Kalem cosmological argument

a reply to: spygeek

Let me say emphatically that it NOT an accepted fact that anything that begins to exist, does not have a cause. This is just wholly untrue. I can provide you with examples of quantum physicist who do not except that. Unfortunately, i'm not able to open your link, so I won't be making a furth rebuttal until I have the information you were trying to give me.

Notice your conditional staement. " If a cause is not required to explain the existence of something, and none is found, it is not logical to assume there is one. " But the fact is, a cause is necessary to explain the universe to the fact that energy and matter are not quiescent and since they aren't quiescent, that would mean that the universe had an infinite amount of events in its past, and an actual infinite is impossible. The quote is saying that quantum mechanic events still have causes originating from the universe. Actually, I detract the statement that there is general consenus amoung scientists that the universe began to exist, as i'm not really sure that consensus exists. I will supplant it with this. It is not an assumption because the evidence points to the notion that the universe began to exist.

I am using the definition correctly."The totality of matter, energy, and space, including the Solar System, the galaxies, and the contents of the space between the galaxies. Current theories of cosmology suggest that the universe is constantly expanding. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary."

A static means this. Static-. Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent.
There can not be an infinite amount of events in the universe, it's impossible.

The point of the pool analogy is if it was frozen for eternity and then suddenly melted, why did it just suddenly melt after eternity, what changed?

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: spygeek

Let me say emphatically that it NOT an accepted fact that anything that begins to exist, does not have a cause. This is just wholly untrue. I can provide you with examples of quantum physicist who do not except that. Unfortunately, i'm not able to open your link, so I won't be making a furth rebuttal until I have the information you were trying to give me.

You have misread or misinterpreted what I said. I never said it was an accepted fact that "anything that begins to exist does not have a cause", I said that it is not an accepted fact that everthing that begins to exist has a cause, which is what the first premise asserts.

Notice your conditional staement. " If a cause is not required to explain the existence of something, and none is found, it is not logical to assume there is one. " But the fact is, a cause is necessary to explain the universe to the fact that energy and matter are not quiescent and since they aren't quiescent, that would mean that the universe had an infinite amount of events in its past, and an actual infinite is impossible. The quote is saying that quantum mechanic events still have causes originating from the universe. Actually, I detract the statement that there is general consenus amoung scientists that the universe began to exist, as i'm not really sure that consensus exists. I will supplant it with this. It is not an assumption because the evidence points to the notion that the universe began to exist.

This is incorrect. The fact that energy and matter are not quiescent is irrelevant. Before the birth of matter and energy, there still existed quantum fields. These fields are noncausal and a property of these fields is random fluctuations. The quote is not saying that quantum mechanic events still have causes originating from the universe, it is saying that quantum mechanic events can be noncausal; originating from the quantum fields' own potentiality.

I'm glad you detracted the statement. There is no consensus on this at all, rendering the premise unsound. You can try to supplant it with this claim, but it is in fact an assumption because there is no more evidence to suggest the universe began to exist than evidence to suggest it did not. Until we can properly unify quantum mechanics and relativity, noone, especially Mr. Craig, is in a position to make such an assumption.

I am using the definition correctly."The totality of matter, energy, and space, including the Solar System, the galaxies, and the contents of the space between the galaxies. Current theories of cosmology suggest that the universe is constantly expanding. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary."

If you were using the definiton correctly, you wouldn't be stretching it to accommodate things not included in the quoted accepted scientific definition, such as the multiverse.

A static means this. Static-. Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent.
There can not be an infinite amount of events in the universe, it's impossible.

Motion requires time, before time there was no such thing as motion or quiesence.
In a quantum field there can be an "infinite probability" of an event or events occurring. This is not the same thing.

The point of the pool analogy is if it was frozen for eternity and then suddenly melted, why did it just suddenly melt after eternity, what changed?

The pool was never frozen. There was never any pool. You cannot simplify quantum fields with such an analogy and use it to make any rational deductions.

If an analogy is necessary, find a better one.

a reply to: Thetan

Taking my first premise and saying "It's inductive, so I dismiss it," isn't an argument.

