Kalam Cosmological argument

Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but perhaps you can show us how these actions have no cause. What leads you believe that it has no cause, especially in consideration that simply because you can't percieve of the cause does not negate the cause. The phenomenon is known as cause and effect."For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."- Sir Isaac NewtonUnless of course you are bringing the 3rd Law of Motion into question. Let me break it down for you this way.The Material Cause: is that from which a thing comes into existence as from its parts, constituents, substratum or materials. This reduces the explanation of causes to the parts (factors, elements, constituents, ingredients) forming the whole (system, structure, compound, complex, composite, or combination) (the part-whole causation).In other words, if you keep breaking down factors for what comprises any material object, at some point you will be left with nothing to actualize anything. Not even the potential for actuality exists.The Formal Cause: tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis, or archetype. It embraces the account of causes in terms of fundamental principles or general laws, as the whole (macrostructure) is the cause of its parts (the whole-part causation).The Efficient Cause: is that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. It identifies 'what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed' and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest. Representing the current understanding of causality as the relation of cause and effect, this covers the modern definitions of "cause" as either the agent, agency, particular events, or states of affairs.And this is what some of my detractors keep bringing into question. They want me to define the coefficients of all that it is actualized.The Final Cause: is that for the sake of which a thing exists, or is done - including both purposeful and instrumental actions. The final cause, or telos, is the purpose, or end, that something is supposed to serve; or it is that from which, and that to which, the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives; rational, irrational, ethical - all that gives purpose to behavior.In other words, what is any event without at least one cause? How does an event without a cause occur, when any event is defined by its cause?Causality - Wikipedia

---

“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

Hi Percy, I wouldn't be so dogmatic here. I don't usually regard your examples as uncaused. See my reply Message 40 to Ramoss earlier in the thread.

Then you explain how you can add to an infinite. Please explain how you can add to an infinite. Its very simple. And no one has answered this question. If the universe is infinite, then so is everything in it. This is obviously not the case because we have additions to the universe all the time. You are an addition. So how can you be added to the universe if the universe was always infinite? You are bringing up irrelevant uses cincerning time. You are mentioning the methods of how humans conceptualize time. We have no need of this in this particular discussion because if space exists, then so does time. How can time exist without space? What does "rather special part of the universe," mean?the only "waffling" that seems to be going on is the opposition, who keeps bringing irrelevant what-if's to the table that currently undermine the physics that govern our universe.Given our knowledge of General Relativity and theoretical physics, this cosmological argument is useless. Doesn't mean I don't believe in God, but this is no proof of His existence.

---

“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

That's not a law of cause and effect. It is a principle to be applied when measuring force. If I push against the wall, I am to conclude that the wall is pushing against me with the same force. The Material Cause: ...
The Formal Cause: ...
The Efficient Cause: ...
The Final Cause: ...That's straight from Aristotle's philosophy. It has long since been rejected by science. Most philosopers, with the exception of theologians, also reject it.

The quantum fields are not a cause of, say, an entangled electron taking on up spin instead of down spin when observed. The quantum fields describe the overall behavior and are not themselves a cause.I think you may be using a different, and in my view incorrect, definition of "cause".--Percy

If you can find no cause, then there are two possibilities:

1. There was a cause, we just haven't found it yet.
   ​
2. There was no cause.

I grant that we may one day identify causes for the events I listed. After all, science is tentative. There are no timeless truths in science. But as of today we know of no causes for these events, and we don't believe they have causes.Let me add another to my list of uncaused events:

• Virtual particles. There is nothing that causes them to flit into existence. They just do, governed by the laws of quantum physics.

--Percy

This is complete gibberish. There are aspects of our universe that may be infinite, ther are aspects that obviously are not infinite. This is a non issue. The real number line is infinitely long. Does that mean that the distance between any two points on the line is also infinite? No, of course not. Then why should the universe be any different? More gibberish. How on Earth do you get to "How can time exist without space?" from what I said? You need to slow down a bit and think. I repeat... THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH INFINITE TIME. As in, there are effects in that region that are unique to that region. Simililarly on the Earth: we are used to the four compass directions of North, South, East and West. Close to the North Pole, East and West no longer seem to be at ninety degrees to North and South, and at the North Pole there is only South.In the standard Big Bang, close to the Big Bang itself, time does not behave in the way to which we are accustomed, and at T=0, the only direction is forward in time. There is no backwards in time, for there to have been a before.The universe is four dimensional and if God created the universe (and I believe he did) then he created all four dimensions as well. This means the whole universe came into existence, but not at any particular point in our time. The Big Bang, the Big Crunch, now, yesterday and next week, are all parts of that creation. If the universe is infinite in extent (spatially and/or temporally), then exactly the same idea holds. God brings the whole universe into being... You may just want to check your understanding of the physics that governs our Universe... it is a little lacking.

