What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[shunyadragon]

It's occam's razor, I don't see the necessity of postulating the existance of stuff before the big bang. O.R. favors the standard big bang model.

But, the amazing thing is that even wild and speculative models that propose the existance of stuff before the big bang (multiverse, cyclic universes, etc.) Are not beginingless models of the universe

Occam's Razor favors natural causes, because there is absolutely no evidence of unnatural causes, and according to the authors of the bgv theorerm and virtually all other scientists there is evidence of natural origins for our universe and all possible universes in a multiverse.

 

[shunyadragon]

And your evidence is....?

bgv theorem which you frequently cite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok my own terms.

To say that "x" is the cause of " y" would mean that "x" excists independently of "y" and that "x" is responsible for producing " y"

For example the hammer is the cause of a broken window because the hammer excists independently of the broken window, and it was respinrespo for braking the window.

A cause of the universe would be something that excists independently of the universe, and was responsible for producing the universe.


So based on the evidence that we have would you say that the universe had a cause ?

That is still so vague as to be useless.

By the way, how does a hammer slow down a window?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Care to explain?

So you did not understand. Tell me why you used the quote if you did not understand it? Then I will explain.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well most scientists don't see the "problem" that you are seeing.

See this quote from Hawkins

Selectively quoting Hawkins gets you nowhere fast. Hawking considers our universe and all possible universes as having temporal beginnings from singularities in multiverses.

From: Stephen Hawking's Final Paper Cuts the Multiverse Down to Size

Scientists later determined that this proposal implied something strange: that the multiverse is infinite, with endless, uncountable parallel universes existing alongside our own, Live Science previously reported. That wild situation presented a number of problems for science, most significantly that it rendered most basic scientific ideas about the multiverse impossible to test. (If there are infinitely many universes, then an experiment could make predictions about what the universe should look like — and there will be some universes out there that will match those predictions.)

"Hawking was not satisfied with this state of affairs," Hertog told Live Science in March. "'Let's try to tame the multiverse,' he told me a year ago. So, we set out to develop a method to transform the idea of a multiverse into a coherent, testable scientific framework."

Hawking considers the multiverse finite, one of an infinite number of multiverses within a Quantum World.

Your over the top hypocrisy continues selectively citing scientists to dishonestly justify your agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

More from Hawking on the scientific support for the formation of singularities in a pre-universe multiverse Quantum World. It is based on The Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorem based on Einstein's General Relativity.

Summary from: Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
A singularity in solutions of the Einstein field equations is one of two things:

1. a situation where matter is forced to be compressed to a point (a space-like singularity)
2. a situation where certain light rays come from a region with infinite curvature (a time-like singularity)

Space-like singularities are a feature of non-rotating uncharged black-holes, while time-like singularities are those that occur in charged or rotating black hole exact solutions. Both of them have the property of geodesic incompleteness, in which either some light-path or some particle-path cannot be extended beyond a certain proper-time or affine-parameter (affine-parameter being the null analog of proper-time).

The Penrose theorem guarantees that some sort of geodesic incompleteness occurs inside any black hole whenever matter satisfies reasonable energy conditions (It does not hold for matter described by a super-field, i.e., the Dirac field). The energy condition required for the black-hole singularity theorem is weak: it says that light rays are always focused together by gravity, never drawn apart, and this holds whenever the energy of matter is non-negative.

Hawking's singularity theorem is for the whole universe, and works backwards in time: it guarantees that the (classical) Big Bang has infinite density.[1] This theorem is more restricted and only holds when matter obeys a stronger energy condition, called the dominant energy condition, in which the energy is larger than the pressure. All ordinary matter, with the exception of a vacuum expectation value of a scalar field, obeys this condition. During inflation, the universe violates the dominant energy condition, and it was initially argued (e.g. by Starobinsky[2]) that inflationary cosmologies could avoid the initial big-bang singularity. However, it has since been shown that inflationary cosmologies are still past-incomplete[3], and thus require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

It is still an open question whether (classical) general relativity predicts time-like singularities in the interior of realistic charged or rotating black holes, or whether these are artefacts of high-symmetry solutions and turn into spacelike singularities when perturbations are added.

 

[leroy]

Occam's Razor favors natural causes, because there is absolutely no evidence of unnatural causes, and according to the authors of the bgv theorerm and virtually all other scientists there is evidence of natural origins for our universe and all possible universes in a multiverse.

Yes OR favors natural explanations


O.R . Favors the standard big bang model........agree ? Yes or no

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes OR favors natural explanations


O.R . Favors the standard big bang model........agree ? Yes or no

As a temporal beginning of our universe,and all possible universes,but not the only option for the history of universes.

