Kalam's Cosmological Argument

[Add984]

Hey,

Just curious what you think about this? I have my own opinions about why it is flawed.

[ofd]

It's flawed for a simple reason. There is no reason to assume that something that came into existence has a cause or causes for coming into existence. Even if you could show that there was a cause, anything can follow from it. Mickey Mouse or a billion  Indian Gods may have created it, there is no rational reason to prefer one option over the other.

[barn]

Hi @Add984

 

On 05/20/2018 at 1:37 PM, Add984 said:

Hey,

Just curious what you think about this? I have my own opinions about why it is flawed.

Hopefully my observation land expectedly, it's after all, just an observation.

Wouldn't it be better if you made a point, an argument? I can't tell if you aim to 'brainstorm' or 'fishing' that's occurring.

Sorry, but don't know what to make of it yet.

[Add984]

Lol

Let me clarify. I just wanted people's thoughts on the subject? Brainstorming is probably the correct term. 

'Fishing'? I was never good at that. I have a friend who enjoys sea fishing. Seriously though, I've been watching some of Craig's lectures for my own research on my next book and it occurs that the Kalam cosmological argument does prove God's existence. If you watch Craig's video ('Objections so bad I couldn't have made them up' on the Tube) you will see what I mean. A glaring example is his assertion that science supports his second premise ('the universe began to exist') which (I could be wrong) it does not.

I've checked definitions of the Big Bang Theory (including NASAs) and it describes it as a process of inflation, but not as 'the universe beginning'. The Law of Conservation would also appear to support an 'uncaused' universe. I'm not 100% sure on this point though. That's why I started the topic.  

[barn]

2 hours ago, Add984 said:

Lol

Let me clarify. I just wanted people's thoughts on the subject? Brainstorming is probably the correct term. 

'Fishing'? I was never good at that. I have a friend who enjoys sea fishing. Seriously though, I've been watching some of Craig's lectures for my own research on my next book and it occurs that the Kalam cosmological argument does prove God's existence. If you watch Craig's video ('Objections so bad I couldn't have made them up' on the Tube) you will see what I mean. A glaring example is his assertion that science supports his second premise ('the universe began to exist') which (I could be wrong) it does not.

I've checked definitions of the Big Bang Theory (including NASAs) and it describes it as a process of inflation, but not as 'the universe beginning'. The Law of Conservation would also appear to support an 'uncaused' universe. I'm not 100% sure on this point though. That's why I started the topic.  

That's fair and square! Thank you for that!

[barn]

I'm currently seeing the idea as one good example for things that qualify as an utter waste of time. But that's just me.

Ok, perhaps including the actual statement was about time:

"Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:[3]

1.    Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2.    The universe began to exist;

        Therefore:

3.    The universe has a cause."
(from here)

First, I'm not sure anything would be called into existence as long as it relied on the existence of something else which had not materialised up to that point. (skipping the steps on a 'consequential starcase' , pure magic, not rational)

One can reasonably think, 'cause' refers(!!!) to a relationship and in reality, itself, it doesn't exist on its own. Am I wrong about it? Do tachyons provably exist, particles travelling backwards in time?

As in: Take away the object of a cause = then, it can't affect anything and there's no 'cause' (Sounds like chronic hoarding (a mental illnes or cognitive bias, addiction) where everything piled up in a house will one day reveal its utility, therefore it's causal for those items having been picked up. Nevertheless, my logic)
 can be erroneous)

Also, can't square this circle because to put forth knowledge claims of an unknowable is like saying: 'What's 'fairy-fart'? It is a colourless, odourless gas that is green, massless and upon smelling, it irritates human subjects' sense of smell.' (Btw, No disrespect to non-existent fairies, imaginary and fantastic creatures.)

Supplemented with: 'Is it possible to create a hole inside a hole if the parent hole doesn't have horizon, that's not even a hole?'

So, I'm having trouble seeing validation for any system that's output is greater than the total sum of all inputs. Like this:

The idea:

One way of disproving:

 

All knowing... If information could be created in a form as 'The Library of Babel' suggests, it would make a pretty strong argument for determinism(wait for it...), although proving it would mean becoming a mighty-powerful entity, gaining access to the future amongst other things and therefore slave to itself... aaand, not so mighty-powerful then. Not at all. A contradiction.

