Calling all atheists and agnostics (and anyone else for that matter). What are your most serious contentions with the Kalam Cosmological argument, i.e.:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (demonstrated either via the impossibility of an infinite past or scientific evidence)
3. Therefore the universe began to exist
What is your major objection? Do you think QM disproves (1)? Or do you think that an infinite past is possible, thereby disproving (2)? Or do you think we can't get to God from reasonable arguments stemming from the conclusion?
Thanks in advance for your input
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Moderator: Moderators
Post #91
I certainly wouldn't say that. I don't understand what this has to do with the topic. I find KCA an interesting philosophical argument, I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with God.Artie wrote:Let us say that if it hadn't been for cause and effect meteorologists wouldn't have been able to predict the weather for tomorrow because the weather tomorrow is a result of the conditions today. And the weather today is a result of the conditions yesterday. And the weather yesterday was a result of the conditions the day before yesterday. The difference between me and a theist is that I believe the weather yesterday was caused by the conditions the day before yesterday, a theist could say that the weather yesterday was not caused by the conditions the day before yesterday but by a god. I find such an argument irrational whether it concerns the weather or the universe or whatever else no matter how many arguments one might try to come up with to persuade me that the weather yesterday was caused by a god and not something natural. Why would any person claim that the weather yesterday was caused by a god and was not a result of any previous natural conditions?instantc wrote:Well, obviously KCA is trying to show that the universe has an efficient, not a material cause. Thus, the above is irrelevant to the argument. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that there cannot be an efficient cause without a material cause? But, again you cannot substantiate that claim, it's just an assertion.
Post #92
The topic (OP) says "2. The universe began to exist (demonstrated either via the impossibility of an infinite past or scientific evidence)"." But there is nothing logically contradictory with infinite regress and the scientific evidence doesn't say that our universe simply couldn't be a result of a black hole in another universe. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/41 ... lack-hole/instantc wrote:I certainly wouldn't say that. I don't understand what this has to do with the topic. I find KCA an interesting philosophical argument, I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with God.
There's no need to say our universe "began to exist". You could rather say that energy/matter that has always existed now exists in the configuration of our universe.
Post #93
I don't know what the proper response to that is. I would think though that Hilbert's Hotel and its buddies would attempt to disprove an infinite regress of universes as well, as that would involve an infinite regress of time. The point being that infinity is not something that can exist in reality, its just an idea in your head.Artie wrote:The topic (OP) says "2. The universe began to exist (demonstrated either via the impossibility of an infinite past or scientific evidence)"." But there is nothing logically contradictory with infinite regress and the scientific evidence doesn't say that our universe simply couldn't be a result of a black hole in another universe. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/41 ... lack-hole/instantc wrote:I certainly wouldn't say that. I don't understand what this has to do with the topic. I find KCA an interesting philosophical argument, I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with God.
There's no need to say our universe "began to exist". You could rather say that energy/matter that has always existed now exists in the configuration of our universe.
Post #94
Do you have a ring? Put your finger on the ring and trace it around your finger. How long until you run out of ring to trace? So how long is the ring? Where does it start and stop?instantc wrote:The point being that infinity is not something that can exist in reality, its just an idea in your head.
Post #95
Now, this is what we call potential infinity. That is, if you keep walking a circle, there will never be an end. However, at any given point of time you have walked a finite amount of meters. According to Hilbert's Hotel type of arguments, this has to be the case with the universe as well, no matter how far to the future you go, the amount of time passed is always a finite number. Thus, the ring example demonstrates potential but not actual infinity.Artie wrote:Do you have a ring? Put your finger on the ring and trace it around your finger. How long until you run out of ring to trace? So how long is the ring? Where does it start and stop?instantc wrote:The point being that infinity is not something that can exist in reality, its just an idea in your head.
Post #96
Please elaborate. If you step onto a road and you know beforehand that there never will come a time when you will reach the end of it obviously the road is infinitely long before you have stepped onto it and no matter how far you have walked on it...instantc wrote:Now, this is what we call potential infinity. That is, if you keep walking a circle, there will never be an end. However, at any given point of time you have walked a finite amount of meters. According to Hilbert's Hotel type of arguments, this has to be the case with the universe as well, no matter how far to the future you go, the amount of time passed is always a finite number. Thus, the ring example demonstrates potential but not actual infinity.
Last edited by Artie on Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post #99
Artie wrote:Please elaborate. If you step onto a road and you know beforehand that there never will come a time when you will reach the end of it obviously the road is infinitely long before you have stepped onto it and no matter how far you have walked on it...instantc wrote:Now, this is what we call potential infinity. That is, if you keep walking a circle, there will never be an end. However, at any given point of time you have walked a finite amount of meters. According to Hilbert's Hotel type of arguments, this has to be the case with the universe as well, no matter how far to the future you go, the amount of time passed is always a finite number. Thus, the ring example demonstrates potential but not actual infinity.
Alright, let me try to explain this. If you could say that there is an infinitely long road ahead of you, that is what we call potential infinite, even though there will never be an end, at any given time you have walked a finite amount of steps. If, however, I asked you for how long you have walked on the road, and you would say for an infinitely long time or an infinite number of steps, then that would be an actual infinite. It's only the latter that is criticized by Hilbert's Hotel.
Post #100
OK. We were just talking past each other about different things.instantc wrote:Alright, let me try to explain this. If you could say that there is an infinitely long road ahead of you, that is what we call potential infinite, even though there will never be an end, at any given time you have walked a finite amount of steps. If, however, I asked you for how long you have walked on the road, and you would say for an infinitely long time or an infinite number of steps, then that would be an actual infinite. It's only the latter that is criticized by Hilbert's Hotel.
