What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[leroy]

No, the evidence we have so far *suggests* that time is finite into the past and that therefore the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

That is different than 'coming into existence', which implies a time before the universe existed. That is what is likely to be false based on our evidence.

But, as has been pointed out, the evidence is inconclusive because the known physical laws simply don't apply past a certain point (we don't have a quantum theory of gravity that has been tested).

Ok so we agree on something, the evidence suggests that the universe is not past infinite.

That has been my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well justify your asertion

What is special pleading and why am I doing it?

You are trying to claim that the universe needs a first cause when by the same "logic" so would your creator. You can't get away from that by using an unjustified definition.

What am I suppose to answer ?

You quoted it.

Yes my error (once again) is expecting clear and direct answers from you.

I gave a clear and direct answer. You did not understand it.

 

[leroy]

How on Earth could you possibly know that God did not begin to exist?

It strikes me as a sort of begging the question to assume characteristics of God before you've even demonstrated that God exists at all (since I assume a proof of God is what you're going for with Kalaam plus all the extra baggage you added to it in the OP).

To say that God begun to exist is logically incoherent. But it is also irrelevant. For the sake of this thread we can asume that God had a cause If you whant

As far as the KCA is concerned, the universe had a cause. Whether if God had a cause or not is irelevant and beyond the scope of the KCA

 

[shunyadragon]

Steinhardt model even if successfull fails to eliminate the necessity of a beginning, not to mention that it is highly speculative , not testable and inconsistent with observations.

Please provide a scientific source that confirms your claim above. Steinhardt hypothesis as defined has no beginning.

Steinhardt is a theoretical cosmologist and you are not qualified to make these claims without references.

Will you ever provide evidence for an past eternal universe?

Evidence? There is no more evidence for the bgv theorem than there is for the Steinhardt hypothesis.

You have not responded to my posts pointing out your misrepresentation of the bgv theorem.

Cyclic universes and multiverse models are not past eternal as has been proven by the bgv theorem.

Misinformed. The bgv theorem does no such thing. First, the bgv theorem leads to the existence of the multiverse hypothesis which may exist within a greater physical existence. According to the authors they even acknowledged alternatives to their hypothesis.

Direct quote from the bgv theorem authors

From: https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

The BGV theorem is pretty simple. If you have a space time that is expanding exponentially fast everywhere, and you go back in time, then at some point it must have had a beginning.

However, if you have a multiverse, then you don't have a universe that is expanding everywhere so the BGV doesn't apply, and the theorem does not apply if there are parts of the universe which are static or contracting. There are also some interesting issues with "averaging" when you are dealing with an infinite universe.

It also doesn't stop you from having a cyclic universe, that expands then contracts then expands. It also doesn't stop you from having in infinite universe, if the universe is expanding, but not exponentially.

I will cite more from this reference. I will continue to respond with first author scientific references, which you have failed to do.

 

[leroy]

You are trying to claim that the universe needs a first cause when by the same "logic" so would your creator. You can't get away from that by using an unjustified definition.

What " same logic"? Using "my logic" show that God would also require a cause.

You quoted it.



I gave a clear and direct answer. You did not understand it.

I don't know what am I suppose to answer, if you whant an answer from me you have to clarify and explain the question..,....

If you don't whant an answer then you don't have to clarify anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To say that God begun to exist is logically incoherent. But it is also irrelevant. For the sake of this thread we can asume that God had a cause If you whant

As far as the KCA is concerned, the universe had a cause. Whether if God had a cause or not is irelevant and beyond the scope of the KCA

And you still cannot see your special pleading fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What " same logic"? Using "my logic" show that God would also require a cause.

Yes, I used scare quotes because you are not reasoning consistently. All you have to do is to apply the same argument that you use for the universe.

I don't know what am I suppose to answer, if you whant an answer from me you have to clarify and explain the question..,....

If you don't whant an answer then you don't have to clarify anything.

Really? You did understand that?

I said that you would be unable to explain how the universe could have had a beginning and still be eternal. Or do you think you can do that?

 

[leroy]

Please provide a scientific source that confirms your claim above. Steinhardt hypothesis as defined has no beginning.

Steinhardt is a theoretical cosmologist and you are not qualified to make these claims without references.