Here's a thread I created about the library

 

 

[Kohlrak]

15 hours ago, Add984 said:

I've checked definitions of the Big Bang Theory (including NASAs) and it describes it as a process of inflation, but not as 'the universe beginning'. The Law of Conservation would also appear to support an 'uncaused' universe. I'm not 100% sure on this point though. That's why I started the topic.  

Actually, isn't this where the paradox that the bigbang contents with, as well, come from? We just sort of have this massive everything in one place, then boom. Was it there for a long time before it boomed? When did it start to be there? Why didn't it boom before? Was there anything there before it went boom? Why did it boom? (inb4 someone wants to say that time didn't exist before the big bang.)

 

I've seen some answers for above, conservation of mass and energy, as well everything have an origin are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin, which really is the thing that's causing all the problems. Then again, we're assuming that everything started at the big bang.

[Add984]

Good points. I think the term 'Big Bang' doesn't help, as it conjures images of something exploding from a vacuum, which implies an ex nihilo origin of the universe as we know it.. There is the Big Bounce scenario, in which we have expansion then contraction forever. Don't you think there's a lot of 'God of the Gaps' thinking with some of this though? Even if the premise - 'the universe has a beginning' - is true, why is God the automatic go-to? I was discussing this point with my friend at work yesterday. He'd lost a bit of paperwork and we couldn't find it, so I blamed God. When I eventually found it while he was on his break and I had to go too, I jotted down a quick note (signed 'God') apologising for the temporary misplacement of the paperwork.

Seriously though, I agree that the Big Bang is not the only theory, but it is the prevailing one and explains Hubble's Law, doesn't it? String theory doesn't do that much as the proverbial 'can' just gets kicked down the road into an infinite regress again, as we would still want to know how the 'multiverse' ultimately came into being. In the Big Bounce scenario, we have explanations for the regress and an answer to premise 2 (of Craig's argument). The universe is infinite in time, but finite in terms of its energy and matter (with the laws of conservation and entropy applying). Craig's premise is incorrect then, as if the universe is cyclical it had no 'beginning', which is also an answer to your third question.

In answer to your fourth, it presumably has 'boomed' before and an infinite number of times. On the fifth question, I would venture to say that all 'things' (i.e. that which is measurable, divisible, observable, effectual, etc) are contained within the universe and subject to time, causation and the laws of physics. I must admit, I find the first part of what you wrote troubling too:

8 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

We just sort of have this massive everything in one place, then boom.

It's a bit of a mind bend. I suppose it's just a matter of scaling up and down. I imagine something like a still lake (which is void, i.e. nothing) and the universe like an ice sheet expanding. The colder it gets, the faster the expansion (Hubble's Law), but when the temperature rises (i.e. the conditions in the universe change) the sheet retreats. Not a perfect analogy, but it helps me to visualise the universe expanding and contracting into and from this infinitesimal dense and hot state.

In answer to your second question (in a Big Bounce scenario) it could indeed have remained in this 'pre-bang' condition for trillions or googles worth of years, however, given an infinite amount of time and a probability above 0, anything that can happen will happen and has happened an infinite number of times (**throws cold water into my face**) which is a bit of a mind bend! Lol 

Are there any other scenarios - apart from Big Bounce, God and the Big Bang - which deal with the infinite regress problem? God doesn't. A multiverse doesn't. Or maybe they do. Admittedly, the Big Bounce scenario doesn't so much 'deal' with the regress problem, but rather embraces it.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Add984
Spelling and grammer touch-ups.

[Add984]

18 hours ago, barn said:

One can reasonably think, 'cause' refers(!!!) to a relationship and in reality, itself, it doesn't exist on its own. Am I wrong about it? Do tachyons provably exist, particles travelling backwards in time?

Yes, that's what's frustrating about watching Craig. Cause and effect are characteristic of the realm of 'things' yet (by his own definition) God is 'spaceless,' 'timeless,' transcendent and blah blah blah so he is effectively positing an ex nihilo 'cause' for the universe. God is literally 'nothing'.

