Kalam Cosmological argument

We should also point out that there is some reason to think this is exactly the case.This site refers to an article in the July 1 "New Scientist".
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=...I'll see if I can get a non-subscription link to the article.The centre of it is this quote from Stenger:

quote:

---

The Laws of Physics are the Laws of Nothing. The Universe shares this Law of Nothing, but something came from nothing because something is more stable than nothing.

---

Don't get into a knot about what "nothing" is. It is ony standing in for a complex concept.

Yes, these are the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. Good mathematics, poor choice of words in our present context. The theorems state that if you follow back in time far enough, you always reach a singularity.In terms of my analogy, this simply means that as you go North, you will inevitably hit a North Pole, rather than just keep heading North. The "beginning" is just one end of the time dimension. The North Pole is the "beginning" of lines of longitude, but is still not a beginning of the Earth.Hawking then went on with Hartle some years later to develop the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Proposal, which is a nifty bit of quantum gravity that enables you to remove the unpleasant singularity of the Big Bang, and replace it with a nice smooth "cap", thus moving even closer to my globe/Earth analogy.It should be said that the singularity theorems only hold under some reasonable assumptions surrounding General Relativity, space-time and matter. If these assumptions are relaxed (such as can be done in String Theory) then the singularity theorems can be avoided.

nice double-speaknow for you 2 premise's swap universe and creator around , tweek the rest a little and you have shown the universe creates god ...hmmm .actual infinities can exsist in the human mind , we can think in that way , therefore they are as valid as all other exsistance .and to finish ,the universe can into exsistancethe creator is the cause of the universecause lead to action ie the creation .cause to action is a sequence with direction A to Ba sequence needs time to give it directionthe act of creation is a time bound eventthe creator had a part in the creationthe creator was part of a time bound eventthe creator is part of and event which is a change .. from no universe to a universethus the creator is part of a change .thus the creator is neither timeless or changlessif the creator is with out begining time is infiniteif time is infinite there are actual infinitiestherefore to all intent the universe is part of an infinityso when did is come into exsistance ??

I did answer it. We know the universe had a beginning both empirically and philosophically. If the universe had no beginning and was infinite, then you couldn't add to it. You too would be eternal because you are in the universe. 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.We also know that the universe had a beginning because of observation. If the universe is expanding in any way, then it isn't infinite, because again, you can't add to an infinite. If space itself is expanding, then that's highly indicative that it had a beginning. But even should the Big Bang theory should fail, what doesn't fail is that you can't add to an infinite. Therfore, the universe had to have begun. Because you'd still have to reconcile how something, or this case, everything, comes from nothing. Again, we know that the universe had a beginning. If it didn't, then the earth would be the same age as the universe, because you can't add to an infinite or subtract. stars wouldn't burn out because they'd be eternal. Since we know that the universe had a beginning then everything spawned from nothing, which totally defies logic, or it was created by the one thing that is eternal. There is no other option. Now, again, we don't have to define what that sentience is. We should, however, recognize that it must exist out of necessity. There isn't much to argue. An actual infinte does not exist in the material world, including space-time, and everything can't come from nothing. So the logical deduction is.....?You are not addressing the actual issue here. You are quibbling over semantics instead of presenting your exegesis.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The only thing metric, or measurable about time that is the abstract and arbitrary concepts of increments that humans have assigned for our own clarity. (i.e. seconds, minutes, hours, etc). But time exists because space could not without it. And matter and energy could not exist without them. So it all coincides and is consolidated into one in essence. What was beyond time-space, no one can truly conceptualize because we are bound by these pesky little laws of physics.But seriously, think about it. Either nothing at all, in the truest sense of word, nothing, must have created everything. Or it was created by the only thing that is eternal. God, the Creator, Purple-flying elephants, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc... Because if the universe has an "end" then it also has a beginning. For you to determine what an "end" is, it only stands in relation to a beginning. Just like light and dark, good and bad, up and down, left and right, port and starboard. The two only exist in relation to one another. They have no meaning apart from one another. Hawkings, "What's north of the North Pole," argument is only validated by something finite, which the earth is. Yes, but again, the earth is finite piece of mass in which one could quantify or even predict where it begins or ends, depending on where you are standing at that particular moment. And as you said about the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, any process that begins has a finite point in where its energy will cease. I do believe that the universe is finite, but that's only because I believe that it has a beginning. Beyond the finite is the infinite, and the infinite is not material. And the material, to me, is mass/energy/time/space. what's beyond that is God. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