Why ever not? This is precisely the idea behind decoherence. You can sit behind a wall of ignorance and treat the "collapse" as something purely random and uninvestigatable, but we can do better than that.Or are you just being picky with me saying quantum fields, as opposed to, say, some prior state of the quantum fields being the "cause" of the current state of the quantum fields?[ABE]The virtual particles you mention are even worse, as they are never observed. Observations of the Casimir Effect do not measure a succession of pings every time a virtual particle pair pops (or fails to pop) into existence. Virtual particles don't exist, they are a way of accounting for vacuum fluctuations of the field. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Before it is observed, decoherence provides no way of determining which spin the electron will have after it is observed. Which spin it will take on when observed is indeterminate. There is nothing causing it to have one spin or the other - which one is observed just happens. Marvelous persuasive technique there. Certainly I'm listening if you'd like to explain how you predict the spin before the observation. Or when the uranium atom will decay. Or which electrons will end up tunnelling through and which won't.--Percy

You mean in just the same way that when I toss a coin, there is nothing causing it to land head or tails? Which one is obeserved just happens Sorry, I've no idea. But then I'm not much good at predicting the coin either... or the height above mean sea level of the Atlantic at a specific lat, long and time.But I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say that any of these things are uncaused...

From Message 9 From this it follows that there is no time before space existed.From Message 22
Which states that there was a time when there was "nothing"However the argument for there being such a time is to insist
From Message 26
Thus for the argument to work there must be a time when there was no space.However, NJ has stated that this is impossible and thus his claims are contradictory.i

I hate to get involved in a discussion where the other posters actually know what they're talking about, but I have some questions.In physical terms, is infinity just a mathematical concept or do you see it as literally true.If time in an infinite universe is depicted as a circle would it be correct to say that the period between the BB and the BC, (or however else time as we know it ends), could be depicted as a tear drop attached to the circle so that time flows out of the large circle travels around the tear drop and then flows back into the large (infinite) circle again?I keep reading about multiple universes. I think of THE universe as being everything that is our multi-glactic system and the space in between. How do you define a universe? When Barbour talks about each moment of time being an eternal universe I can't imagine what that might look like.If we live in an infinite universe would it be reasonable to think that what existed at T=0 was infinite energy?Can you help?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Newtons Law isn't an example of cause and effect???? LOL! Okay, you're cut off. You can't even be reasoned with. I've tried to help you along the way, but your inability to climb a curb 4 inches high is no longer going to be mt burden. Long since rejected by science? Oh yes, this coming from someone who has repeatedly rejected the very notion of physical science and physical law because he doesn't know how to get around it, either scientificaly or philosophically, someone who refuses to answer the questions asked of him without, himself, answering those questions with more questions, and someone who presents baseless assertions, like, "it has long since been rejected by science." You're cut off. Talking to you deeply is like talking to my dog. Its pointless. You'll do anything, make up anything, give yourself countless excuses, just to win an argument. I can't be around somebody that subjective.

---

“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

Of course, it's what I do But perhaps a bit OT here, so can you open a thread in BB & Cosm and we can chat there. There are all sorts of interesting philosophical considerations concerning living in an infinte universe, so it could get interesting if people decide to dive in...

I've repeatedly stated that a potential infinite exists, mathematically and conceptually. I only add that the universe is NOT an infinite entity. It couldn't. And to be sure, not one person has actually answered the question. Then explain your position. This is the eigth time you've stated it, but you've backed it up with nothing, whatsoever, other than your longing for it to be true. You don't see the paradox in your approach? If the Big Bang was the beginning of time, then space-time begun at the singularity, right on down to Planck's Time. If it continues on to infinity, then so did matter and energy. This is impossible because you can't add to an infinite. The conundrum to notice is time doesn't exist without space, and matter doesn't exist without space. So how, if they are all ultimately wrapped up together, can space-time be infinite, but not matter or energy? There would be nothing wrong with that conceptually. One could argue that He continues His creation with the advent of procreation. But, even the universe could not be infinite because its being added to. That would mean that God, alone, is infinite. You grandstandingly stated that you were an ex-cosmologist. So please enlighten us by going over Craigs theorem in sequential order and explain to me how an actual infinite can exist in the physical universe. I've been waiting along time, but only one person attempted it. I've grown weary of this thread. And being that its going no where, and I have other debates going, I'm really getting disinterested in pursuing it any longer.

---

“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