"IF The Big Bang Is True Then How.....?"

[leroy]

Strongest in destroying the KCA? Probably the last. Even if you grant all of the assumptions, you still don't get the conclusion. At that point, the fact that the assumptions are wrong is just icing on the cake.

You mean "even if one accepts the conclusion of the KCA... ie that the universe (all space time and everything in it) has a cause, that wouldn't imply that God is the cause?

Is this a fare representation of your objection to the KCA?

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Considering how often Christians use it, it's almost as if creating a False Dilemma Fallacy gains one a seat in heaven. Although, I have my suspicions that there are those who use it knowing how fallacious it is, but count on the gullible to bite like sunfish.

.

Ah False Dilemma Fallacy. That's the name I was looking for thanks.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I am not claiming that I can disprove the big bang, my claim is that the BB implies that the universe had a begging which is a claim that many atheist won't accept.


The irony is, if atheist can invoke wild, and unsupported assumptions (like a time before the big bang, or parallel universes) to avoid the implications of the BB why can't YEC also invent their own unsupported assumtions to avoid the implications of the BB

The correct answer is we don't know the begging of the universe, but the bb is best explanation for how our universe currently is, this still doesn't validate you creation myth.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean "even if one accepts the conclusion of the KCA... ie that the universe (all space time and everything in it) has a cause, that wouldn't imply that God is the cause?

Is this a fare representation of your objection to the KCA?

That is certainly an important aspect to the argument, right?

Another aspect is that most things that have a cause actually have multiple causes. The uniqueness of the cause is something else to be shown.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok I was capable of spotting 4 objections (perhaps I missed something)

1 premise 1 is wrong because of quantum mechanics

2 premise 2 is wrong because probably the universe is eternal

3 it is wrong because you cant have a cause before time (as pollymath claims)

4 it's wrong because even if true it doesn't lead you to God


Which of these 4 objections do you think is the strongest?

In a nutshell, kalam fails because:
- the premises are unsupported / unjustified / undemonstrable
- the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, EVEN if we assume the premises to be accurate
- the conclusion that says that "god dun it", assumes that god exists. and as this kalam argument is supposed to be an argument FOR god, then this argument is guilty of using an assumed conclusion.


In short, this "argument" serves as a nice example for an introductory course on invalid reasoning as a result of using logical fallacies.

 

[leroy]

That is certainly an important aspect to the argument, right?

n.

It is true that the KCA does not directly to God. It leads to a cause of the universe (all space time and everything in it)


But all you have to do to arrive at God is add a few simple, uncontrovertial and logically necessary arguments.

For example the cause of the universe (space time and everything in it) by necessity has to be space less timeless and inmaterial

Agree?

 

[Polymath257]

It is true that the KCA does not directly to God. It leads to a cause of the universe (all space time and everything in it)

Like I said, even that doesn't actually follow, but I am giving that to you for the sake of argument.

But all you have to do to arrive at God is add a few simple, uncontrovertial and logically necessary arguments.

For example the cause of the universe (space time and everything in it) by necessity has to be space less timeless and inmaterial

Agree?

Nope. All causes are within time. To even discuss causality requires that time be postulated.

Now, according to the KCA argument, this means that time itself has no beginning. Even if time is finite, that must be the case.

 

[leroy]

Now, according to the KCA argument, this means that time itself has no beginning. Even if time is finite, that must be the case.

Well that is a different objection (that argument is an objection against premise 2) but we are not discussing premise 2, we are discussing whether if accepting that the universe (and time) has a cause leads to God. I picked this topic because you claimed that it is the best objection to the KCA. But we can always move to a different topic and discuss another objection to the KCA.

But *if* the universe (and time) has a cause, then by definition this cause would have to be space less, timeless and immaterial. Agree? If the cause existed within time, then by definition it can’t be the cause of time.

That is like saying “if the first computer has a cause” then this cause necessarily would have to be a “no-computer”

 

[Polymath257]

Well that is a different objection (that argument is an objection against premise 2) but we are not discussing premise 2, we are discussing whether if accepting that the universe (and time) has a cause leads to God. I picked this topic because you claimed that it is the best objection to the KCA. But we can always move to a different topic and discuss another objection to the KCA.

But *if* the universe (and time) has a cause, then by definition this cause would have to be space less, timeless and immaterial. Agree? If the cause existed within time, then by definition it can’t be the cause of time.

That is like saying “if the first computer has a cause” then this cause necessarily would have to be a “no-computer”

Once again, no I do not agree since *all* causality happens in time. That is part of what it means to be a cause.

All this shows is that the assumptions of the KCA are self-contradictory. Which is yet another objection to it and may even be a better one.

But, since self-contradictory premises imply *everything*, they do imply the existence of a God (as well as the non-existence of such).

 

[leroy]

Once again, no I do not agree since *all* causality happens in time. That is part of what it means to be a cause.

All this shows is that the assumptions of the KCA are self-contradictory. Which is yet another objection to it and may even be a better one.

But, since self-contradictory premises imply *everything*, they do imply the existence of a God (as well as the non-existence of such).

Well then select your favorite objection and so that I can focus on it. You are jumping form one objection to another.

Select your favorite objection and elaborate an argument on it

 

[Polymath257]

Well then select your favorite objection and so that I can focus on it. You are jumping form one objection to another.

Select your favorite objection and elaborate an argument on it

There are so many different objections because it is such a poor argument. It is self-inconsistent, it has incorrect assumptions, it doesn't prove its conclusion, etc.

Of course, being inconsistent, it 'proves' everything, like I said. Any inconsistent set of postulates proves *anything*.

So, sure, if you accept that the universe has a cause, that cause must both be timeless *and* in time. It must be God and also NOT be God.