By the way, I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. That link (Babel) and your thoughts here are very useful, don't you think? 

[barn]

1 hour ago, Add984 said:

By the way, I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. That link (Babel) and your thoughts here are very useful, don't you think?  

I had thought about that (That's why I only replied now) but when you clarified your ask, and I made a rather strong statement about the lack of consistency of the hypothesis, I felt there was a need for supporting my opinions with clarity and substance.

It didn't seem fair saying only just

(cynically, jokingly )

'Kalam's Cosmological Argument is akin to boldly going where no (sane) person has ever been before.'

 

[Kohlrak]

13 hours ago, Add984 said:

Good points. I think the term 'Big Bang' doesn't help, as it conjures images of something exploding from a vacuum, which implies an ex nihilo origin of the universe as we know it.. There is the Big Bounce scenario, in which we have expansion then contraction forever. Don't you think there's a lot of 'God of the Gaps' thinking with some of this though? Even if the premise - 'the universe has a beginning' - is true, why is God the automatic go-to? I was discussing this point with my friend at work yesterday. He'd lost a bit of paperwork and we couldn't find it, so I blamed God. When I eventually found it while he was on his break and I had to go too, I jotted down a quick note (signed 'God') apologising for the temporary misplacement of the paperwork. 

 

From the Christian point of view, that's hilarious. Those of us who are more religiously inclined notice people rarely ever thank God, even those who say they believe in Him, yet everyone from Christians to Atheists (more than anyone would ever like to admit, and i do mean more than just saying "oh my god") have no problem blaming Him for things going wrong.

13 hours ago, Add984 said:

Seriously though, I agree that the Big Bang is not the only theory, but it is the prevailing one and explains Hubble's Law, doesn't it? String theory doesn't do that much as the proverbial 'can' just gets kicked down the road into an infinite regress again, as we would still want to know how the 'multiverse' ultimately came into being. In the Big Bounce scenario, we have explanations for the regress and an answer to premise 2 (of Craig's argument). The universe is infinite in time, but finite in terms of its energy and matter (with the laws of conservation and entropy applying). Craig's premise is incorrect then, as if the universe is cyclical it had no 'beginning', which is also an answer to your third question.

Well, the basis of everything having a beginning comes from a mix of observation of everything we already know and combining that with occam's razor. Every cycle we know also had a beginning, so the "bounce" theory is just goalpost moving. What i'd like to know is, why is it that the universe was infinite, but the moment we have a conundrum, time becomes infinite and matter and energy become finite, especially when time malleable and manipulable by space according to people who study black holes. Personally, i don't think that simply because we can measure distance or the passage of time that it exists, but, rather, just another construct like numbers which do not exist outside of human minds, for the purpose of making the universe easier to manipulate in our brains (underlined part is very important, and I believe the source of our conundrum) so that we can make predictions and conclusion necessary for our survival.

To be fair, i think this is why "dark matter" is such a big deal. This creation stuff has gotten as political internally as the consequences of the politics. It seems the big bangers are poising themselves to say there's infinite dark matter, and that the big bang was converting it. They haven't thrown that card out there yet, but i smell it coming the moment people start calling them out for the lack of evidence of multiverse.

13 hours ago, Add984 said:

In answer to your fourth, it presumably has 'boomed' before and an infinite number of times. On the fifth question, I would venture to say that all 'things' (i.e. that which is measurable, divisible, observable, effectual, etc) are contained within the universe and subject to time, causation and the laws of physics. I must admit, I find the first part of what you wrote troubling too:

