What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[Subduction Zone]

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

If you understood it then why can't you explain it?

 

[shunyadragon]

You are missing the important point.

Not missing the point and keep misrepresenting science to justify your agenda. There is no scientific evidence to justify your agenda. All your statements are either dishonest selective misrepresentations of science, 'arguing from ignorance,' or just plain bad science and math such as.bogus statements concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics and actual infinities.

Multi verse 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.

Not true.

The model proposed a multi verse model that is eternal and/or infinite with multiverses existing within a Quantum world that is eternal and/or infinite according to Hawking.

No physicist nor cosmologist proposes that our physical existence is finite nor temporal. It is abundantly clear that science cannot ultimately conclude whether our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite or not. There is absolutely no evidence that there any absolute beginning for our physical existence to justify the Kalam argument.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical/theological argument only grounded in a philosophical claim,and has no support in science.

 

[leroy]

The model proposed a multi verse model that is eternal and/or infinite with multiverses existing within a Quantum world that is eternal and/or infinite according to Hawking.

.[/QUOTE]

The model is not past eternal. Didn't you read your own sources ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Proof? No I don't claim to have absolute for anything. And I can't stablish that the universe begin to excist with 100% certainty.

All I am saying is that given the evidence that we have to date, the premise is more likely to be true than wrong.......agree?

More on this: when we're dealing with proofs, if our premises only have to meet the standard of "more likely true than false (or wrong)," then our conclusions can get absurd very quickly. For instance:

- It's more likely true than false that someone who is very knowledgeable about politics is a plumber and not a political science professor.*

- it's more likely true than false that someone who teaches a university political science course is very knowledgeable about politics.

- therefore, it's more likely true than false that someone who teaches a university political science course is a plumber and not a political science professor.

Do you agree that this is an absurd conclusion?

This is why proofs don't just need their premises to be more likely true than false or the best available answer; they have to be true with certainty.

*since there are orders of magnitude more plumbers than professors, and plumbers - like most people - range from not knowledgeable to very knowledgeable about politics. This is a famous illustrative example from stats classes.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?........

NO, temporal beginning with natural causes only by the evidence

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 beginning

My references are clear and specific, ALL the theorems, models and proposals are based on universes and multiverse existing in an eternal and/or infinite Quantum World.

The proposal that the multiverse is described as emergent from the Quantum World, as are universes, and the properties of universes such as Laws of Thermodynamics, which you grossly and dishonestly misrepresented. Emergent means in physics and cosmology that they have natural origins emergent from the Quantum World.

The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation
David Wallace
ABSTRACT


"This book defends the view that the Everett interpretation of quantum theory, often called the ‘many worlds theory’, is not some new physical theory or some metaphysical addition to quantum theory, but simply quantum theory itself understood in a straightforwardly literal way. As such ‐ despite its radical implications for the nature of our universe ‐ the Everett interpretation is actually the conservative way to approach quantum theory, requiring revisions neither to our best theories of physics, nor to conventional philosophy of science."

More to follow concerning the emergent multiverse.

Again,you are desperately moving the goal posts beyond what you are willing to believe. You actually hypocritically do not believe In a multi verse yet selectively cite scientists whose works are grounded in the multi verse concept.

Again there is not any scientific support for any sort of 'absolute beginning,' and there is no evidence of any sort unnatural cause, therefore Occam's falls on the side of science.

Resolution of the issue is far from certain as to the nature of the multiverse. At present the nature and extent of the multiverse cannot be tested.

Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-multiversestephen-hawking-theory-big.html#jCp

 

[leroy]

NO, temporal beginning with natural causes only by the evidence



My references are clear and specific, ALL the theorems, models and proposals are based on universes and multiverse existing in an eternal and/or infinite Quantum World.

The proposal that the multiverse is described as emergent from the Quantum World, as are universes, and the properties of universes such as Laws of Thermodynamics, which you grossly and dishonestly misrepresented. Emergent means in physics and cosmology that they have natural origins emergent from the Quantum World.