So, if you want to settle on one issue: KCA has inconsistent hypotheses.

 

[tas8831]

RE: Kalam - Sean Carroll pretty much demolishes it on its merits.

 

[leroy]

There are so many different objections because it is such a poor argument. It is self-inconsistent, it has incorrect assumptions, it doesn't prove its conclusion, etc.

Of course, being inconsistent, it 'proves' everything, like I said. Any inconsistent set of postulates proves *anything*.

So, sure, if you accept that the universe has a cause, that cause must both be timeless *and* in time. It must be God and also NOT be God.

So, if you want to settle on one issue: KCA has inconsistent hypotheses.

well select your favorite inconsistency

 

[Polymath257]

well select your favorite inconsistency

I already gave it. It assumes everything that began to exist had a cause. It then assumes the universe began to exist. And it uses the concept of cause which requires time to already exist.

So, the following are assumed.
1. Everything that began to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist.

But there are also some basic concepts concerning causality that are important here.

3. Causality always happen within time. In particular, a cause of an event is always prior to that event in time.
4. Time itself is part of the universe.

Now, both 3 and 4 are fundamental aspects of causality and of time as we now understand it. But 3 already shows that time *cannot* have a cause. That is because any cause of time would have to be prior to time *within* time.

Hence, if time had a beginning, it is an example of something that had a beginning and is not caused.

Next, if the universe had a beginning (postulate 2), then time, which is part of the universe also had a beginning. Thus, postulate 1 would be violated.

Now, the difficulty is that KCA is based on a metaphysics that ultimately depends on Aristotelianism. And that is a model that is 2500 years old and,, truthfully, outmoded and disproved. The ancient Greek concepts of causality are acknowledged to be no loner valid.

In particular, causality is something that can happen as part of the laws of physics, but need not always be the case. Furthermore, it is something that is time-directed, so it relies on time to already exist. Hence, in particular, there *cannot* be a cause of time.

Next, we have many models that are quite plausible that have either time finite (with no cause) or time infinite into the past (with no violation of the second law of thermodynamics), so the *logical* position cannot eliminate such possibilities.

 

[leroy]

I.

3. Causality always happen within time. In particular, a cause of an event is always prior to that event in time.
4. Time itself is part of the universe..

you asertion (in red) is at the very least controvertial, many scientists and filosophers would disagree with you.
for example this article concludes that the cause and the effect are always simultaneos

We propose that all actual causes are simultaneous with their direct effects, as illustrated by both everyday examples and the laws of physics

https://philpapers.org/archive/HUECAS.pdf


Obviously I am not trying to make an argument from authority, and I am sure that you can also quote papers that support your claim, but the point that I am trying to make is that your claim is at best controversial, it is at least possible and reasonable to say that causes and effects can be simultaneous.

Is there any logical contradiction or incoherence with the idea of simultaneous case and effect.

Besides …

Imagine a cause that took place at past infinity (which according to you it’s possible) when did the effect of such cause took place? Well the effect must have also taken place at also at past infinity, so both the cause and the effect took place at exactly the same time, there count be a time where the cause took place and the effect didn’t.

In other words if both the cause and the effect took place at the same time, they would be simultaneous, the cause wouldn’t be prior to the effect.


Anyway I don’t think you can show conclusive evidence for your assertion (in red letters) but I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt

 

[gnostic]

I personally find it very funny that “evolutionists” , agnostics, atheist etc. tend to defend the Big Bang theory with passion and favor when they are talking to YEC, but later they reject, or become skeptic of the BB when they are commenting on the Kalam Comsmological argument.

What does the Big Bang theory have to do with Evolution, agnosticism and atheism???

Absolutely nothing.

You are making false equivalence argument.

Agnosticism and atheism only concern itself with the theological question does, like god exist or not.

Nothing more, nothing less than that. Agnosticism and atheism aren’t astrophysics disciplines.

And Evolution only concern with biology. It too isn’t an astrophysics subject.

Why are you dishonestly twisting the Big Bang theory into subjects that have nothing to do them?

 

[Polymath257]

Imagine a cause that took place at past infinity (which according to you it’s possible) when did the effect of such cause took place?

When did I *ever* say anything like that?

I've consistently said that causes are within the universe and imply the existence of time. And that is the case even if time is infinite.

Anyway I don’t think you can show conclusive evidence for your assertion (in red letters) but I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt

Even if at the same time, there is still time.

 

[leroy]

What does the Big Bang theory have to do with Evolution, agnosticism and atheism???

Absolutely nothing.

True, that is why I said it is funny

 

[leroy]

When did I *ever* say anything like that?

I've consistently said that causes are within the universe and imply the existence of time. And that is the case even if time is infinite.

If the universe is past infinite as you seem to belive, that would mean that at past infinity there where "causes" causing effects agree?

If the cause occurred at past infinity, the effect also had to occure at past infinity.... Hence both the cause and the effect where simultaneous

Even if at the same time, there is still time.

Well that seems to be a different argument.... the basis of you previous argument was that causes always occure before the effect, woul you know admit that claim is probably not true?

 

[Polymath257]

If the universe is past infinite as you seem to belive, that would mean that at past infinity there where "causes" causing effects agree?

No. It would mean that at any finite time there were causes and effects.

Maybe your issue is the phrase 'past infinite', which I mean as 'infinite into the past'.

If the cause occurred at past infinity, the effect also had to occure at past infinity.... Hence both the cause and the effect where simultaneous

Well that seems to be a different argument.... the basis of you previous argument was that causes always occure before the effect, woul you know admit that claim is probably not true?

No, I happen to disagree with that article. In particular, the notion of causality is holds isn't one I use.