Right, which is why I say Occam's Razor is a bit of a problem for the origin of the universe. We apply the rule to things it's clearly not capable of handling, which is emergent properties, such as the universe itself. It's really a rule always assuming past knowledge (with certain, reasonable exceptions [despite being Christian, I do find it quite reasonable not to make a God in the gaps]) is more accurate than a new assumption, which, statistically, is right. The problem is, it's not always true, and it can just as easily be used in a fallacious way. No matter how you slice it, our existence requires an explanation that violates past experiences: we don't have any evidence of emergent matter or conversion of matter (incase we want to bother exploring the dark matter conversion idea that i just pulled out of my rear). I'm not going to say that we should just jump to God and say "yep, we give in," but i also argue that if we finally come to accept that maybe occam's razor doesn't apply to the universe at large, it can't to the origins of God, as well. While that wouldn't put me in a position to argue the existence of God, it also puts atheists in a position where it's hard to argue that religious people are irrational (which puts us right back where we started with the question of whether or not He exists, but if we stop trying to go for the end all prize with every move we make, maybe we could make some cooperative progress towards truth instead of ignoring the obvious right infront of us, because we don't like that we can't use it against those we don't agree with [and no, that's not personal against you, but more as a shot against pretty much everyone who gets into this topic]). And, honestly, i think that's the real takeaway from the original topic of the post, 'cause we can sit here all day and argue points of theory X, then agree to disagree, or start name calling.

13 hours ago, Add984 said:

It's a bit of a mind bend. I suppose it's just a matter of scaling up and down. I imagine something like a still lake (which is void, i.e. nothing) and the universe like an ice sheet expanding. The colder it gets, the faster the expansion (Hubble's Law), but when the temperature rises (i.e. the conditions in the universe change) the sheet retreats. Not a perfect analogy, but it helps me to visualise the universe expanding and contracting into and from this infinitesimal dense and hot state.

If this were the case, we wouldn't have perceived the "changing distance," which is precisely where big bang comes from. The fragility of big bang appalls me, tbh: the whole basis is this observation that things are getting farther. What if we find out in 10 years that things aren't really getting farther, that it was a glitch, a weird cycle was bending light in a weird way, there's something surrounding our galaxy making messing with light, etc, and it turns out we're actually either shrinking, or no actual change is taking place. Imagine the hysteria, and the amount of information hiding in the scientific community: just as if someone had suggested the earth isnt' the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. It is for this reasons such as this that I really hate the current state of not only science, but the politics surrounding scientific theories. Ignoring the potential effect on the proverbial afterlife, how has this sort of thing affected peoples overall lives,, from suicides, to our massive amount of self-destructive hedonism in the west, to a large number of things. While i'm sure that a quick google search would leave me with the impression that they have more than a few cameras to base this theory on, how much have we really tested the expansion theory, and to what degree is it really possible? Not to say that i disbelieve this expansion (i'm more agnostic, of sorts, to it), but, like, take a moment to process this.

13 hours ago, Add984 said:

In answer to your second question (in a Big Bounce scenario) it could indeed have remained in this 'pre-bang' condition for trillions or googles worth of years, however, given an infinite amount of time and a probability above 0, anything that can happen will happen and has happened an infinite number of times (**throws cold water into my face**) which is a bit of a mind bend! Lol 

The same could be said about alot of things. With infinite time, and a probability above 0, i wonder if this cycle is interruptible. Oh well, i'm glad I don't remember dying and all the future problems I am to go through. Shame i currently remember my breakups from over 10 years ago, and how i was manipulated, but, frankly, the universe couldn't care less about how we feel. XD

13 hours ago, Add984 said:

Are there any other scenarios - apart from Big Bounce, God and the Big Bang - which deal with the infinite regress problem? God doesn't. A multiverse doesn't. Or maybe they do. Admittedly, the Big Bounce scenario doesn't so much 'deal' with the regress problem, but rather embraces it.

I'll give big bounce one thing: it isn't turtles all the way down. I am a bit confused, though, on the thing about time. If time can go in reverse (or at least slow), how is that affected by causality? Can causality happen independent of time? I think this "time repeating" part of big-bounce (which comes from manipulable time) is where you are given a "new" regression to solve, which directly conflicts big-bounce. Personally, I don't believe in time as an axis exists (or any other axes for that matter), but that alone throws a wrench into adoption of belief into many of the other proposed scenarios.

13 hours ago, Add984 said:

Yes, that's what's frustrating about watching Craig. Cause and effect are characteristic of the realm of 'things' yet (by his own definition) God is 'spaceless,' 'timeless,' transcendent and blah blah blah so he is effectively positing an ex nihilo 'cause' for the universe. God is literally 'nothing'.

