What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[leroy]

They are not wrong nor right, science does not work that way. The bgv theorem and Steinhardts hypothesis are at present different hypothesis and/or theorems based on the same evidence, and as I said before there will be more in the future that better explain the evidence.

You may have quoted him correctly, and Steinhardt's cyclic models may not be past complet, but it was an incomplete response, because I also quoted him. Actually, none of these scientific works nor the selective answer the most important question.

Regardless,we are dealing with whether universes have a beginning,or not, because the authors of bgv theorem, Steinhardt, Hawking and all the other Cosmologists and physicists are in agreement and consider the beginning of universes are from preexisting energy in the multiverse or the greater cosmos.

Again, again and again . . . the beginning of universes is not the issue here. It is whether there is any evidence for the beginning of our physical existence, and no there is not any evidence to justify an absolute beginning of anything.

There are numerous questions and misinformation you have refused to respond to.

Still waiting . . .

Ok unless you clarify otherwise, I will take your answer as an admision that cyclic models are probably not "past infinite"


Now is my turn please provide an example of something that I haven't answered

 

[leroy]

So then the Kalam is a failed argument. Phew, glad that's over.

The KCA cocludes that the universe had a cause.

Do you agree that the conclusion is more likely to be true than wrong? Yes or no?

 

[leroy]

It seems to me that this is exactly what you're saying when you say "the universe ( including time) begun to excist at the big bang 13 B years ago."


Sorry - that's not how proofs work. You haven't established the premise "The universe began to exist" unless you've established that there's no possibility that it could have been otherwise.

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?

 

[leroy]

For clarity's sake: Do you mean God didn't exist before the big bang ?

Correct .

There was no "before" the big bang.

 

[leroy]

But in this thread, you've consistently argued that time had a beginning a finite time ago... i.e. that "infinite past" does not exist.

IOW, if we accept all your premises, we can safely assume that anything that is necessarily eternal - as you've defined the term - cannot exist.


Unless we used a definition of "eternal" like "existing for all time," which I think is a reasonable way to define it.

However, here's the thing about adjectives like "eternal" (and "necessary"): they aren't actually attributes. Calling something "eternal" doesn't actually describe the attributes of a thing; it's actually a disguised claim for the existence of the thing.

If we're approaching the question honestly, we would never assume that something is necessarily "eternal" right off the bat. Instead, "eternal" is a conclusion that can only properly be reached by establishing that the thing really does exist at all times.

Keap it simple

Do you believe that the universe (including time) came in to existance 13B years ago or at some other point in the past?....... If you say "yes" the we agree

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok unless you clarify otherwise, I will take your answer as an admision that cyclic models are probably not "past infinite"


Now is my turn please provide an example of something that I haven't answered

Not necessarily past infinite.

Considering all the physicists and cosmologists,including the ones you cited believe the evidence demonstrates that our universe and all possible universes form from previous existing energy where is the scientific evidence for any beginning without a cause?

You have not responded to the following:

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.

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,.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

Correct .

There was no "before" the big bang.

This is your assertion based on a religious agenda without evidence.

The scientists you cite believe there is evidence for the multiverse. Here is where your hypocrisy of selectively citing scientists to justify your non-scientific agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The KCA cocludes that the universe had a cause.

Do you agree that the conclusion is more likely to be true than wrong? Yes or no?

One cannot say which is more likely. But the important fact that you need to face up to is that cause or no cause, neither is evidence for a god.

 

[Willamena]

This is your assertion based on a religious agenda without evidence.

I believe that that was also Steven Hawking's position, namely that there is nothing definable before the Big Bang.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe that that was also Steven Hawking's position, namely that there is nothing definable before the Big Bang.

Not certain of your here,please clarify.

 

[Willamena]

Not certain of your here,please clarify.

That there was no "before" in regards to the Big Bang.

 

[shunyadragon]

That there was no "before" in regards to the Big Bang.

