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]

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.

I'm sorry. I'm not making things clear enough I suppose.

I'm not attempting to argue with you or convince you of anything. I'm simply disagreeing with you definitions and conclusions. As far as I'm concerned you simply aren't being consistent in your terms.

I have nothing to prove to you, nor do I care what you think. I'm simply trying to offer you insight into where your proposals are flawed. For you to try to make a distinction between infinite time and eternity is, IMHO, absurd and utterly useless.

You claim that there is a difference between an infinite regression of time and an eternal "now". I simply disagree. You are the one who is erroneously placing an arrow of time on the concept of regression. I'm not. It doesn't need to have an arrow and this is what I mean by when I say "non-entropic".

Clearly you aren't understanding the very meaning of "non-entropic". This concept automatically infers that there is no arrow to time.

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.

You aren't likely to find anything searching with those terms. The term "non-entropic" is not a popularly used term in QM. I chose to use that term myself simply because I felt it would be the easiest way to convey the concept.

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

I can't imagine pointing you to a single paper that would clear this up for you. I've studied quantum mechanics for over 40 years. I've taken countless live courses on it. I've read countless books on it. And you'll probably need to do the same thing to gain the type of understanding that I'm attempting to convey to you.

I don't see where it's all that important. Clearly your only agenda is to conclude that there exists a God. There is nothing in all of QM that will help you that. So I don't see where studying QM is going to help with your agenda.

All of the quantum mechanical and quantum field theory equations that I have seen reference time and spatial position.

Sure they do, because those equations describe observables and all observable must necessarily exist in the fabric of spacetime in order to become observables.

However, what you seem to be avoiding is that fact that these same equations also required and reference waves of potentiality that do not reference time or spatial position. On the contrary they are waves of pure probability. Some people even call them Probability Waves.

So you either aren't playing close attention or your are purposefully avoiding recognizing these things for some reason.

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.

I totally disagree with you on this point. This point is a direct result from your previous statement which is already in error.

For QM to work there must exists Waves of Potentiality or Waves of probability that cannot be observed. Therefore they cannot be part of space-time.

So you are avoiding these aspects of QM and therefore your conclusions about QM are wrong.

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.

If you wish to call it some form of "Platonic Law" I can't truly object to this.

Clearly something is causing the waves of potentiality in QM. And those waves necessarily exist beyond the confines of space, time, energy, and particles. This is a necessary postulate of QM to even work. The postulate that waves of potentiality or probability must necessarily exist even though they are themselves completely unobservable directly.

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?

The ability to think requires change. If God's thoughts change, then God is changing.

An unchanging God would be a God who is unable to even think.

So if you expect me to believe in a God who can think he must also be able 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.

If God is eternally co-present all of the "time" then he must be changing.

And ironically you still can't get rid of the concept of "time".

Your concept of an eternal 'now' does not get rid of a concept of time. All it does is bring into the question of whether or not entropy is an important property of that time.

All of your issues with time actually boil down to issues of entropy.

So perhaps entropy is the concept you should spent some time on. (no pun intended)

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.

It's not that it's all that difficult to understand. There are many scientists who have proposed similar pictures of reality. Some of them have suggested a potential "Mind of God" associated with this picture whilst others see this very same picture as being purely secular.

What you have just described is not new to me. I've heard and read many ideas along these lines and have even toyed with constructing some of my own models.

On they they all have in common, (which I've already explained), it that they require both a non-entropic type of time, as well as the elimination of any propagation delays. And many physicists find both of those ideas extremely difficult to accept. Especially the latter of instantaneous actions over vast distances.

~~~~

You asked me to point you to something useful concerning QM.

My suggestion would be to real all of the Einstein/Borh debates. Read them again and again and do any extra studying required until you understand all of these debates and why Niels Bohr won all of them.

If you think that Niels Bohr lost a single debate then you are either not understanding them or you are in denial.

These debates will ultimately lead you up to what is known as the EPR paradox, or Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen. This was the final debate between Einstein and Bohr. It remained unsolved until a man name John Stewart Bell found a way to decide it experimentally. This is called "Bell's Theorem" and it's true, this is why it is called a theorem instead of just a theory.

Bell's Theorem showed that Bohr wins again.

We must either abandon the notion of locality (propagation delay) or cause and effect (entropic-time) in order to accept the experimental observations of the quantum world.

Or both.

I personally accept that both are violated in the quantum realm.