By the way, I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. That link (Babel) and your thoughts here are very useful, don't you think? 

I think the problem with Craig is that he's like every other "educated" individual where he likes to spit out his own arguments while refusing to listen to the other side, especially when pointing out his hypocrisy. I used to fall for that "transcendent" BS, but the problem with "transcendent" is that it is a play on an old word game, which, to be fair, come from the Bible. Profits who "do not die," simply "cease to be": Enoch and some people say this parallels Elijah. So, the word game we're playing is "if another universe, plane, whatever is where God is, do we say he exists, or not?" So the idea many have is, God exists "elsewhere," but doesn't exist here, but exists overall. From this point of view, everything we see and know is part of a sort of "testing ground," and all the laws that we know and take for granted, such as gravity, are here to contribute to the test. This idea seems to be phrased in a mathematical sense, which is interesting if you consider the state of math at the time these passages were written (before Pythagoreanism), but not really a strong argument. If "another plane exists" then it exists, and so does everyone there, regardless of whether we can interact with them or not.

 

[Add984]

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Every cycle we know also had a beginning, so the "bounce" theory is just goalpost moving. What i'd like to know is, why is it that the universe was infinite, but the moment we have a conundrum, time becomes infinite and matter and energy become finite

The states of matter and energy (i.e. human bodies, stars, this keyboard I'm typing on, etc) are 'finite' in respect to the transitioning of these elementary particles towards states of disorder, but the elementary particles themselves are 'infinite' in respect to neither being created nor destroyed over endless cycles. A Big Bounce scenario has no 'beginning' as such as it is like a balloon expanding and contracting (yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect ), the balloon material itself remains. You can write that a particular cycle has a start and finish, or inflation and then contraction, but the process itself is infinite (at least to our perception of it - i.e. our measurement in our time). 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

The same could be said about alot of things. With infinite time, and a probability above 0, i wonder if this cycle is interruptible. Oh well, i'm glad I don't remember dying and all the future problems I am to go through. Shame i currently remember my breakups from over 10 years ago, and how i was manipulated, but, frankly, the universe couldn't care less about how we feel. XD

Presumably not as 'memory' of the previous cycles would have been destroyed with break-up of the elementary particles of all complex states of matter (such as thinking minds, like ours). It's intriguing that the universe almost has an (unconscious) benevolence in-built into it as we will not remember any of this. Perhaps we've had this exchange an infinite amount of times. Things would get very repetitive otherwise.

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I am a bit confused, though, on the thing about time. If time can go in reverse (or at least slow), how is that affected by causality? Can causality happen independent of time? I think this "time repeating" part of big-bounce (which comes from manipulable time) is where you are given a "new" regression to solve, which directly conflicts big-bounce.

No, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that causation does not exist independent of time (or at least our perception of time). I suppose time (or rather particular events and states matter and energy) repeat across the infinity of cycles. I find the 'new' regress problem intriguing, could you please clarify your point on this?

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

So the idea many have is, God exists "elsewhere," but doesn't exist here, but exists overall. From this point of view, everything we see and know is part of a sort of "testing ground," and all the laws that we know and take for granted, such as gravity, are here to contribute to the test. This idea seems to be phrased in a mathematical sense, which is interesting if you consider the state of math at the time these passages were written (before Pythagoreanism), but not really a strong argument. If "another plane exists" then it exists, and so does everyone there, regardless of whether we can interact with them or not.

That's interesting, so is this kind of thinking similar to the idea of Platonic forms? I'm a bit rusty. The problem is without clear definitions (which I'll admit are not always air-tight and perfect) then anything goes. By (Craig's) definition, God is 'transcendent' and is therefore nothing and 'nothing' has a causal probability of zero as 'nothing' is the negation of something, which is defined as measurable, countable and such (within the universe). If we stray from consistent arguments based on empirical knowledge then we come to an epistemological block because any one can claim something exists on 'a different plane' or my cat is actually an astral projection or something of that manner.