I do not believe Hawking proposed there was no "before" in regards to the Big Bang. He extensively wrote concerning the 'singularity hypothesis,' and his last paper published after his death.proposed a finite multi verse,but not a finite physical existence {Quantum World) in that like the possibility that there are infinite universes in the multi verse, and there may be infinite multiverses.

From: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...0.89.89.1....1..0....1j2..gws-wiz.QO1TC1RZgl8
The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave function and denies the actuality of wave function collapse. ... MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Proof? No I don't claim to have absolute for anything.

Then you don't have anything. The conclusion of the argument can't be any more certain than the argument's premises.

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?

Disagree.

If you're defining "universe" to include time, then the statement "the universe began to exist" is nonsense. You may as well be talking about the corners of a circle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Keap it simple

Do you believe that the universe (including time) came in to existance 13B years ago or at some other point in the past?....... If you say "yes" the we agree

No, I don't agree.

"Came into existence" implies the existence of time. You've defined "the universe" as including time. When you say that time "came into existence at a point in the past," you're simultaneously assuming the existence AND non-existence of time. IOW, you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Willamena]

I do not believe Hawking proposed there was no "before" in regards to the Big Bang. He extensively wrote concerning the 'singularity hypothesis,' and his last paper published after his death.proposed a finite multi verse,but not a finite physical existence {Quantum World) in that like the possibility that there are infinite universes in the multi verse, and there may be infinite multiverses.

From: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...0.89.89.1....1..0....1j2..gws-wiz.QO1TC1RZgl8
The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave function and denies the actuality of wave function collapse. ... MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.

A "before" with no definable consequence is as good as nothing.

The Beginning of TIme

 

[oldbadger]

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.

I have long accepted that there has to be a reason or cause for the initiation of our Universe and all/any beyond it. I expect that most Scientists would consider this opinion to be reasonable.

But extreme atheism does seem to be full of quasi, or pseudo or semi scientists who will not give a straight answer to that proposition. Too bad .........

 

[Koldo]

Correct .

There was no "before" the big bang.

Then God began to exist too and it would need to be caused by something. Either that, or there are things like God and the big bang that don't need a cause.

 

[james blunt]

I have long accepted that there has to be a reason or cause for the initiation of our Universe and all/any beyond it. I expect that most Scientists would consider this opinion to be reasonable.

But extreme atheism does seem to be full of quasi, or pseudo or semi scientists who will not give a straight answer to that proposition. Too bad .........

Re-think your question to specifics rather than a Universe generalisation . Ask the question of , the manifestation of matter occupying space . Space can't begin or end ........hint.

 

[shunyadragon]

A "before" with no definable consequence is as good as nothing.

The Beginning of TIme

I reviewed this reference that I have read a number of times before, and found that Hawking simply presents a history of the scientific view of the cosmos ending in the summary of the conclusions of his own life work. His view in general represents the view held by most cosmologists and physicists. The definable consequences of Hawkings view, like most scientists, is simply the physical consequences of the nature of our physical existence. He has a similar view of the possible cyclic universe of Steinhardt, the singularity origin of expansion and the multi verse generally accepted, and the possibility of a beginning of the multi verse in Vilenkin, Borde,and Guth cosmology. He proposes the possibility of an infinite number of multi verses within a greater Quantum Cosmos.

There is at times a terminology gap with the layman's view. The use of 'nothing' by some cosmologists in lay writings is not the philosophical 'absolute nothing,' it is the Quantum timeless nothingness of the Quantum World that time space universes begin as singularities.

 

[oldbadger]

Re-think your question to specifics rather than a Universe generalisation . Ask the question of , the manifestation of matter occupying space . Space can't begin or end ........hint.

Can't do that.....
Your question needs to include matter, antimatter, energy, dark energy, nothingness and everything and there is a reason, cause or initiation for it.
And since we have no idea yet about what lies beyond our universe your hint can't help.much.