The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[AndyT_81]

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

[Divine Insight]

(1) While I am no expert in QM, I understand the general concepts - I get what you are saying about the interaction between the macro and the micro QM. I understand that the macro world can define the probability distributions of the quantum particles, but the wavefunction collapse result is completely random. However, I don't see how this contradicts my argument that even if efficient causes are uncertain, formal causation is not.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. As soon as you postulate an eternal God that exists outside of time as we know it you have already invalidated any arguments of cause and effect being relevant.

And you have especially rendered any notions that the idea of infinite regressions in time are illogical because the very proposal that a eternal God exists is already an infinite regression. The only contradiction you could lay claim to there would be in the very concept of "regression" implying that all actions must have been preceded by a cause. But that's a fatal argument when you are simultaneously proclaiming that an eternal God exists.

Eternity and infinity are the same thing when applied consistently and not being fallaciously applied to apples and oranges (i.e. God's Time versus time within spacetime)

In other words, you can't argue that an infinite regression of time is illogical, but then claim that an eternal God has always existed. That is a self-inconsistency in this argument that simply preys on the hope that no one will catch the fact that its referring to two different concepts of time.

So that fallacy exists as a matter of pure logic. You don't even need QM to expose that fallacy. Although QM does offer a nice example of how that fallacy can easily be exposed.

(2) The Schrodinger equation evolves with entropic time, so despite the randomness of, say, the location of a particle within the predefined probabilities when the wavefunction collapses, it is still subject to entropic time. The fact that there can be apparently instantaneous information transfer via entanglement doesn't violate causality, because the effects of this transfer are only propagated at the speed of light.

Yes, the Schrodinger equation evolves within the framework of entropic time. The Schodinger equation describes the relationship between the macro world and the quantum world. That's right.

However, the wave functions of QM that it depends upon are entirely non-entropic. They wouldn't work if they were entropic. The whole probabilistic nature of the quantum waves is that they must be based on randomness. They cannot be based on anything other than this or the probabilities wouldn't work.

So that's a necessarily component.

(3) If space-time began to exist, you can talk all you like about non-entropic time at the quantum level, but that doesn't change the fact that quantum effects only operate within the framework of entropic space-time - no space-time, no quantum "theatre", if you like. Happy to be corrected in this understanding though

Well this is indeed a controversial topic to be sure. And to the best of my knowledge science does not have an answer to this question. Whether the quantum "theater" exists without space-time is anyone's guess. We simply do not know the answer to this question yet, and we may never know the answer.

Is the quantum world a result of the fabric of spacetime? Or is spacetime a product of a primordial preexisting quantum field?

Many people believe the latter is far more likely. There is actually a theory that the universe was born of a quantum fluctuation. This would of course require that the laws of the quantum world had preexisted our spacetime universe.

So we just don't know the answer for this. For you do proclaim "no space-time, no quantum "theatre", if you like" is purely an opinion on your behalf. Unless you can provide evidence for why this must be the case. But insofar as I know no one has claimed to have shown that speculation to be true. And as I have also pointed out that there exists theories that our spacetime universe was born of a quantum fluctuation. So at least some scientists are speculating that QM preexists the macro spacetime that consider to be the physical universe.

So that's up in the air yet as far as I am away.

(4) You are incorrect that the eternal and infinite non-entropic time are identical. The eternal "now" which classical Christianity considers to be the Divine state, is changeless. The God of classical Christianity is changeless. Your infinite non-entropic time involves change.

A God that is changeless is static and could not produce anything, not even a self-thought.

So I reject any speculation that it's meaningful to even speak about an eternal "now" that is not dynamic. If it can't change, then it most certainly could not suddenly produce a universe. So that flies in the very face of what you are attempting to propose.

So I don't see how that concept would be useful to you in any way.

A static God is a God that cannot do anything at all. Instead of being omnipotent it would be omnistatic. Not a very useful state to be in.

So any concept of a God would necessarily require a God that can dynamically change. Think of omnipotence as having unlimited potential. A static God that can't change would have no potential at all.

So it makes no sense to even propose a God that can't change.

These Christian ideas no doubt stem from a need to support ancient myths and superstitions. That's not a very productive means of proposing ideas for how a God might potentially be.