No you still haven't answered the question form Message 4. Your "response" doesn't even address the issue I raised.Your defence of the first poitn also fails to acknowledge the poitn I raised.

quote:

---

Because you'd still have to reconcile how something, or this case, everything, comes from nothing

---

This doesn't answer my point and it's yet another false assumption. I don't have to assume that "nothing" preceded our universe. I don't even have to assume that it is meaningful to talk about a state of affairs prior to our universe.

quote:

---

There isn't much to argue. An actual infinte does not exist in the material world, including space-time, and everything can't come from nothing. So the logical deduction is.....?

---

If we accepted those claims there are several possible conclusions. One is that time begins with our universe already existing in some form which does not require assuming an actual infinite, everything coming from nothing - or a cause for our universe.We should also conclude that you are not debating in good faith because the points under discussion are part of the argument for the supposed first cause being personal - not for there being some sort of first cause.

quote:

---

You are not addressing the actual issue here. You are quibbling over semantics instead of presenting your exegesis

---

Since you clearly have not read my post, you are in no position to make any such claim.

Okay, I've read and reread Message 4 several times. I think I've answered it properly, but you say that I haven't. So could clarify what you mean and what I'm not answering? There was nothing, then there was everything. "Nothing" doesn't even have the potential to make it actual. Something had to precipitate the action. Why would any pragmatic person dismiss the beginning of time itself as inconsequential? You can only account for Planck's Time, granted, but you only have a few options from which to choose.1. The universe is infinite.
2. The universe spawned from absolute nothingness.
3. The universe was created.Premise one fails because if the universe is infinite, then the Big Bang is proved false and because you can't add to infinity.Premise two fails because never have have the immutable laws of physcis been supplanted. Heck, physics didn't even exist.Therefore, premise three, though not verified 100% is the only attractive solution to the answer. Because spcae can't exist at all without time. Time can't begin after space was already present. How am I not debating in good faith? If its just a "supposed First Cause," then the Big Bang doesn't exist. If it's suposed then the universe isn't 14 billion years old either. Its timeless. And if its timeless, then you must not have been born, but rather existed eternally with the universe because you are an extension of it. You haven't presented any argument. You're just using semantics, presumably to detract from the actual argument. You're neglecting the aspects of the argument.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I really can't beleive that you felt that you answered the question - not after I repeated it in Message 11 for your benefit and you haven't even addressed the issue. THe question, again, is

quote:

---

Consider the definition of "beginning". If past time is finite, as Craig argues, does something that exists at the very start of time have a beginning ? If the answer is not a clear "yes" then how can we say that the Universe has a beginning ?

---

quote:

---

There was nothing, then there was everything

---

That is just your assertion. You need to argue for it.

quote:

---

Why would any pragmatic person dismiss the beginning of time itself as inconsequential?

---

I don't know. I consider it important enough to try to discuss the philosophical implications. And you apparently can't even see the question, even though I repeated it for your benefit.

quote:

---

Because spcae can't exist at all without time. Time can't begin after space was already present.

---

This is not a valid objection. It is not equired that space exists BEFORE time because that is meaningless. THe issue is whether space exists AT the beginning of time.

quote:

---

How am I not debating in good faith?