Indeed it isn't. But that isn't what I said.

a reply to: Astyanax

This member is a philosophy major. I recognize what this person is doing. This person probably took intro to logic last semester and is currently enrolled in philosophy of religion. It's elementary stuff. I took those classes too. A regurgitation of basic arguments learned in class, and not much else. Hence, a post about the Kalam Cosmological Argument lol.

Goodness. You'd hope for something original.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yeah, well, I never had the benefit of that kind of education.

Good practice for class I guess. Hey, Thetan, good luck with that stuff. Seems like you're really interested. Good for you. My acquaintance with philosophy is rather general and not at all academic.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Barcs

Citation? Energy and matter are not quiescent.Therefore, if the universe never began to exist, then that means that an actual infinite amount of events have happened. However, an actual infinite cannot exist. See Hilberts's hotel for an illustration link above for a demonstration of that.

You can guess about it, but It is unknown if the universe began. Scientists can determine approximately when the big bang happened, but that wasn't necessarily the beginning/cause of everything. Since time started with the big bang, the singularity had to have existed outside of time. That doesn't mean you would have an infinite series of events. There could be things involved in other dimensions that we cannot measure or even fathom yet. It could be in a cycle. There's simply too much we don't know to proclaim the universe had a beginning.

So again, if you can't prove the universe began, you can't use it as a premise for a logical inference and assume the conclusion is true.

The cause doesn't have to have been pre-universe.

That would mean the universe caused itself, which doesn't really work.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thank you very much for the encouragment. Believe me, now days you aren't missing a thing, college isn't what it's hyped up to be. It is indeed good practice for class, but more importantly it's good practice for clear thinking. If you enjoy this kind of stuff I encourage you to participate in this thread and some up-coming ones. You are certainly more than welcome, and when I say something like "that isn't an argument," i'm not putting you down, but just trying to encourage critical thinking.

a reply to: spygeek

You actually did state that it was a fact, go back and look.
You assert that there were quantum fields before matter and energy, but where's the evidence for that? That's just as assertion. A premise isn't unsound just because there isn't consenus. There wasn't consensus that the Earth was a sphere either, that doesn't make the assertion untrue. The premise isn't rendered untrue just because there isn't consensus, there is however, good evidence for the assertion that the universe began. Quantum mechanics is entirely theoretical and an extremely gray and developing area, given this fact, there lies no validity in any claim about it. If I say "no elephants have wings," and then you bring me an elephant and say "well theoretically it has wings, but we don't know yet," that is not an adequate refutation. Don't take my word for it. discovermagazine.com...
Let me state again that there is no such thing as a multi verse, the definiton of the universe is, "all instances of matter, energy, space and time." Let me assert once again, If the universe has always existed, then that means there must have been an actual infinite amount of events in the past. An actual infinite amout of events is impossible.

So far you have failed to give any sufficient and well established evidence that anything that begins to exist is uncaused, or that the universe didn't begin to exist. Without the validity quantum physics and especially the model you adhere to, where does that leave your arugment?

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: spygeek

You actually did state that it was a fact, go back and look.

Again, my words were, "it is an accepted fact that there are things that begin to exist or exist without cause", not "that anything that begins to exist, does not have a cause". You have be careful with your wording, and be precise. There is a definitive difference in definition between what I said was an accepted fact, and your wording of what I said.

You assert that there were quantum fields before matter and energy, but where's the evidence for that? That's just as assertion.

It is a widely accepted, informed assertion. Quantum field theory describes the processes by which particles are created and destroyed. In the late 1940s, it was developed to a point, (using a method known as normalisation), where one could reach the physical result hidden behind the unphysical "infinity". The work of Julian Schwinger, Sin-itiro Tomonaga, and Richard P. Feynman specifically, solved the problem of "infinities" mathematically. If you want evidence of the accepted fact that quantum fields can explain the existence of matter, all you need to do is research.

I must apologise for some incorrect wording here, what I should have said is that it is an accepted fact that "prior to the existence of matter and its associated energy, there are quantum fields".

A premise isn't unsound just because there isn't consenus. There wasn't consensus that the Earth was a sphere either, that doesn't make the assertion untrue. The premise isn't rendered untrue just because there isn't consensus, there is however, good evidence for the assertion that the universe began.

