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

[JohnA]

.

You do realize that your above statement renders the Hilbert Hotel example useless, and it also renders all the arguments that actual infinity does not exist!! Your assertion is self-refusing.

Please try again.

The assertion may be self-refusing or not.

Can you tell us what you mean when you say "actual infinity does not exist". For example, would there be an actual infinity of points on a ruler between zero and the one inch mark?

Self-refuting. My typo (am not using a spell checker). I like your attempt at an ad hominem or was it obtuse obscrantism?


McCulloch and instantc are claiming that actual infinity does not exist. So they have the burden of proof.
Are you claiming the same? You have to in order to accept Craig's Kalam.

I stated before:

Actual infinite exists axiomatically, we use it in math all the time (especially in sets), consistently. Also science uses this as all evidence so far is that space is continuous. (This may be wrong, but this far we have it that an actual infinite number of points exists between 2 points in space - am not going to repost my posts again. I answered your question already. Please pay attention this time.).

Craig claims that infinity of god refers to his omni- attributes that are limitless. If you deny this, then you reject the Kakam, and can admit that your god is not needed as the universe can be infinite as well.

Can you live up to your burden of proof?

[olavisjo]

.

Self-refuting. My typo (am not using a spell checker). I like your attempt at an ad hominem or was it obtuse obscrantism?

It is an ad hominem, and I apologize.

McCulloch and instantc are claiming that actual infinity does not exist. So they have the burden of proof.
Are you claiming the same? You have to in order to accept Craig's Kalam.

I am not claiming anything at the moment. I am just trying to figure out what the difference between "actual existence" and "exists axiomatically" actually is.

Actual infinite exists axiomatically, we use it in math all the time (especially in sets), consistently. Also science uses this as all evidence so far is that space is continuous. (This may be wrong, but this far we have it that an actual infinite number of points exists between 2 points in space - am not going to repost my posts again. I answered your question already. Please pay attention this time.).

How many points exist between two lines?
The length of three points next to each other would be 0+0+0=0
The length of a million points next to each other would be 0+0+0+...+0=0
The length of an infinite number of points next to each other would be 0+0+0+...∞... +0=0
So you have to ask does a point actually exist? Would an infinite number of points actually exist?

Craig claims that infinity of god refers to his omni- attributes that are limitless. If you deny this, then you reject the Kakam, and can admit that your god is not needed as the universe can be infinite as well.

Before we get to the Kakam, we need to settle the issue of what it means to exist, this may not be as simple as it sounds.

It can be said that physical objects exist but do abstract objects exist? Do properties, relations, events exist? Do minds exist?




‘‘Those types are not "abstract"; they are as real as int and float.’’ – Doug McIlroy.

[keithprosser3]

Dunno if those things exist or not, or even of they all abstraction or things.
But I will say this about infinite sets: There is no physical object in the universe that has an infinite number of physical elements.

But there are things with a very large number of elements. I would guess that there i is no specific theory of objects with 1,344,555,567,243,444 elements (such as the number of atoms in the sun) but the mathematicians have done some work for imaginary objects with an infinite number of elements and we can use that as an approximation.

Mathematicians aren't really interested in whether an infinite set corresponds to anything in the 'real' world - but if we did find a infinitely big star, the maths is ready for us.

Infinite sets are in the imagination of mathematicians but there are no infinite set in the physical world (at least that is the working hypothesis almost everyone accepts today) Does being in the imagination of mathematicians count as 'existence'? I prefer 'No', but if anyone was to say it did count as existence then that's fine too, as long as we accept that we would be using the same word differently and make allowances for that when we interpret each others statements.

For example, for me unicorns don't exist, but for someone else they would exist because unicorns 'exist' in minds. There is no disagreement about the state of affairs regarding unicorns, just about the appropriateness of 'exist' to describe it.

[JohnA]

.

Self-refuting. My typo (am not using a spell checker). I like your attempt at an ad hominem or was it obtuse obscrantism?

