|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kalam Cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Everything needs a medium to exist in. What is a thing?How does a thing exist? What is a medium? If your statement is true then does it follow that a medium needs a medium to exist in? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3895 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
If your statement is true then does it follow that a medium needs a medium to exist in I don't see how that would follow. Unless media were clearly demonstrated to be a subset of things. But how could they be? What might follow is that a medium needs a thing to enfold. (And as it happens, GR describes this situation pretty well.) So is the medium just one aspect of the thing, or vice-versa? Nothing coming from something, it's a nice start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What is a thing? Something that has mass, i.e. matter
How does a thing exist? That's what we are trying to ascertain. I say by a Creator, but I realize that an answer of such brevity would emasculate the scientific aspect.
What is a medium? Space-time. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I can't empirically prove the existence of God. No one can.
I'm glad you recognize that.
Now, that isn't to say that there aren't good arguments to support the necessity of a Creator.
There aren't any good arguments. That's why it is always easy to knock them down.
Since there is no instance where space doesn't surround matter, the burden of proof remains with you to solve the insoluble.
There is no burden here. You are the one claiming to present an argument. All I need do is find the flaws.
Seriously, how can there be matter if there is not space that it is inside of?
It's not up to me to answer that. You made the claim it is impossible, so it is up to you to establish the impossibility.
It isn't any one law, but the conglomerate of all the laws of physics.
Then you should be able to take the laws, and use formal logic to conglomerate them in such a way as to prove your assertion. But I won't hold my breath waiting, for I doubt that it can be done.
Being that nothing has ever spanwed from nothing, then, again, the burden of proof lies with you to solve the insoluble.
Again, that's no burden for me. You are the one claiming to have an argument, so it is up to you to support that claim. All I need do is point out the problems (such as undemonstrated assumptions).
How can you say that I'm making bare assertions, when your argument is thus far tantamount to, "why?" "Why not?" "You don't know that for sure." That isn't an argument and you've neglected to answer my questions. You just answer my questions with more questions of your own.
I'm not making an argument. I am merely pointing out the holes in your argument.
Right after I said that, I said that it was a belief of mine for a lack of any other theorem. You haven't given me a theorum that doesn't consist of the pre-existence of energy/matter/space/time.
The difference is that I haven't claimed to be making an argument. I simply accept that the world exists. I don't have to explain how it got here. Likewise, you could just accept that the world exists. You could even express your belief in a creator. Your problem comes when you claim to have an argument to support such a creation.
But I suspect that you can understand that because you are a strict naturalist, you are bound by naturalism and its applicable laws.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't even know what it means to be a strict naturalist. And I certainly don't claim to be something that I don't know what it means.
I propose that you plead the fifth with my alternative theory, which is, the beginning of this universe could have been the end of another that had the creative power to create this universe. That way you don't neccesarily have to break any laws of physics in this universe, but you can't disprove it either.
I'm not sure why I would need to "plead the fifth." I don't go around denying "could have been"s unless I can prove that it couldn't have been. If you had merely said that there could have been a creator, I would not have challenged that.
Its a very safe position for an atheist.
You have no idea whether or not I am an atheist. I keep my own religous views out of the debate.
Its not circular! Time can't exist without space. Matter can't exist without space. Its a very, very simple concept. That isn't circular.
You are still asserting what has been challenged in your argument. If you don't want those to be challenged, you should lay them out at the beginning as assumed premises. Hmm, come to think of it, assumed premises can still be challenged, but in most cases people will simple reject the argument if they find the premises unpersuasive. It makes your argument more honest if you explicitly state the assumptions.
I have repeated it several times to you, both using physics and philosophy.
Repeating it multiple times does not make it true.
I already explained to you that a singularity was necessary. This is becoming annoying.
As has been pointed out, the singularity need only be a virtual point. It's a mistake to say that the world began at a singularity. You yourself have denied actual infinities, so you ought to be a bit skeptical of actual singularities. The singularity is the limiting asymptotic value if we trace the history of the cosmos backwards. But an asymptote is virtual. There is no basis for saying that the universe itself was ever at the point of singularity. That's where you run into problems with your assumption that there had to be a beginning. Given any time, maybe there had to be an earlier time. It doesn't follow that there had to be an earliest time.
You've ruled out the Creator as a priori.
You have no basis for asserting that.
The fact is, the universe we live in is bound by rules that I didn't make up or have any control over. It is what it is. And its demonstrable. They are so reliable that they decided to call it a "law." Its never ever been proven to be broken. Your position is very precarious.
Then I had better state my position on laws, since you have it wrong. I take it that our laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Nature has no obligation to obey our scientific laws, except when those laws are analytic (logically necessary on account of the meanings of the terms). I take our scientific laws to be human constructs, as part of the scientific enterprise of describing the world as accurately as possible and for the benefit of making highly probably predictions. If our laws are highly reliable, that's an indication that the scientists have done there work well. If we later toss those laws (as we rejected Newtonian mechanics for relativity), that only supports the conclusion that these laws are human constructs.
Intellectual scam? You've provided NO theorem whatsoever.
It is well known that with logic you can only prove what is contained in the assumptions. You can find that stated in many books on logic and many philosophy books.