Sure, I can provide a source

Another possibility could be a universe which cycles through an infinite series
of big bang followed by expansion, contraction into a crunch that transitions
into the next big bang [4]. A potential problem with such a cyclic universe is
that the entropy must continue to increase through each cycle, leading to
a “thermal death” of the universe. This can be avoided if the volume of the
universe increases through each cycle as well, allowing the ratio S/V to remain
finite [5]. But if the volume continues to increase over each cycle, Hav > 0,
meaning that the universe is past-incomplete.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1jpaw41G741V0BqWKa2gpA


The point is that even if cyclic models where true, they would not be past infinite.

Evidence? There is no more evidence for the bgv theorem than there is for the Steinhardt hypothesis.

Ok, for the sake of this thread let's assume that steinhart model is true. The universe still had a beginning.

You have not responded to my posts pointing out your misrepresentation of the bgv theorem.

Because I didn't miss represent it. According to the theorem any universe that is on average in a state of expansion is geodesically past incomplete. (Meaning that it had a beginning) cyclic models are "expanding models." Therefore they are not past eternal.


Direct quote from the bgv theorem authors

From: https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

The BGV theorem is pretty simple. If you have a space time that is expanding exponentially fast everywhere, and you go back in time, then at some point it must have had a beginning.

Yes agree.

However, if you have a multiverse, then you don't have a universe that is expanding everywhere so the BGV doesn't apply, and the theorem does not apply if there are parts of the universe which are static or contracting. There are also some interesting issues with "averaging" when you are dealing with an infinite universe.

It also doesn't stop you from having a cyclic universe, that expands then contracts then expands. It also doesn't stop you from having in infinite universe, if the universe is expanding, but not exponentially.

I will cite more from this reference. I will continue to respond with first author scientific references, which you have failed to do.

The paper that I quoted explains why multiverses and cyclic universes do not avoid the bgv theorem .in both cases the universe / multiverse would be expanding on average (even if some regions are contracting)

 

[joelr]

[

The claim is not that everything requires a cause

The claim is that everything that begins to excist require a cause.

If you whant to argue that God requires a cause, you would have to show that God begun to excist......

Why would god not begin to exist?

 

[joelr]

The point is that even if cyclic models where true, they would not be past infinite.

That's a narrow view based on what you can conceive.
You're assuming your understanding of reality is the ultimate boundary to which reality can operate.

We already have transfinite cardinals that go well beyond infinity. There are also mathematical proofs to demonstrate their existence. Cantor proved there are infinite levels to infinity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure, I can provide a source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1jpaw41G741V0BqWKa2gpA


The point is that even if cyclic models where true, they would not be past infinite.



Ok, for the sake of this thread let's assume that steinhart model is true. The universe still had a beginning.

As cited from Steinhardt and the paper on the bgv theorem cyclic universes can be past infinite, Yes,Steinhardt's cyclic universe hypothesis may be different from the bgv theorem, but at present there is insufficient evidence to determine whic his correct. You have NOT provided a specific reference that refutes Steinhardt.

Because I didn't miss represent it. According to the theorem any universe that is on average in a state of expansion is geodesically past incomplete. (Meaning that it had a beginning) cyclic models are "expanding models." Therefore they are not past eternal.

Incomplete response and misrepresentation continues. The citation states specifically cyclic models are "expanding and contracting models" therefore possibly past infinite. Regardless multiverses are.possibly past infinite, and it is possible to multiple multiverses,

Again from the paper: "It also doesn't stop you from having a cyclic universe, that expands then contracts then expands. It also doesn't stop you from having in infinite universe, if the universe is expanding, but not exponentially.

Please note

Direct quote from the bgv theorem authors

From: https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

Yes agree.

. . . but incomplete response. Yes,universes may be past infinite, but as cited the bgv theorem does not apply to multiverse.

The paper that I quoted explains why multiverses and cyclic universes do not avoid the bgv theorem .in both cases the universe / multiverse would be expanding on average (even if some regions are contracting)

Incomplete response misrepresenting the bgv theorem as a whole.

Again . . . and it is not resolved in science that our physical existence had a beginning. As far as our particular universe, the scientist propose and present evidence that our universe BEGAN as a singularity in a multiverse by NATURAL (Vilenkin) causes, or is cyclic and eternal by NATURAL causes with no beginning by Steinhardt,

All beginnings can possible have natural causes by the objective verifiable evidence. There is no other evidence of unnatural causes.

 

[leroy]

As cited from Steinhardt and the paper on the bgv theorem cyclic universes can be past infinite, Yes,Steinhardt's cyclic universe hypothesis may be different from the bgv theorem, but at present there is insufficient evidence to determine whic his correct. You have NOT provided a specific reference that refutes Steinhardt.