Somewhere in the Bible it proclaims that God is unchanging. But this is because you can't trust a God who has a constantly changing personality because you'd never know what he expects from you at any given moment. So to make their God trustworthy they realized that they need to give him an unchanging personality. The problem with that notion is that as the Biblical myths continued to grow this God did indeed change dramatically especially in the Christian doctrine where God changes into Jesus and teaches precisely the opposite things from what he previously taught in the Old Testament.

So the Christian ideal of an unchanging God can't even be made to work within the framework of their own mythology as it is.

If you are interested in a mystical philosophy that has a far better chance of getting off the ground I would recommend Taoism. It's a big bird to fly, but at least it can get off the ground.

[Goat]

Hi Goat,

Exactly what instantc said (thanks instantc!). Forget about the beginning of the universe for a second, premise (1) is completely general. Are you comfortable with the idea that out of nothing anything and everything can come to be? If not, then you should accept (1). Come on, it's not that hard

No. I am not. Do you have, you know, actual EVIDENCE rather than just word games?

It also seems that physicists have a different concept of what 'nothing' is verses philosophers. Which nothing are you talking about?

Can you show me a way to verify this 'nothingness'.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Divine Insight,

Ultimately it doesn't matter. As soon as you postulate an eternal God that exists outside of time as we know it you have already invalidated any arguments of cause and effect being relevant.

And you have especially rendered any notions that the idea of infinite regressions in time are illogical because the very proposal that a eternal God exists is already an infinite regression. The only contradiction you could lay claim to there would be in the very concept of "regression" implying that all actions must have been preceded by a cause. But that's a fatal argument when you are simultaneously proclaiming that an eternal God exists.

Eternity and infinity are the same thing when applied consistently and not being fallaciously applied to apples and oranges (i.e. God's Time versus time within spacetime)

In other words, you can't argue that an infinite regression of time is illogical, but then claim that an eternal God has always existed. That is a self-inconsistency in this argument that simply preys on the hope that no one will catch the fact that its referring to two different concepts of time.

So that fallacy exists as a matter of pure logic. You don't even need QM to expose that fallacy. Although QM does offer a nice example of how that fallacy can easily be exposed.

Sorry, but all I see here is a lot of assertions but not much argument. You are again confusing an infinite regression of time with the eternal "now" of God's state of being.

Yes, the Schrodinger equation evolves within the framework of entropic time. The Schodinger equation describes the relationship between the macro world and the quantum world. That's right.

However, the wave functions of QM that it depends upon are entirely non-entropic. They wouldn't work if they were entropic. The whole probabilistic nature of the quantum waves is that they must be based on randomness. They cannot be based on anything other than this or the probabilities wouldn't work.

Can you link me to some science on this? Anything really. I have been searching for anything relating to "non entropic QM" and have so far come up empty handed - not a single link. Actually, one link - this conversation popped up in Google! I'm very happy to spend some time looking into it further, if you could just point me to one paper/site where I can start my study. I saw one paper talking about using geometric evolution as an alternative to considering time as entropic, but nothing about non-entropic wavefunctions

Well this is indeed a controversial topic to be sure. And to the best of my knowledge science does not have an answer to this question. Whether the quantum "theater" exists without space-time is anyone's guess. We simply do not know the answer to this question yet, and we may never know the answer.

Surely we do though. All of the quantum mechanical and quantum field theory equations that I have seen reference time and spatial position. If you want to somehow say that quantum effects can exist outside of space-time, what you are really talking about is no longer what we currently refer to as QM, but something completely different. What is QM without space, time, energy or particles? The only candidate I can think of is some Platonic "law", which I don't get the impression would sit very comfortably with your metaphysics.

A God that is changeless is static and could not produce anything, not even a self-thought.

Why? If God eternally self-thought, and eternally was co-present and supported every instance and reference frame of space-time why would He need to change?

So I reject any speculation that it's meaningful to even speak about an eternal "now" that is not dynamic. If it can't change, then it most certainly could not suddenly produce a universe. So that flies in the very face of what you are attempting to propose.

"Suddenly" is a temporal concept - it's not like God was sitting around an infinite amount of time and then "suddenly" decided to create. See above, if He was eternally co-present with all of time there is no issue here.

A static God is a God that cannot do anything at all. Instead of being omnipotent it would be omnistatic. Not a very useful state to be in.

