, i love how you shoved 'personal' in there for no reason.
Anyhow, we still haven't even arrived at the statement of "universe being caused". Your base premise.
And since abstract things aren't causal agents, it has to be the mind.
Yes, they are causal agents just like matter. Realistically (and as far as humans know) mind can not possibly exist and be sustained without matter, but that's just one of many problems.
PS: more to come later.
Now, if it is as you say, that time relies on physical change, then time can only exist in the universe. Physical change (time) can only exist where space-time/ matter-energy is present.
Making progress!
I said change - any sort of change, regardless of whether it's materialistic or not.
Yes- but only if you hold that the mind is a physical thing. (!)
I, as you know, do not hold such a view.
No - regardless of whether it's physical or not.
I thought we already agreed that time can refer to any change, not necessarily matter or energy (and i am giving you assumption here that there can be something else, for the sake of this argument).
If the mind is a physical thing, then yes. Changing thoughts would mean interaction between molecules, which is change.
BnW....im dissapoint.
Time in full sense of the word = a change relative to other change. Does not matter if it's between electrons or moving bubbles imagined my immaterial god. Astrophysicists say time started in singularity simply because to them it may as well have. Theory of relativity doesn't allow them to even infer the behavior of energy prior to singularity stage (all tracks are covered), hence for them it goes from the time that dot expanded. That hardly means there was no activity before big bang. But I'm going off topic here.
He caused the universe, with time, matter, and space, yes?. The effect IS time. Prior to the big bang, God existed with a timeless intention to create a universe. There is no "before", or "after", there is only a "now", so the cause never actually precedes the effect temporally. t = 0, when time begins, is the moment at which god created the universe. Simultaneous causation.
Amusingly enough, god would have had to have a thought/mind process of some sort to turn his "timeless intention" into action. Is it not so? Between intention to scratch my butt and my hand actually scratching my butt, there is a signal which triggers my action. For me it's electrical impulse firing from my brain, for god it must be something else. Regardless, it requires causation (if we are to assume causation is necessary).
I am well aware that I added personal in that description. I most definitely do have a reason for it, too.
Can i hear it?
There is a phenomenally huge leap from simply broad powerful creator to that one described.....in the bible
We will get there, patience! :]
I hope so.
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 19, 2009 at 07:09 AM.