---

By completely ignoring the content of the message you were replying to. The only content of the earlier post relating to the "First Cause" part of the Kalam argument was the question of "beginning" and how it relates to the start of time. The rest was all about the arguemnt for a PERSONAL first cause - which you completely ignored and continue to ignore.

quote:

---

You haven't presented any argument. You're just using semantics, presumably to detract from the actual argument. You're neglecting the aspects of the argument.

---

I've been pointing out problems in the Kalam argument. Which is what I said I'd do. And apparently you can't answer them, because you keep ignoring them. Even when I use your own numbering scheme you apparently can't work out which part of the argument I'm talking about ! So please, drop the false accusations and actually deal with my points.

What? Everything in the physical universe happens because something else caused it. In fact, name me one thing in the physical universe that happens or exists apart from cause. It may seem unfair to you, but it is the only option left. Something had to be uncaused at some point, and thing has to completely spearate from anything physical. All things in the material universe exist or happen because something caused it.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Actual infinities only exist in the human mind, because you have no demonstrable basis for assuming that they do. An assertion contrary to it would be just that, an assertion. And this is where I stop you because this is where your logic breaks down. The Creator is completely separate from the creation. The potential for a Creator to create the universe was always there and will always be there. No change. Time isn't infinite because space and time are conjoined. One doesn't exist without the other, and because space had a finite beginning, then so did time. Therefore, the point still stands.But maybe someone can come up with an actual theory that makes any sense instead of trying to refute the obvious, which is the necessity of a Creator.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Being that matter or energy cannot exist except in space-time, then the answer is, yes. Matter only exists in relation to the space it encompasses and the time at which it was created or procreated.Now answer my question(s):1. Do you believe that observation supports the Big Bang model?
2. Do you believe that the universe is infinite?And support your answers with a reason. I did answer it. The answer to the question is obvious. Matter can't exist without space and space can't exist without time. Time cannot possibly be infinite, therefore, it had a beginning. If it had a beginning then how can nothing cause everything when nothing doesn't have the potential to cause anything? That means something, I don't care what you want to call it, must be eternal simply by default for the universe to be actual. Does that make sense? Space can't exist at all, WITHOUT time. They're the same thing! So how can space have been present if time wasn't? So what was the First Cause? I assume that you recognize that something caused the universe. That thing can only be separate from energy/matter/space/time. Now connect the dots. The only problem you have with the Kalam argument is that it undermines everything you believe, which is total capriciousness. For however vague you've been concerning your points, I've still manage to gather that you have no counter argument. I think I've more than sufficiently answered your questions logically, logically enough that even a laymen can understand it in principle. You have no leg to stand on.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

quote:

---

Being that matter or energy cannot exist except in space-time, then the answer is, yes. Matter only exists in relation to the space it encompasses and the time at which it was created or procreated.

---

Perhaps you can explain the logic here. If something exists AT the start of time - if there is no time when it does not exist, does it have a beginning. If so, why ? WHen you have answered that you will have answered my question

quote:

---

1. Do you believe that observation supports the Big Bang model?
2. Do you believe that the universe is infinite?

---

To 1, I defer to the overwhelming majority of expert opinion that the Big Bang model is supported by evidence. However I note that the model does NOT reliably go back to the very begi nning because we lack the theoretical undertstanding to produce such a model.On 2, I need simply point out that our universe itself appears to be finite. However that does not rule out the possibility that our universe is part of something larger, whi ch might be infinite.

quote:

---

I did answer it. The answer to the question is obvious. Matter can't exist without space and space can't exist without time.

---

Well you're wrong on both points. The fact that your "because" is a complete non-sequi tur shows that the answer isn't at all obvious to you.

quote:

---

Space can't exist at all, WITHOUT time. They're the same thing! So how can space have been present if time wasn't?

---

I didn;t claim that space existed before time. I stated that space existed AT the start of time. If the two are the same thing then one cannot exist without the other QED. Thanks for proving me right.

quote:

---

So what was the First Cause? I assume that you recognize that something caused the universe. That thing can only be separate fromenergy/matter/space/time. Now connect the dots.