A premise is unsound if it is not self evident, that is, everyone who understands P, believes P. Lack of a consensus one way or another not only renders the premise unsound, but effectively enforces an unconfirmed assertion. I would like to reiterate my earlier point that there is no more evidence supporting the assertion that universe has a cause than evidence supporting the assertion that it does not have a cause. No assertion can be made either way at this point in time.

Quantum mechanics is entirely theoretical and an extremely gray and developing area, given this fact, there lies no validity in any claim about it.

This is your uninformed opinion. Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory not only make valid claims and predictions, they demonstrate a logical and mathematical consistency. Therefore they have validity. Your attempt to dismiss out of hand something valid that contradicts the premise of the argument is worrying. Relativity is "entirely theoretical", do you dismiss it out of hand too? Of course not, because it can be (wrongly) interpreted to support the premise.

If I say "no elephants have wings," and then you bring me an elephant and say "well theoretically it has wings, but we don't know yet," that is not an adequate refutation.

This is a misunderstanding of what quantum theory does. If you say "no elephants have wings", and then I come along and mathematically prove that there is a real probabilistic potential for an elephant to exist that has wings, it undermines your premise.

Don't take my word for it. discovermagazine.com...

All this interview says is that quantum mechanics is probabilistic, not deterministic, and that it can not yet be unified with relativity. This is accepted and freely admitted by theoretical physicists. It makes no difference to the validity of the theory's ability to explain things on the quantum level, and does nothing to change the inaccuracy of the KCA's first premise. The title of the interview is misleading too, nowhere does Roger Penrose state "physics is wrong, from string theory to quantum mechanics", he simply states it is currently irreconcilable with relativity and therefore incomplete. This is not news to those who study it.

Let me state again that there is no such thing as a multi verse,

This is your opinion. It is possible that the multiverse exists, in fact it is mathematically probable.

the definiton of the universe is, "all instances of matter, energy, space and time." Let me assert once again, If the universe has always existed, then that means there must have been an actual infinite amount of events in the past. An actual infinite amout of events is impossible.

Under relativity alone this is true. But relativity is inadequate in that it is unable to describe or explain anything outside 4 dimensional spacetime or the universe. Therefore can not be used to support any argument that proposes a premise that relies on evidence from outside that universe, such as "the universe has not always existed." A new theory is necessary to do this, and the working theory we currently have does not support this premise any more than the opposing premise.

In short, there is not enough evidence to support the idea that second argument of the KCA is self evident, and there is not an evidential basis for the premise that "the universe began to exist".

So far you have failed to give any sufficient and well established evidence that anything that begins to exist is uncaused, or that the universe didn't begin to exist. Without the validity quantum physics and especially the model you adhere to, where does that leave your arugment?

I have provided examples of noncasual events. More can be found if you do some research.
You have not provided "any sufficient and well established evidence" that the universe did begin to exist. There is not enough evidence to make an assertion either way.
You can try to ignore the validity of quantum mechanics because of it being theoretical, but if you do, why not also ignore the validity of other theoretical physics, such as relativity? You can't cherry pick science that appears to support your premise, (which relativity doesn't, by the way), ignore science that does not, and still have a sound, self evident premise.

Causality is temporal, the cause of the universe, if it exists, can not be. This is contradictory. Since time began, the universe has always existed. What "caused" time to begin can not be described by relativistic physics, it is however possible for it to be described with quantum mechanics.

This is what a sound argument would look like at this point in the discussion:
P1. Some theoretical physics supports an assertion that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, and some theoretical physics does not.
P2. Some theoretical physics supports the assertion that the universe began to exist and some theoretical physics does not.
C1. It is currently unknown whether the universe began to exist and has a cause for its existence or not, more research is required to unify quantum mechanics with relativity and arrive at a self evident premise for either.

There really isn't anywhere for you to go from here Thetan, except science class.

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, I should like to hear what your professor thinks of it all.

a reply to: spygeek

Fair enough, but it isn't an accepted fact that things exist without a cause and in any case, that isn't a refutation to premise one. That would not undermine my premise in the least as you wouldn't have shown me an elephant with wings, only that it's possible. Actuallly, you're wrong about the universe being anything but matter, energy, space and time. All you have to do is decisevely demonstrate something that isn't matter,energy, space or time, which you aren't able to do. I do ignore all theoretical physics until it becomes workable. Unless it's workable and can be demonstrated, I ignore it.