Why? A changeless God, if He is co-present with all time, can eternally provide instantaneous causation with every element of space-time. For a useful (though imperfect) mental picture, imagine two lines, and assume presentness is represented by light. In the temporal viewpoint, the temporal present is represented by a dot of light moving steadily along the lower line. The other line (top line), which represents the eternal present is entirely lighted at once. From a temporal viewpoint, the temporal present is simultaneous with the infinite present of God's life. From the eternal viewpoint, each temporal instant is simultaneous with the eternal present. From the eternal viewpoint then, the whole lower line is lighted at once - because there is never a temporal instant which is not co-occurrent with the eternal present. Therefore God can "support" all temporal existence without change because He is eternally co-present with each temporal instant. To show otherwise, you would have to show that causation cannot be atemporal.

Difficult to understand? Definitely, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

The rest of your post is just a genetic fallacy - St Thomas Aquinas' 1st way demonstrates an unchanging God in isolation to any concern about spiritual stability, but that is another conversation.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Goat,

Sorry, but we have been over this already. I'm afraid that I don't think we are really getting anywhere and I have no confidence that we will reach any useful agreement, at least with respect to premise 1. Nevertheless, when I get the time, I will post what I think the best arguments for premise 2 are.

Thanks for your participation so far.

[AndyT_81]

Hi again all - I forgot to mention, I will be away on short holiday for the next few days, so I probably won't get a chance to reply until then. Have a good end of the week/weekend!

[Bust Nak]

Late to the party

Do you think QM disproves (1)?

Yes. I do.

Or do you think that an infinite past is possible...

Yes. but...

, thereby disproving (2)?

(2) still stand due to scientific evidence.

Or do you think we can't get to God from reasonable arguments stemming from the conclusion?

That too.

[Goat]

Hi Divine Insight,

Ultimately it doesn't matter. As soon as you postulate an eternal God that exists outside of time as we know it you have already invalidated any arguments of cause and effect being relevant.

And you have especially rendered any notions that the idea of infinite regressions in time are illogical because the very proposal that a eternal God exists is already an infinite regression. The only contradiction you could lay claim to there would be in the very concept of "regression" implying that all actions must have been preceded by a cause. But that's a fatal argument when you are simultaneously proclaiming that an eternal God exists.

Eternity and infinity are the same thing when applied consistently and not being fallaciously applied to apples and oranges (i.e. God's Time versus time within spacetime)

In other words, you can't argue that an infinite regression of time is illogical, but then claim that an eternal God has always existed. That is a self-inconsistency in this argument that simply preys on the hope that no one will catch the fact that its referring to two different concepts of time.

So that fallacy exists as a matter of pure logic. You don't even need QM to expose that fallacy. Although QM does offer a nice example of how that fallacy can easily be exposed.

Sorry, but all I see here is a lot of assertions but not much argument. You are again confusing an infinite regression of time with the eternal "now" of God's state of being.

Yes, the Schrodinger equation evolves within the framework of entropic time. The Schodinger equation describes the relationship between the macro world and the quantum world. That's right.

However, the wave functions of QM that it depends upon are entirely non-entropic. They wouldn't work if they were entropic. The whole probabilistic nature of the quantum waves is that they must be based on randomness. They cannot be based on anything other than this or the probabilities wouldn't work.

Can you link me to some science on this? Anything really. I have been searching for anything relating to "non entropic QM" and have so far come up empty handed - not a single link. Actually, one link - this conversation popped up in Google! I'm very happy to spend some time looking into it further, if you could just point me to one paper/site where I can start my study. I saw one paper talking about using geometric evolution as an alternative to considering time as entropic, but nothing about non-entropic wavefunctions

Well this is indeed a controversial topic to be sure. And to the best of my knowledge science does not have an answer to this question. Whether the quantum "theater" exists without space-time is anyone's guess. We simply do not know the answer to this question yet, and we may never know the answer.

Surely we do though. All of the quantum mechanical and quantum field theory equations that I have seen reference time and spatial position. If you want to somehow say that quantum effects can exist outside of space-time, what you are really talking about is no longer what we currently refer to as QM, but something completely different. What is QM without space, time, energy or particles? The only candidate I can think of is some Platonic "law", which I don't get the impression would sit very comfortably with your metaphysics.

A God that is changeless is static and could not produce anything, not even a self-thought.

Why? If God eternally self-thought, and eternally was co-present and supported every instance and reference frame of space-time why would He need to change?