Incomplete response and misrepresentation continues. The citation states specifically cyclic models are "expanding and contracting models" therefore possibly past infinite. Regardless multiverses are.possibly past infinite, and it is possible to multiple multiverses,

Again from the paper: "t also doesn't stop you from having a cyclic universe, that expands then contracts then expands. It also doesn't stop you from having in infinite universe, if the universe is expanding, but not exponentially.

Please note

Direct quote from the bgv theorem authors

From: https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf




. . . but incomplete response. Yes,universes may be past infinite, but as cited the bgv theorem does not apply to multiverse.



Incomplete response misrepresenting the bgv theorem as a whole.

Again . . . and it is not resolved in science that our physical existence had a beginning. As far as our particular universe, the scientist propose and present evidence that our universe BEGAN as a singularity in a multiverse by NATURAL (Vilenkin) causes, or is cyclic and eternal by NATURAL causes with no beginning by Steinhardt,

All beginnings can possible have natural causes by the objective verifiable evidence. There is no other evidence of unnatural causes.

If you whant a complete response then read the paper that I quoted, it explains why cyclic universes (and multiverses) can't be infinite in to the past.

So even if Steinhart is correct and the universe is cyclic it wouldn't be star sl in to the past .

If you disagree, then read the paper and explain why are the authors wrong.

also doesn't stop you from having a cyclic universe, that expands then contracts then expands

Yes the paper deals with that scenario.

Such a universe would be in a state of heat death, to avoid heat death you can stablish that each cycle is larger than the previous , but in such case you would not avoid the bgv theorem.

You have NOT provided a specific reference that refutes Steinhardt.

Fine, let's assume that Steinhart is correct, my point (as shown in the paper that I quoted) is that even if Steinhartd model is true, the universe would not be past eternal.

 

[leroy]

All you have to do is to apply the same argument that you use for the universe.

Which arguments? Why dont you apply them (using my logic) and show that God would also require a cause.

Really? You did understand that?

I said that you would be unable to explain how the universe could have had a beginning and still be eternal. Or do you think you can do that?

No I can't do that, and I don't understand why am I suppose to explain it (given that this is not what I am arguing)

And btw I still don't ubderunder what are you talking about. Did I ever claim that the universe is eternal and had a beginning?

 

[leroy]

[



Why would god not begin to exist?

Because God has always existed

 

[Koldo]

In my experience atheists tend to dance around the KCA but they usually don't explain with clear words their point of disagreement.

1. 
   In this context "universe" means " all phisical reality" (including time) universe simply means all the natural world.

1. 
   The claim is that regardless if there was something before the big bang or not , there was an absolute begining at some point in the past.

So what is wrong with the KCA? Do you agree with premise 1? Do you agree with premise 2? Does the conclusion follows from the premises?

What exactly do you think is wrong with the argument? Please try to provide direct and clear answers.

There are only 3 alternatives

1 the universe (the physical/ natural world) came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 the universe has always existed, it is eternal

3 the universe has a cause (which by definition would have to be a supernatural cause)

So which one of these 3 alternatives do you pick? Or perhaps there is a fourth option that I haven't thought about.

To say the Universe began to exist implies there was a time before the universe existed. I don't think that is truly applicable, therefore I don't see why premise 2 should be accepted.

 

[leroy]

Again . . . and it is not resolved in science that our physical existence had a beginning.

.

Things are very simple , if you whant to argue that the universe y past infinite you would have to argue that.

1 there was something before the big bang, which is highly speculative and unparsimonious.

2 that this "something" is geodesically past complete. And avoids the bgv theorem

3 then you have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics, if the universe is past eternal then why don't we have 100% entropy?

4 if the universe is eternal, then it would be dominated by Boltzmann brains, implying that you are almost certainly a Boltzmann brain, and that the world that you inverse is an illusion.

5 if there was "something eternal " before the big bang then it remains inexplicable why did the big bang occured 13B years ago. How do you go from - infinity to 13b years ago?

6 you would have to show that the concept of an actual infinite is logically coherent.

While if you grant that the universe is past finite you can avoid all of these points , things are simpler if you accept that the universe had a beginning

 

[leroy]

To say the Universe began to exist implies there was a time before the universe existed. I don't think that is truly applicable, therefore I don't see why premise 2 should be accepted.

Why can't we say that the universe ( including time) begun to excist at the big bang 13 B years ago? To me that is the simplest explanation

 

[Polymath257]

Ok so we agree on something, the evidence suggests that the universe is not past infinite.