~~~~~

As to your arguments for the existence of a "God", I think you are way ahead of yourself. Also it's clear that you have an extreme agenda for that conclusion which is never good. You just appear as a religious fanatic who has only that single goal in mind. You are attempting to force a preferred conclusion rather than to simply investigate what might actually be truth.

~~~~~

Here's the catch.

This 'Platonic Law' that you had mentioned before may very well be static as you demand that it must be (i.e. unchanging).

If that's the case, then secularists argue that this isn't a "God" who thinks and reasons, but rather it's just a set of laws (or natural states) that force the results we see.

In other words, that constantly lit up line that you described as "God" would not be a sentient thinking being at all. It would simply be the laws of reality carved in some sort of unchanging stone beneath the fabric of reality.

An unchanging "God" is the same as an unchanging underlying "Platonic Law".

And that would not require any sentience or consciousness of any kind.

So secularists can take this exact same information and observations and say to the theists, "Why are you calling this God? It's obviously just laws that are carved in stone. There is no reason to attribute sentience to it."

And your argument is blown away like a fragile house of cards.

[instantc]

I have nothing to prove to you, nor do I care what you think. I'm simply trying to offer you insight into where your proposals are flawed. For you to try to make a distinction between infinite time and eternity is, IMHO, absurd and utterly useless.

Another objection, discussion of which seems pointless to me. If he can properly justify two assertions, (1) that infinite regression of time is impossible and (2) that the first thing that existed in space/time didn't come out of absolute nothing, it then inescapably follows that whatever there was before space/time had to be eternal, as opposed to something that has exited for infinite time. Thus, we are back to the two original premises.

[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.

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.

But that is the point, now isn't it. You can SHOW the assumptions are true and accurate, so you can not show that the argument is sound. Indeed, there are a lot of indications with QM that it is not.

As far as I can see, you can not show that the logic is 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.

But that is the point, now isn't it. You can SHOW the assumptions are true and accurate, so you can not show that the argument is sound. Indeed, there are a lot of indications with QM that it is not.

As far as I can see, you can not show that the logic is sound..

I cannot show what? Which of the two premises are you attacking now?

Are saying that it is possible that something can come out of absolute nothing, or are we moving on to the second premise now?

Stop making red herrings about 'verifying state of eternity' and 'showing causality', either you contest that something cannot come out of absolute nothing, or we can move to the second premise.

[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.

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.

But that is the point, now isn't it. You can SHOW the assumptions are true and accurate, so you can not show that the argument is sound. Indeed, there are a lot of indications with QM that it is not.

As far as I can see, you can not show that the logic is sound..

I cannot show what? Which of the two premises are you attacking now?

Are saying that it is possible that something can come out of absolute nothing, or are we moving on to the second premise now?

Stop making red herrings about 'verifying state of eternity' and 'showing causality', either you contest that something cannot come out of absolute nothing, or we can move to the second premise.

Both of them! And 'showing causality' is the basis of the entire argument. That is essential to the premise.

[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.

But that is the point, now isn't it. You can SHOW the assumptions are true and accurate, so you can not show that the argument is sound. Indeed, there are a lot of indications with QM that it is not.

As far as I can see, you can not show that the logic is sound..

I cannot show what? Which of the two premises are you attacking now?

Are saying that it is possible that something can come out of absolute nothing, or are we moving on to the second premise now?

Stop making red herrings about 'verifying state of eternity' and 'showing causality', either you contest that something cannot come out of absolute nothing, or we can move to the second premise.

Both of them! And 'showing causality' is the basis of the entire argument. That is essential to the premise.

The only thing one needs to justify for the first premise is that something cannot come out of absolute nothing. If that is true, then the premise is sound, keeping in mind how he defined necessary cause. That is what you need to contest.

[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.

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.

But that is the point, now isn't it. You can SHOW the assumptions are true and accurate, so you can not show that the argument is sound. Indeed, there are a lot of indications with QM that it is not.

As far as I can see, you can not show that the logic is sound..

I cannot show what? Which of the two premises are you attacking now?

Are saying that it is possible that something can come out of absolute nothing, or are we moving on to the second premise now?