So I reject any speculation that it's meaningful to even speak about an eternal "now" that is not dynamic. If it can't change, then it most certainly could not suddenly produce a universe. So that flies in the very face of what you are attempting to propose.

"Suddenly" is a temporal concept - it's not like God was sitting around an infinite amount of time and then "suddenly" decided to create. See above, if He was eternally co-present with all of time there is no issue here.

A static God is a God that cannot do anything at all. Instead of being omnipotent it would be omnistatic. Not a very useful state to be in.

Why? A changeless God, if He is co-present with all time, can eternally provide instantaneous causation with every element of space-time. For a useful (though imperfect) mental picture, imagine two lines, and assume presentness is represented by light. In the temporal viewpoint, the temporal present is represented by a dot of light moving steadily along the lower line. The other line (top line), which represents the eternal present is entirely lighted at once. From a temporal viewpoint, the temporal present is simultaneous with the infinite present of God's life. From the eternal viewpoint, each temporal instant is simultaneous with the eternal present. From the eternal viewpoint then, the whole lower line is lighted at once - because there is never a temporal instant which is not co-occurrent with the eternal present. Therefore God can "support" all temporal existence without change because He is eternally co-present with each temporal instant. To show otherwise, you would have to show that causation cannot be atemporal.

Difficult to understand? Definitely, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

The rest of your post is just a genetic fallacy - St Thomas Aquinas' 1st way demonstrates an unchanging God in isolation to any concern about spiritual stability, but that is another conversation.

Does this 'eternal' state actually exist, or is it just a concept, How can you tell? Or, is this known as 'making things up as you go along??'. It sounds like a huge piece of word salad to try to excuse things.

The fun thing about having no evidence, you can make up anything you want to excuse your claims. However, I don't see how you can show your claims are accurate.

[instantc]

Does this 'eternal' state actually exist, or is it just a concept, How can you tell? Or, is this known as 'making things up as you go along??'. It sounds like a huge piece of word salad to try to excuse things.

When materialists cannot spot flaws in the opponent's logic, they often start accusing their opponents of creating a word salad or a meaningless word game. Your demand of physical evidence for metaphysical questions is completely pointless. I agree that logic alone may not be fully qualified to answer these questions, but that's pretty much the best tool we've got available.

As said before, if the KCA is sound, then such eternal stage necessarily exists. If it is not sound, such state may or may not exist. Therefore your objection is useless, as it is not directed to the premises of the argument.

[Goat]

Does this 'eternal' state actually exist, or is it just a concept, How can you tell? Or, is this known as 'making things up as you go along??'. It sounds like a huge piece of word salad to try to excuse things.

When materialists cannot spot flaws in the opponent's logic, they often start accusing their opponents of creating a word salad or a meaningless word game. Your demand of physical evidence for metaphysical questions is completely pointless. I agree that logic alone may not be fully qualified to answer these questions, but that's pretty much the best tool we've got available.

As said before, if the KCA is sound, then such eternal stage necessarily exists. If it is not sound, such state may or may not exist. Therefore your objection is useless, as it is not directed to the premises of the argument.

CAN You show it's sound? Can you verify this 'state of eternity'?? Can you verify a cause, and what that cause is?

If you can't, you can't show it's sound.

[instantc]

Does this 'eternal' state actually exist, or is it just a concept, How can you tell? Or, is this known as 'making things up as you go along??'. It sounds like a huge piece of word salad to try to excuse things.

When materialists cannot spot flaws in the opponent's logic, they often start accusing their opponents of creating a word salad or a meaningless word game. Your demand of physical evidence for metaphysical questions is completely pointless. I agree that logic alone may not be fully qualified to answer these questions, but that's pretty much the best tool we've got available.

As said before, if the KCA is sound, then such eternal stage necessarily exists. If it is not sound, such state may or may not exist. Therefore your objection is useless, as it is not directed to the premises of the argument.

CAN You show it's sound? Can you verify this 'state of eternity'?? Can you verify a cause, and what that cause is?

If you can't, you can't show it's sound.

My point was, verifying the state of eternity is a red herring, since if the KCA is sound, then such state has to exist. Therefore we should focus on the soundness of the argument, not on your red herrings. You could start by responding to his arguments. So far you have only demanded physical evidence for metaphysical claims, which is pointless, and made red herrings about verifying an eternal state.