The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation
David Wallace
ABSTRACT


"This book defends the view that the Everett interpretation of quantum theory, often called the ‘many worlds theory’, is not some new physical theory or some metaphysical addition to quantum theory, but simply quantum theory itself understood in a straightforwardly literal way. As such ‐ despite its radical implications for the nature of our universe ‐ the Everett interpretation is actually the conservative way to approach quantum theory, requiring revisions neither to our best theories of physics, nor to conventional philosophy of science."

More to follow concerning the emergent multiverse.

Again,you are desperately moving the goal posts beyond what you are willing to believe. You actually hypocritically do not believe In a multi verse yet selectively cite scientists whose works are grounded in the multi verse concept.

Again there is not any scientific support for any sort of 'absolute beginning,' and there is no evidence of any sort unnatural cause, therefore Occam's falls on the side of science.

Resolution of the issue is far from certain as to the nature of the multiverse. At present the nature and extent of the multiverse cannot be tested.

Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-multiversestephen-hawking-theory-big.html#jCp

The paper that I quoted also explains why emergent universes (from a quantum world) can't be past eternal ether.

The third, (emergent universes) it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.

Did the universe have a beginning?

So far I have shown that cyclic models, inflationary multiverse and emergent universes are not past eternal.....agreed?

What you have to do is provide a model that " if true" would imply a past eternal universe, and then explain why is that model better than any of the models that imply a begining.

 

[leroy]

More on this: when we're dealing with proofs, if our premises only have to meet the standard of "more likely true than false (or wrong)," then our conclusions can get absurd very quickly. For instance:

- It's more likely true than false that someone who is very knowledgeable about politics is a plumber and not a political science professor.*

- it's more likely true than false that someone who teaches a university political science course is very knowledgeable about politics.

- therefore, it's more likely true than false that someone who teaches a university political science course is a plumber and not a political science professor.

Do you agree that this is an absurd conclusion?

This is why proofs don't just need their premises to be more likely true than false or the best available answer; they have to be true with certainty.

*since there are orders of magnitude more plumbers than professors, and plumbers - like most people - range from not knowledgeable to very knowledgeable about politics. This is a famous illustrative example from stats classes.

Well what can I say , I can not meat your standards of 100% certainty.

So it is more probably true than wrong that the universe had a beginning? Would you agree?...

In your argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premises . So it is not analogous to the KCA

 

[columbus]

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

I can't help but notice that you ignored my post #16.

So, let me ask you for a direct answer.
What importance does KCA have?
Tom

 

[leroy]

I can't help but notice that you ignored my post #16.

So, let me ask you for a direct answer.
What importance does KCA have?
Tom

That would imply that the universe had a cause.

This would (I would argue) have deep philosophical and theological implications.

 

[columbus]

That would imply that the universe had a cause.

This would (I would argue) have deep philosophical and theological implications.

That's not at all direct.
Have a direct answer?
Tom

 

[leroy]

That's not at all direct.
Have a direct answer?
Tom

Well what do you mean by "importance" ? Are you talking about the scientific importance? The theological importance? The importance according to my own personal opinion?..importance for the purposes of this forum? .....

Why is your question relevant?

 

[columbus]

Well what do you mean by "importance" ? Are you talking about the scientific importance? The theological importance? The importance according to my own personal opinion?..importance for the purposes of this forum? .....

Why is your question relevant?

That isn't at all direct.
Can you answer my question directly or not?

Let me repeat it "Why is KCA important?"
Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

[

The paper that I quoted also explains why emergent universes (from a quantum world) can't be past eternal ether.


Did the universe have a beginning?

So far I have shown that cyclic models, inflationary multiverse and emergent universes are not past eternal.....agreed?

What you have to do is provide a model that " if true" would imply a past eternal universe, and then explain why is that model better than any of the models that imply a beginning.