Stop making red herrings about 'verifying state of eternity' and 'showing causality', either you contest that something cannot come out of absolute nothing, or we can move to the second premise.

Both of them! And 'showing causality' is the basis of the entire argument. That is essential to the premise.

The only thing one needs to justify for the first premise is that something cannot come out of absolute nothing. If that is true, then the premise is sound, keeping in mind how he defined necessary cause. That is what you need to contest.

Yet, he can not confirm it, one way or another. Even if it is not out of nothing.

He can not show that 'causality' exists on the level that the singularity is.. which is the quantum level.

Sorry. NO matter how much you complain.. you can not verify the first premise.

Come to think of it, I don't see the second premise being verified either, since according to the law of thermodyanmics, energy can neither be created or destroy, only change form. You can't show that the universe didn't always exist, in one form or another, and merely change form... without a cause at that. (There are events that are non-causual, for example, the timing of radioactive decay)\

[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.

But that is the point, now isn't it. You can SHOW the assumptions are true and accurate, so you can not show that the argument is sound. Indeed, there are a lot of indications with QM that it is not.

As far as I can see, you can not show that the logic is sound..

I cannot show what? Which of the two premises are you attacking now?

Are saying that it is possible that something can come out of absolute nothing, or are we moving on to the second premise now?

Stop making red herrings about 'verifying state of eternity' and 'showing causality', either you contest that something cannot come out of absolute nothing, or we can move to the second premise.

Both of them! And 'showing causality' is the basis of the entire argument. That is essential to the premise.

The only thing one needs to justify for the first premise is that something cannot come out of absolute nothing. If that is true, then the premise is sound, keeping in mind how he defined necessary cause. That is what you need to contest.

Yet, he can not confirm it, one way or another. Even if it is not out of nothing.

He can not show that 'causality' exists on the level that the singularity is.. which is the quantum level.

Sorry. NO matter how much you complain.. you can not verify the first premise.

Come to think of it, I don't see the second premise being verified either, since according to the law of thermodyanmics, energy can neither be created or destroy, only change form. You can't show that the universe didn't always exist, in one form or another, and merely change form... without a cause at that. (There are events that are non-causual, for example, the timing of radioactive decay)\

I don't find the second premise very convincing, but I am more interested in the truth of the first premise. Every event ever witnessed so far requires at least a formal cause, even in quantum level. That's beside the point though, since the first premise is essentially asking whether something can come out of absolute nothing. To say that it is possible makes as much sense to me as saying that two times four apples can equal ten apples.

Thus, I would be comfortable granting the first premise, as I think the argument almost certainly goes wrong in the second premise. That's why I would be interested in hearing the arguments for premise (2).

If you insist that perhaps something can come out of nothing, until the premise has been demonstrated in front of your eyes, then that's pretty much as far as the debate goes. Granted, I cannot scientifically demonstrate the first premise. I cannot demonstrate any other logical truths either though, who says that proposition shouldn't contradict themselves, can you demonstrate and verify that?

What I don't understand is why someone would come to a debate forum to constantly point out the obvious, 'you cannot scientifically verify this and that', without having anything else to say. If anything, you might want to give arguments why you think that scientific demonstration is superior to logical deduction and not just assert it, that could be more constructive.

Physical evidence will never be able to answer metaphysical questions, arguments like this will always be more or less speculative. That doesn't mean they couldn't be interesting.

[Goat]

I don't find the second premise very convincing, but I am more interested in the truth of the first premise. Every event ever witnessed so far requires at least a formal cause, even in quantum level. That's beside the point though, since the first premise is essentially asking whether something can come out of absolute nothing. To say that it is possible makes as much sense to me as saying that two times four apples can equal ten apples.

What is the cause of virtual particles/quantum fluctuations?? They do not have a formal cause.

What is the formal cause of radioactive decay? Can you predict when a specific atom will decay?

[instantc]

I don't find the second premise very convincing, but I am more interested in the truth of the first premise. Every event ever witnessed so far requires at least a formal cause, even in quantum level. That's beside the point though, since the first premise is essentially asking whether something can come out of absolute nothing. To say that it is possible makes as much sense to me as saying that two times four apples can equal ten apples.

What is the cause of virtual particles/quantum fluctuations?? They do not have a formal cause.

As said before, virtual particles can only occur in space/time, therefore space and time are the necessary causes.