That has been my point.

No, your point was that this requires a cause. And that isn't the case, as I (and others) have explained. The KCA argument fails in many different ways, but worst in its first assumption.

 

[shunyadragon]

Things are very simple , if you whant to argue that the universe y past infinite you would have to argue that.

I will respond to all of this, but the list is long and I will take some at a time. In summary the reflect Christian Creationist apologist agenda, and not legitimate science and math. All known causes for the beginnings in the nature of our physical existence have an adequate natural explanation. No unnatural explanations have been discovered.

It is fundamentally unknown whether the nature of our physical is infinite and eternal or not.

1 there was something before the big bang, which is highly speculative and unparsimonious.

Your resorting to the fallacy of'arguing from ignorance,' and unethically selectively misusing science such as the bgv theorem, which coherently proposes a multiverse based on evidence.

2 that this "something" is geodesically past complete. And avoids the bgv theorem.

Again as above you are unethically playing both sides of the fence, In the above you challenge the conclusions of the bgv theorem, and here misuse it to justify your conclusions. Like others who have an agenda must realize that the bgv theorem is not gospel and completely accepted by all scientists.

The bgv theorem does NOT conclude that our physical existence is not past infinite, and as cited it acknowledges alternative alternatives to the nature of our physical existence beyond our universe. Your not acknowledging the clear and specific reference I provided that the authors stated that the bgv theorem ONLY applies to the universe have a beginning, and NOT the multiverse, and NOT an 'absolute beginning' of anything.

3 then you have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics, if the universe is past eternal then why don't we have 100% entropy?

Your ignorance of science here is appalling, It is fundamentally known that the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to the Macro world of a time space relationships of energy and matter of our universe, and NOT to the Quantum Mechanics of the world on the Quantum scale, which would be the nature of existence beyond any possible universe including our own..

There is a relationship between these to two scales of our physical existence, the Thermodynamic Laws do not limit.the energy matter relationships on the Quantum level.

Quantum thermodynamics is the study of the relations between two independent physical theories: thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The two independent theories address the physical phenomena of light and matter. In 1905 Einstein argued that the requirement of consistency between thermodynamics and electromagnetism[1] leads to the conclusion that light is quantized obtaining the relation {\displaystyle E=h\nu }

. This paper is the dawn of quantum theory. In a few decades quantum theory became established with an independent set of rules.[2] Currently quantum thermodynamics addresses the emergence of thermodynamic laws from quantum mechanics. It differs from quantum statistical mechanics in the emphasis on dynamical processes out of equilibrium. In addition there is a quest for the theory to be relevant for a single individual quantum system.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are described as emergent from the Quantum World.

A more technical article on this describes the relationship here; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379718312117

It also addresses the question of the Boltzmann constant you erroniously assert below.

4 if the universe is eternal, then it would be dominated by Boltzmann brains, implying that you are almost certainly a Boltzmann brain, and that the world that you inverse is an illusion.

Answered in the references above, and I may address this more in the future.

5 if there was "something eternal " before the big bang then it remains inexplicable why did the big bang occured 13B years ago. How do you go from - infinity to 13b years ago?

Very very confusing, but cutting the Gordian knot.the nature of our universe does not determine whether our 'physical existence' is eternal and/or infinite.

6 you would have to show that the concept of an actual infinite is logically coherent.

Actual infinities are not logically incoherent, but the attempt to miss use actual infinities to limit the nature of our universe as not past infinite is incoherent and just plain bad math. Actual infinities are closed sets of infinities, which cannot limit potential infinities. Our physical existence is potentially infinite. This is fairly simple high school math first defined by Aristotle.

While if you grant that the universe is past finite you can avoid all of these points , things are simpler if you accept that the universe had a beginning

Based on very real science and math, simply NO. The question of whether our 'physical existence' is infinite and/or eternal is unknown,and definitely cannot be answered by assertions of outdated Christian apologetics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Steinhardt model even if successfull fails to eliminate the necessity of a beginning, not to mention that it is highly especulative , not testable and inconsistent with observations.

Will you ever provide evidence for an past eternal universe?

"Fails to eliminate the necessity of a beginning" isn't good enough for Kalaam to work. If there's any question at all about whether its premise "the universe began to exist" is true, then the argument fails.

If all you have as a defensible premise is "the universe may or may not have begun to exist," then even if there were no other problems with the argument, the best you could do for a conclusion is "the universe may or may not have been caused." This is exactly where we were without the argument.