I utterly refute quantum mechanics as a sound, workable, and developed science. It is completely theoretical and nothing more. It is mere postulate. Coupled with the fact that we don't have the insturments yet to adequately measure things of that nature that are so small, it can never be used to refute anthing.

I reject an infinite universe not just because the longest lasting models of the universe are finite in nature, but because it's inductive that energy is never quiescent and it's impossible to have an actual infinite. The cause could perfectly well be temporal, existing simultaneously with time. The meat and potatoes of your argument hinges on quantum mechanics, which I find to be hogwash, along with many respectable scientists. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agreeto desagree/ I'v enjoyed this too.

If you must know, he finds the kalam cosmological argument to be fallicous. He also disagrees with the big bang. He asks this question to refute it. "Where did it go bang?"

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: spygeek

Fair enough, but it isn't an accepted fact that things exist without a cause and in any case, that isn't a refutation to premise one.

A perfect example of a natural phenomena that occurs without cause is, as I have pointed out in my original refutation, and you have not rebutted, radioactive decay.

You can observe that decay occurs according to statistical laws and you can predict how much of a radioactive substance will decay over a given period of time, it is absolutely impossible to predict when a given atom will start to disintegrate. This spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuculei is completely and utterly random and noncausal.

Throwing away the physics that descibes and models the quantum processes involved does not change the fact that it still occurs and is observable and measurable. It's also throwing away your best chance of finding a cause, (if one is necessary to descibe it). That radioactive decay has no initial cause is awidely and appropriately accepted understanding of science.

Premise 1: Invalidated.

It is not the majority of scientifically accepted opinion that we can conclusively say the universe began to exist.

Premise 2. Invalidated.

A case can be made for either opinion on whether the universe was caused or not, with varying degrees of persuasiveness, each with evidence. Neither can be proven to the level required to justify a premise.

That would not undermine my premise in the least as you wouldn't have shown me an elephant with wings, only that it's possible. Actuallly, you're wrong about the universe being anything but matter, energy, space and time.All you have to do is decisevely demonstrate something that isn't matter,energy, space or time, which you aren't able to.

Well, demonstrably Dark Matter does not consist of matter, space, energy, space or time. If I said, "no dark matter has wings", and a mathematician came up to me and and said " well, actually, according to calculations, it is possible for dark matter to have wings, even though they are unnecessary and complicate the model". I would have so say "well gee, I see you have a point, I was mistaken in thinking that I had seen every single possible outcome of every single instance of existence of dark matter".

A genetically comparable, extraterestrial species of elephant capable of winged flight may exist, whether we discover it or not. Deductively you can't say "no elephants has wings", only "no earthly elephants we've discovered have wings".

I do ignore all theoretical physics until it becomes workable. Unless it's workable and can be demonstrated, I ignore it.

Nuclear decay is workably predictable and measurable.

I utterly refute quantum mechanics as a sound, workable, and developed science. It is completely theoretical and nothing more. It is mere postulate. Coupled with the fact that we don't have the insturments yet to adequately measure things of that nature that are so small, it can never be used to refute anthing.

This is your subjective opinion and is not self evident accepted fact, if you look at the opinions of the scientific community.

I reject an infinite universe not just because the longest lasting models of the universe are finite in nature, but because it's inductive that energy is never quiescent and it's impossible to have an actual infinite. The cause could perfectly well be temporal, existing simultaneously with time. The meat and potatoes of your argument hinges on quantum mechanics, which I find to be hogwash, along with many respectable scientists. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agreeto desagree/ I'v enjoyed this too.

That mathematics and physics is hogwash, is the personal opinion of some scientists? Seriously? They critique and pick apart each other's work all the time. Sometimes these critiques are picked up and misrepresented by the media to the layperson (i.e. with a misleading title like the one you linked earlier), to be about an entire field of science being disputed when in fact it is one particular finding or equation or inference from data. You can't throw out the entire mathematical basis for quantum mechanics as unworkable just because it doesn't support the need for a single universal cause.

If the cause was temporal, it couldn't be the cause of time. It is not logical to say "the cause could be temporal, existing simultaneously with time", if that were the case, the cause could only be said to be a potentiality of time, which renders it noncasual.