All you've done is ask me why the Laws of physics exist and we you aren't allowed to break the rules.
I have done no such thing. I have questioned your assumptions. I have not questioned any laws of physics.
The Kalam argument is impenetrable aside from the alternate universe theory.
The argument is impenetrable only to those whose thinking is so fuzzy that they cannot see the transparent circularity.
Your lack to grasp the concepts isn't a failure on my part or Dr. Craig's or Kalam himself.
Now that's hilarious. It is your failure that you don't even understand the concepts well enough to see why I am objecting to your assumptions.
But if you are gonna call me gullible, a cultist, fundamentally dishonest, only because you have NO argument whatsoever, then the discussion is over.
I applied that terminology to fundamentalists. I did not apply it to you. It is not up to me to decide whether you are a fundamentalist. Presenting the argument in a debate is very different from using it to recruit people into an ideology. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Unless media were clearly demonstrated to be a subset of things. But how could they be? I am seeking a clarifying identification. Sounds is a phenomena of compression waves in a material medium either solid, fluid, or gas. So that is one use of the word media, the one I'm most familiar with where the media is matter. I'm thinking that matter is a form of energy when examined at the sub atomic level. I'm not familiar with GR definition of media. I'm not that educated in physics. And the idea that matter required a media, or that space time could be regarded as a media is new to me. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
So you are referring to particles, atoms, molecules and their aggregates as things.
Are you just asking how matter/energy came into existence? Why there is the universe of matter/energy space/time rather than nothing? OR, are you asking about the various aggregates that we observe such as stars, planets, rocks, or living organisms and their artefacts? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3895 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
the idea that matter required a media, or that space time could be regarded as a media Oh, sorry, that's just linguistics. I'm making the assumption that at least part of the time he's trying to talk about physics and translating thusly on-the-fly. I see spacetime as a function of matter, specifically density at velocity. That's the sort of thing GR describes, to be honest this medium bullshit sounds more like the old luminiferous ether. But it's better to give people the benefit of the doubt right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
But you and I are additions to the affairs of the universe and so is everything else. Therefore, the universe could not be infinite. That's the philosophical aspect. I'm seeking more clarification of terms and referents. 'You' and 'I' are refering to our conscious idea of ourselves, or to the existence of the physical organism? Once that is cleared up I'm intrigued by your phrase "are additions to the affairs of the universe and so is everything else". If all the events in the universe are not the universe but are additions, what then in your view are the affairs of the universe? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
the infinite is not material. And the material, to me, is mass/energy/time/space. what's beyond that is God. Here you aren't using material as synonymous with matter, but with mass/energy/time/space. What about consciousness? material or immaterial in your view? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Computer scientists are capable of creating virtual worlds and of influencing those virtual worlds, while they themselves are not part of the virtual worlds they create. I think this depends on how you are defining a "self" and that is a slippery propostion. In one sense a self is a virtual world created by an organism. That virtual world can identify itself in a myriad of shifting ways and if it creates a virtual world it can choose variously to identify or disidentify with it but there are senses in which it is always a part of it, as well as senses that it is not a part of it. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
No one in their right mind would attempt to determine a causal chain of events that led to that wavelet at that place at that time with those characteristics... but that does not mean that the causal chain does not exist. But many Buddhists would take that as a perfect example that everything happens as a result of many interdependent causes. It's not a chain of individual causes 1,2,3 but a net in which the air, the sun, the earth, organisms in the sea and air and on the land all interact and that wave in turn affects all those things to varying degrees even though many may be so tiny as to be immeasurable. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Again, these are difficult concepts because all we KNOW is energy, matter, space, time. By KNOW do you mean symbolically model? Sensually consciously experience? or? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It's not a chain of individual causes 1,2,3 but a net in which the air, the sun, the earth, organisms in the sea and air and on the land all interact and that wave in turn affects all those things to varying degrees even though many may be so tiny as to be immeasurable. Obviously And check out msg 89 for an answer to your ponders on space-time and media. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I see spacetime as a function of matter, specifically density at velocity. That's the sort of thing GR describes No, it's not. From GR we do actually have a concept of medium or ether - it is the metric field - and it exists entirely separate from any concept of matter. The most "pure" GR solutions, such as black holes, have no matter at all. Our universe at our current level of understanding is a sandwich of layers: the metric field, the gauge fields, and the matter fields. The extent and topology of these fields define the extent and topology of the universe. The metric field provides a concept of structure and distance to the universe, and as such is reasonably described as a medium. However, to appreciate this fully, you also have to understand what we mean by matter... which certainly is not the common understanding (as potrayed throughout this sub-thread for example).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The Kalam argument is impenetrable aside from the alternate universe theory. No it is not... but you refuse to engage me on this I don't bite, promise...
Your lack to grasp the concepts isn't a failure on my part or Dr. Craig's or Kalam himself The problem is that all three of you (you, Craig and Kalam ) do not understand General Relativity and cosmology to a sufficient degree to realise that the "argument" is out-of-date. Not that I can blame any of you as this is way beyond any undergraduate phsyics, never mind "The Universe in a Nutshell" and lesser books and articles. But I can blame you for continuing to try to push this argument when its inadequacies have been pointed out... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024