[Kohlrak]

1 hour ago, Add984 said:

The states of matter and energy (i.e. human bodies, stars, this keyboard I'm typing on, etc) are 'finite' in respect to the transitioning of these elementary particles towards states of disorder, but the elementary particles themselves are 'infinite' in respect to neither being created nor destroyed over endless cycles. A Big Bounce scenario has no 'beginning' as such as it is like a balloon expanding and contracting (yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect ), the balloon material itself remains. You can write that a particular cycle has a start and finish, or inflation and then contraction, but the process itself is infinite (at least to our perception of it - i.e. our measurement in our time). 

That doesn't really address my argument: that we said space was infinite, as in the universe continued to infinity in spacial axes. This has changed, in order to make room for the big bang and allow time to be infinite. If there is a bounce, a suck, we really can't say that space is infinite, like we did before. Moreover, the cycle itself should have a beginning. Even the proverbial slinky down the escalator would need a push. The cycle itself needs a point of origin, or at least a cause. Given the connection with time, this gets difficult.

1 hour ago, Add984 said:

Presumably not as 'memory' of the previous cycles would have been destroyed with break-up of the elementary particles of all complex states of matter (such as thinking minds, like ours). It's intriguing that the universe almost has an (unconscious) benevolence in-built into it as we will not remember any of this. Perhaps we've had this exchange an infinite amount of times. Things would get very repetitive otherwise.

Well, a good question is whether or not things are to repeat themselves. If not, why not? If so, why so? Not that finding an answer is probable, but it's worth exploring.

1 hour ago, Add984 said:

No, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that causation does not exist independent of time (or at least our perception of time). I suppose time (or rather particular events and states matter and energy) repeat across the infinity of cycles. I find the 'new' regress problem intriguing, could you please clarify your point on this? 

Ok, so here's he conundrum: Time is said to me manipulable and malleable, but also an axis (this alone begs some question). If time moves forward, does it do so independently of the cycles? If so, how can things within the cycles affect them. If not, then the big suck never actually happens, because it needs a beginning, but how do you go from time moving forward to time going in reverse if time is an axes through which the whole process itself moves? Everything that is, presumably, is observed at reference points through time, therefore the beginning of the big suck is ultimately the end of time. Should time not freeze? The only solution is that time must move forward independent of the cycles, otherwise they aren't even cycles. But, this presents a problem, when the bang and suck, as well as things within the bang and suck, supposedly have influence on time, but how can that be if time is independent? Or are there 2 time axes, one for normal time, and one for time's time to avoid this paradox? To put it more bluntly, time is supposed to be affected by the cycle, yet you can't reference a single point in time where the cycle is in reverse, because time itself would also be in reverse, but to even conceive this we'd need to imagine a constantly forward moving time.

1 hour ago, Add984 said:

That's interesting, so is this kind of thinking similar to the idea of Platonic forms? I'm a bit rusty. The problem is without clear definitions (which I'll admit are not always air-tight and perfect) then anything goes. By (Craig's) definition, God is 'transcendent' and is therefore nothing and 'nothing' has a causal probability of zero as 'nothing' is the negation of something, which is defined as measurable, countable and such (within the universe). If we stray from consistent arguments based on empirical knowledge then we come to an epistemological block because any one can claim something exists on 'a different plane' or my cat is actually an astral projection or something of that manner.

Not so much that. It specifically stems from the idea of there being more than one universe (perhaps heaven, or overall multiverse theory), and if God is in another universe, He's not here. Therefore, God exists (in another universe) but does no exist here, or, rather, he exists overall, but doesn't exist by our definition since our definition only includes the current universe. By this, we can explain how someone suddenly can "become not," meaning cease to exist, while simultaneously presenting this as a positive thing (presupposing that existence is regained at another location, either in space, time, or another universe).

To put it bluntly, it's an attempt at profundity by mere word play, which is only slightly worse than the number play that quantum physicists are doing (either could be right, but we're merely turning the gods of the gaps into abstract constructs, calling it a discovery, when there's no evidence for the original gods that we describe, merely we're trying to adapt new theories for the old gods that helped us avoid the failures of our logic and/or understanding regarding the universe around us).