Temporal natural beginnings do not support the Kalam Cosmological argument.

 

[leroy]

Selectively quoting Hawkins gets you nowhere fast. Hawking considers our universe and all possible universes as having temporal beginnings from singularities in multiverses.

From: Stephen Hawking's Final Paper Cuts the Multiverse Down to Size

Scientists later determined that this proposal implied something strange: that the multiverse is infinite, with endless, uncountable parallel universes existing alongside our own, Live Science previously reported. That wild situation presented a number of problems for science, most significantly that it rendered most basic scientific ideas about the multiverse impossible to test. (If there are infinitely many universes, then an experiment could make predictions about what the universe should look like — and there will be some universes out there that will match those predictions.)

"Hawking was not satisfied with this state of affairs," Hertog told Live Science in March. "'Let's try to tame the multiverse,' he told me a year ago. So, we set out to develop a method to transform the idea of a multiverse into a coherent, testable scientific framework."

Hawking considers the multiverse finite, one of an infinite number of multiverses within a Quantum World.

Your over the top hypocrisy continues selectively citing scientists to dishonestly justify your agenda.

You are missing the important point.

Multiveres models are not eternal in to the past. Even if there is a multiverse, the multiverse would not be eternal in to the past.

I honestly don't get your point, you are quoting sources that clearly and directly argue that the universe is not past eternal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes OR favors natural explanations


O.R . Favors the standard big bang model........agree ? Yes or no

It certainly doesn't support inventing or invoking gods to fill in the blanks in our knowledge.

 

[leroy]

It certainly doesn't support inventing or invoking gods to fill in the blanks in our knowledge.

There is something in the genes of atheist that prevents them to answer to direct questions .

O.R. favors standard big bang models over models that say that there was something before the big bang. .......agree yes or no!

 

[leroy]

As a temporal beginning of our universe,and all possible universes,but not the only option for the history of universes.

Temporal natural beginnings do not support the Kalam Cosmological argument.

Nobody is saying that the big bang model is the only option.

All I am saying is that it is the best model of the universe . Agree? Yes or no?........


Not to mention that the only viable alternatives for the standard big bang model are not past eternal..... So in any case the universe had an absolute begining

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is something in the genes of atheist that prevents them to answer to direct questions .

Do you mean they can see through your games? Maybe get better arguments that don't require the other person to play along.

O.R. favors standard big bang models over models that say that there was something before the big bang. .......agree yes or no!

No. You're misrepresenting the science. The "standard" Big Bang models start at t=0, with a singularity that has infinite temperature, infinite density, and zero radius. There is no "before the Big Bang" in the "standard" Big Bang models.

 

[leroy]

So you did not understand. Tell me why you used the quote if you did not understand it? Then I will explain.

I understood what I claimed to have understood

You claimed that I misunderstood the quore so please explain to me the correct understanding of the quote

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see you edited your post while I was replying:

Not to mention that the only viable alternatives for the standard big bang model are not past eternal..... So in any case the universe had an absolute begining

If this isn't a big ol' argument from ignorance, I don't know what is.

 

[leroy]

Do you mean they can see through your games? Maybe get better arguments that don't require the other person to ay along.


No. You're misrepresenting the science. The "standard" Big Bang models start at t=0, with a singularity that has infinite temperature, infinite density, and zero radius. There is no "before the Big Bang" in the "standard" Big Bang models.

Yes that has always been my point (,in red letters)

 

[leroy]

That is still so vague as to be useless.

I did my best in explaining what I mean by cause .

Feel free to read and understand the concept of efficient cause in any source that you might consider reliable.

And then come back and comment on whether if the universe had a cause or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes that has always been my point (,in red letters)

It seems to me that you've gone back and forth in this thread. Regardless, if you're arguing that:

- "Before the Big Bang" is a meaningful statement, and
- there was nothing before the Big Bang,

Then it seems to me that you're arguing against the existence of any sort of creator god that pre-existed the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is something in the genes of atheist that prevents them to answer to direct questions .

O.R. favors standard big bang models over models that say that there was something before the big bang. .......agree yes or no!

Poorly or improperly asked questions usually cannot be answered yes or no.

As to Occam's Razor, it tends to "favor" concepts that have some reliable evidence. Since no one has presented any for supernatural causes it does not tend to support those ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did my best in explaining what I mean by cause .

Feel free to read and understand the concept of efficient cause in any source that you might consider reliable.

And then come back and comment on whether if the universe had a cause or not.

You best is far from being good enough.