Again, again,and again . . .

The beginning is not a problem, the beginnings of our universe and every possible universe has a natural cause for the beginning.

 

[leroy]

[


Again, again,and again . . .

The beginning is not a problem, the beginnings of our universe and every possible universe has a natural cause for the beginning.

Ok so the universe* had a begining and a cause..... Do we agree on this point?


* We can define " universe " as all space time and everything in it.

Or we can define universe as all physical /natural reality.

Any of these 2 defitions work for me.

 

[leroy]

That isn't at all direct.
Can you answer my question directly or not?

Let me repeat it "Why is KCA important?"
Tom

No, it is not a direct answer because I don't understand your question, specifically I don't understand what you mean by "important"

 

[shunyadragon]

The paper that I quoted also explains why emergent universes (from a quantum world) can't be past eternal ether.

Emergent universes be definition have natural causes. That is the definition of emergent in science it means from natural causes.

Did the universe have a beginning?

Universes most likely have beginnings, but that is not the issue, because Velinken, Guth, Borge, Hawkins and others have demonstrated that universes are emergent by natural causes.

So far I have shown that cyclic models, inflationary multiverse and emergent universes are not past eternal.....agreed?

Not the issue cyclic models with beginnings remain emergent in science originating from natural causes.

What you have to do is provide a model that " if true" would imply a past eternal universe, and then explain why is that model better than any of the models that imply a beginning.

It is not better, or worse as I said before. It is simply another hypothesis for the nature of universes.

 

[columbus]

No, it is not a direct answer because I don't understand your question, specifically I don't understand what you mean by "important"

I don't understand why you think that the KCA matters. It doesn't even demonstrate that God exists.
Why did you start this thread?

Maybe you can answer that, at least?
Tom

 

[leroy]

Emergent universes be definition have natural causes. That is the definition of emergent in science it means from natural causes.



Universes most likely have beginnings, but that is not the issue, because Velinken, Guth, Borge, Hawkins and others have demonstrated that universes are emergent by natural causes.



Not the issue cyclic models with beginnings remain emergent in science originating from natural causes.



It is not better, or worse as I said before. It is simply another hypothesis for the nature of universes.

What the paper that I quoted shows is that the "quantum era" could have not been past eternal. Meaning that even if there was a quantum era before the big bang, this era would have not been past eternal and therefore the universe is not eternal.

In other words the quantum era would be part of the finite history of the universe. Agree? Yes or no?

Or do you hold that the quantum era lasted for an infinite amount of time?

 

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE="leroy, post: 5919518, member: 64824" ]Ok so the universe* had a begining and a cause..... Do we agree on this point?


* We can define " universe " as all space time and everything in it. [/quote]

Beginnings here are no problem,because, all universes with beginnings are emergent based on Natural causes defined by Quantum Mechanics and Natural Laws.

Or we can define universe as all physical /natural reality.

Any of these 2 defitions work for me.

All of our physical existence would include all possible universes and multiverses that emerge by natural causes from the Quantum World that contains them.

 

[shunyadragon]

What the paper that I quoted shows is that the "quantum era" could have not been past eternal. Meaning that even if there was a quantum era before the big bang, this era would have not been past eternal and therefore the universe is not eternal.

In other words the quantum era would be part of the finite history of the universe. Agree? Yes or no?

Or do you hold that the quantum era lasted for an infinite amount of time?

I see nothing in any reference that refers to a .Quantum Era' The only definition I find for the 'Quantum Era' is the following"

From: Quantum Era

The Quantum Era represented the pinnacle of the Technical Age, with maturing nano, bio and data technologies providing the opportunity for a comfortable, robust interplanetary society. Challenges posed by the development of potentially dominant artificially created sentient beings and blended realities were matched by opportunities arising from inexpensive fabrication and early quantum hyper-string technology that heralded the potential of society to evolve into an Interstellar Age civilization."