What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[Willamena]

...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.

What is the difference?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the difference?

Are you asking about the difference between the philosophical 'absolute nothing' and the 'Quantum world nothing?'

Clarify your question?

 

[leroy]

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.

Is that a question? Is that suppose to be an argument for atheism? I am not trying to be arrogant, it is just that I don't understand what am I suppose to answer.

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our 'physical existence' is infinite and/or eternal is unknown,and definitely cannot be answered by assertions of outdated Christian apologetics.

Again nobody is claiming 100% certainty, sure the ultimate answer on whether the universe had a beginning or not is "we don't know"

But the evidence strongly suggests that the universe had a begining.

1- a "past eternal universe" can not be an expanding universe (according to the bgv theorem) , but apparently we live in an expanding universe.

2 a past eternal universe would have an entropy of nearly 100% but apparently we live in a universe with low entropy

3 a past eternal universe would be dominated by Boltzmann brains, implying that you would be a Boltzmann brain and that the universe that you observe is an illusion..... But presumably you are not a Boltzmann brain. * You claimed that your sources deal with this objection, please quote the relevant e
sentences

4 a past eternal universe would imply that an actual infinite amount if seconds a d events have occured ..... But I would argue that an actual infinite is logically absurd.... For example how did you go from -infinity to -13B years ago (the big bang)

None of these points represents an absolute proof, but the do represent good arguments for a begining. And I don't think you can provide comparably good arguments for an eferete universe

The good news is that each point is aplicable to a wide range of possible universes, it doest matter if you whant to believe in multiverse, cyclic universes, white hole universes, strings, simulation universes etc.

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok let's remove God or any theology from the argument.

What is wrong with the KCA? What stops you from concluding that the universe (more likely than not) had a cause?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok let's remove God or any theology from the argument.

What is wrong with the KCA? What stops you from concluding that the universe (more likely than not) had a cause?

Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'cause'. If we are going by different meanings of that term we will only be talking past each other.

 

[leroy]

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.

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

See this quote from Hawkins

Almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang”- Hawkings

 

[leroy]

Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'cause'. If we are going by different meanings of that term we will only be talking past each other.

With cause I simply mean what Aristotle labeled as "efficient cause"

For example the efficient cause of a watch would be the watch maker. The efficient cause of ice could be "cold temperature" the efficient cause of a broken window could be the hammer.

Four causes - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

No, you just aren't reading my posts carefully enough to understand the problem I'm describing.

There's a difference between the universe having a beginning and the universe "coming into existence." "Coming into existence" implies a process through time. Do you understand the distinction?

See this quote from Hawkins

Hawking, not "Hawkins." And here's another quote for you from Stephen Hawking for you to think about:

"Asking what happens before the Big Bang is like asking for a point one mile north of the North Pole."

There is no such thing as "before time." There is no such thing as "coming into existence" without time.

 

[leroy]

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.

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

 

[leroy]

No, you just aren't reading my posts carefully enough to understand the problem I'm describing.

There's a difference between the universe having a beginning and the universe "coming into existence." "Coming into existence" implies a process through time. Do you understand the distinction?


Hawking, not "Hawkins." And here's another quote for you from Stephen Hawking for you to think about:

"Asking what happens before the Big Bang is like asking for a point one mile north of the North Pole."

There is no such thing as "before time." There is no such thing as "coming into existence" without time.

Ok and what does having a begining means?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok and what does having a begining means?

It means that if we go back far enough, we reach a point where we can't go further back.

I'd like some acknowledgment from you that you understand the difference between this and "coming into existence."

 

[Subduction Zone]

With cause I simply mean what Aristotle labeled as "efficient cause"

For example the efficient cause of a watch would be the watch maker. The efficient cause of ice could be "cold temperature" the efficient cause of a broken window could be the hammer.

Four causes - Wikipedia

I want you to define it in your own terms. Right now you seem to be defining it by a cause outside of the universe and that does not appear to be the case at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

See this quote from Hawkins

Do you understand what it means when he said that time came into existence at the Big Bang?

 

[Willamena]

Are you asking about the difference between the philosophical 'absolute nothing' and the 'Quantum world nothing?'

Clarify your question?

Yes. Unless it's too far off topic, then never mind.

 

[leroy]

It means that if we go back far enough, we reach a point where we can't go further back.

I'd like some acknowledgment from you that you understand the difference between this and "coming into existence."

Ok that is what I mean and have always mean when I used the term came in to existance.

You are just debating semantics. But yes, I acknowledge that there is a difference between what you personally define as" coming into existence" and "having a beginning."

So the universe had a begining ... Do you agree on this point?

 

[leroy]

I want you to define it in your own terms. Right now you seem to be defining it by a cause outside of the universe and that does not appear to be the case at all.

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 ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok that is what I mean and have always mean when I used the term came in to existance.

You are just debating semantics.

That's all Kalaam is about: semantics.

When someone says that something "came into being," I take this to mean that:

- at one point in time, it did not exist.
- at a later point in time, it did exist.

So when you say that "the universe (including time)" came into existence, I take this to mean that you're claiming that time did not exist at a point in time when there was no time. Do you understand why I reject this as nonsense?

So the universe had a begining ... Do you agree on this point?

No, not necessarily. As far as I know, within Planck Time of the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we know them generally break down, so we can't say with certainty what happened before then.

If you want to rely on your premises, you'll have to defend them yourself.

 

[leroy]

Do you understand what it means when he said that time came into existence at the Big Bang?

Care to explain?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok that is what I mean and have always mean when I used the term came in to existance.

You are just debating semantics. But yes, I acknowledge that there is a difference between what you personally define as" coming into existence" and "having a beginning."

So the universe had a begining ... Do you agree on this point?

The universe most likely had a temporal beginning, and not an absolute beginning.

 

[leroy]

The universe most likely had a temporal beginning, and not an absolute beginning.

And your evidence is....?