You say that "it's impossible to have an actual infinite". If this accepted it rules out a cause. Such a cause would by nature have to be infinite.

If you must know, he finds the kalam cosmological argument to be fallicous. He also disagrees with the big bang. He asks this question to refute it. "Where did it go bang?"

I'm curious to know his reason for finding it fallacious. Is it the logical inaccuracies or the presupposed premises?

I'm very interested to know what the basis is that he has for disagreeing with the big bang. His refutation seems pretty sophomoric, as a singularity exists outside of spacetime, it doesn't have a "where". If anything, it went bang right here; we can still see the smoke and hear the echo.

a reply to: spygeek

As I said, We're just going to have to agree to disagree as the entirety of your arugment hinges on quantum mechanics, and more particularly, the particular models of quantum mechanics that you accept. You and I just aren't going to agree about the nature of quantum mechanics, just like scientists right now can't agree on it. I actually have no idea if the Kalam cosmological argument is sound or not, although I highly suspect it is sound,but picking particular models of quantum mechanics to refute it certainly isn't going to do the trick. It's far far too theoretical.

As for my professor- that's just it. He thinks "where," is a necessary condition that can't logically be dismissed. He's working on a book right now that he says proves the universes origins and will change science for forever, then again, what philosopher hasn't said something like that. When the book comes out i'll give the name to you if you'd like to read it.


ps. He thinks the second premise is unsound, but that the argument is valid.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: spygeek

As I said, We're just going to have to agree to disagree as the entirety of your arugment hinges on quantum mechanics, and more particularly, the particular models of quantum mechanics that you accept. You and I just aren't going to agree about the nature of quantum mechanics, just like scientists right now can't agree on it. I actually have no idea if the Kalam cosmological argument is sound or not, although I highly suspect it is sound,but picking particular models of quantum mechanics to refute it certainly isn't going to do the trick. It's far far too theoretical.

This is incorrect, the entirety of my argument does not in fact hinge on any particular model of quantum mechanics at all, quantum mechanics simply provides a demonstable example of it. The entirety of my argument rests on the fact that the universe can not be shown to be fundamentally predetermined or deterministic. At most, whether you ignore quantum mechanics or not, the universe can be shown to be stochastic.

Nuclear decay is not something dreamed up quantum mechanics, it is a real, observable natural phenomenon. The fact that it is noncausal invalidates premise 1. You would have to prove that there is a deterministic cause of nuclear decay (and all other noncausal natural phenomena), and not a probabilistic cause, to make premise 1 sound.

You would also have to prove that anything which exists in, but is not made of, the properties of spacetime, does not exist in the universe. That would mean removing the existence of 96% of the universe's substance; dark matter and dark energy.

The entirity of the KCA relies on assumption that a universal cause is necessary for the existence of any "thing", with the exception of the cause itself. This is circlar reasoning, and such an assumption is not accepted fact. Therefore the argument is rejected.

As for my professor- that's just it. He thinks "where," is a necessary condition that can't logically be dismissed. He's working on a book right now that he says proves the universes origins and will change science for forever, then again, what philosopher hasn't said something like that. When the book comes out i'll give the name to you if you'd like to read it.

Again, kinda sophomoric, "where" is right here. Of course discovery of the universe's origin will change science forever, that's common sense. It won't invalidate current scientific knowledge and understanding though, it will significantly add to it and give it more practical and explanatory application.

ps. He thinks the second premise is unsound, but that the argument is valid.

If the second premise is unsound, the conclusion can not be deducted. How does that make it a valid argument?

Forget about quantum mechanics, they seem to be complicating my argument. Explain mathematically why and how noncausal events have a cause, and you can claim the KCA is sound. Failing that, there is no positive logical argument for it.

P.S. do you or your professor believe the LHC has not real practical purpose? What about the even bigger and more expensive one China is planning? Are these investigations into quantum physics and mechanics by physically creating big bang conditions invalid and futile?

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The cause doesn't have to have been pre-universe.

edit on 14-11-2015 by Thetan because: had to rethink

This rebuttal has been edited because the original rebuttal was incorrect thinking on my part.

Irrelevant. Prove that the rules of cause and effect hold true outside of our universe.
extra DIV