---

I don't accept that the argumets for a First Cause are conclusive. ANd if something exists outside our universe there's no reaon why it has to be a complex ordered entity. But we don't know enough to say at this point (and if our universe is a bubble of space/time embedded in a larger universe then the cause of our universe doesn't need to be outside of space/time - just outside of our bubble).

quote:

---

The only problem you have with the Kalam argument is that it undermines everything you believe, which is total capriciousness

---

I asked you to stop making the false accusations. If the problems I am producing aren't real then how come you aren't managing to answer them ?

quote:

---

or however vague you've been concerning your points, I've still manage to gather that you have
no counter argument.

---

i.e. without even bothering tol isten to my arguments you've decided they're no good. We both know that you haven't managed to address my points. We both know that you didn't even manage to work out which part of the Kalam argument I was talking about in Message 11 let alone actually address the points I raised.

quote:

---

I think I've more than sufficiently answered your questions logically, logically enough that even a laymen can understand it in principle. You have no leg to stand on.

---

Even a ,layman should be able to see that you haven't addressed my points, and that instead you've dragged up irrelevancies and false accusations. Consequently it seems that you are lacking a leg to stand on. Because if you had one you wouldn't be trying to pretend you've won some sort of "victory" when you haven't even worked out what my arguments are.

You are using conflicting premises. And this is probably why I couldn't understand you, because it makes no sense. If something exists AT the start of time, then there is no time that it could have existed. According the defered experts, it goes back to Planck's Time, which 10 to the -43 seconds after the universe began. That's the singularity. That's the beginning. If the experts can quantify it down to the smallest fraction of time, then isn't that sufficient evidence for you? Something larger and something that isn't composed of matter, energy, space, or time. Its called, GOD. what is your aversion to the concept? Seriously... Pffft!!! I've been saying it all along! And you just cinched your own noose.You know what? I've dismantled your argument. You're just floundering and flailing about at this point. Kalam stands firm.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

quote:

---

You are using conflicting premises. And this is probably why I couldn't understand you, because it makes no sense. If something exists AT the start of time, then there is no time that it could have existed.

---

No, I'm not using conflicting premises. There is time at the start of time by definition. To say otherwse would be to assert that there was a time when time did not exist - and THAT woudl be conflicting premises.So it is your "answer" that does not make sense.

quote:

---

According the defered experts, it goes back to Planck's Time, which 10 to the -43 seconds after the universe began. That's the singularity. That's the beginning. If the experts can quantify it down to the smallest fraction of time, then isn't that sufficient evidence for you?

---

Sufficient evidence for what ?

quote:

---

Something larger and something that isn't composed of matter, energy, space, or time. Its called, GOD. what is your aversion to the concept? Seriously...

---

I did not say or imply that if there is something outside the universe it does not include spacetiem or mass/energy. We have the large spacetime of Eternal Inflation as an example. Or we could refer to the branes of the ekpyrotic theory.THe objection to concluding "God" is that it is an unnecessary assumption. But of course that gets into the area that I really wanted to discuss - and which you've been avoiding. THe case for a personal cause of the universe.

quote:

---

Pffft!!! I've been saying it all along! And you just cinched your own noose.

---

I have to laugh about this. You tried to prove one of my statements wrong by agreeing with it and you think that hurts MY position ?

quote:

---

You know what? I've dismantled your argument. You're just floundering and flailing about at this point. Kalam stands firm.

---

No, you're just floundering and flailing without dealing with my argument. And because of that I haven't even presented my full case yet. I'm spending most of the time dealing with your misrepresentatiosn and failures to comprehend.So forget the false declarations of victory. You haven't even managed to understand - let alone refute - my objections to the Kalam argument.n

Generation of virtual particles. Radioactive decay.