It is an ad hominem, and I apologize.

McCulloch and instantc are claiming that actual infinity does not exist. So they have the burden of proof.
Are you claiming the same? You have to in order to accept Craig's Kalam.

I am not claiming anything at the moment. I am just trying to figure out what the difference between "actual existence" and "exists axiomatically" actually is.

Actual infinite exists axiomatically, we use it in math all the time (especially in sets), consistently. Also science uses this as all evidence so far is that space is continuous. (This may be wrong, but this far we have it that an actual infinite number of points exists between 2 points in space - am not going to repost my posts again. I answered your question already. Please pay attention this time.).

How many points exist between two lines?
The length of three points next to each other would be 0+0+0=0
The length of a million points next to each other would be 0+0+0+...+0=0
The length of an infinite number of points next to each other would be 0+0+0+...∞... +0=0
So you have to ask does a point actually exist? Would an infinite number of points actually exist?

Craig claims that infinity of god refers to his omni- attributes that are limitless. If you deny this, then you reject the Kakam, and can admit that your god is not needed as the universe can be infinite as well.

Before we get to the Kakam, we need to settle the issue of what it means to exist, this may not be as simple as it sounds.

It can be said that physical objects exist but do abstract objects exist? Do properties, relations, events exist? Do minds exist?

Ap


‘‘Those types are not "abstract"; they are as real as int and float.’’ – Doug McIlroy.

Apology excepted. I do see that you have taken a liking in presenting arguments full of logical fallacies!

Am not sure where you get existence from? Is that a red herring fallacy to avoid addressing the issue?

We are talking about if an actual infinity can exist. In other words, can there be an infinite number of objects (e.g. planets, stars, apples, etc.), could time continue forever, has the universe or multi-verse been around forever? And the irony is that all objects are probably mere abstractions since we can not really see atoms and particles to see what these objects really are. You have to ask also, when does a number become infinite? I have 7 apples, then add one to get 8, keep on adding, so when do we say that the next number is infinite?

The length of three points next to each other would be 0+0+0=0

Am not sure I understand the above.
i) Are you saying the length between each of these 3 points is zero? Or,
ii) Are you saying that the length of each one of these points is zero, so the length of 3 will be zero too?

Regardless, you example is riddled with fallacies.
Begging the question/circular/Presupposition: you start with what you want to show.
False analogy/equivocation/composition/ probably more of a Definist fallacy:
Distance: How far one travels from point A to point B.
Length: The distance measured between point A and point B.


The rest of you post seems to be your own circular confusing.
Physical objects exist as physical objects.
Abstract objects exist as abstract objects.

I would rather say that your abstract objects is actually abstract concepts. So that:
Abstract concepts exist as abstract concepts.

When do we say an abstract concept is a concrete object? When we go down to the quantum scale we are merely using abstraction; so when does it become real?

Be careful as you are trying to argue that reification is not a fallacy.
Reification: Treating an abstraction as a real thing, e.g. treating the test score called "intelligence" as an innate part of a person, an error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.

E.g. the mind is a function or process of the brain organ.

[JohnA]

Dunno if those things exist or not, or even of they all abstraction or things.
But I will say this about infinite sets: There is no physical object in the universe that has an infinite number of physical elements.

But there are things with a very large number of elements. I would guess that there i is no specific theory of objects with 1,344,555,567,243,444 elements (such as the number of atoms in the sun) but the mathematicians have done some work for imaginary objects with an infinite number of elements and we can use that as an approximation.

Mathematicians aren't really interested in whether an infinite set corresponds to anything in the 'real' world - but if we did find a infinitely big star, the maths is ready for us.

Infinite sets are in the imagination of mathematicians but there are no infinite set in the physical world (at least that is the working hypothesis almost everyone accepts today) Does being in the imagination of mathematicians count as 'existence'? I prefer 'No', but if anyone was to say it did count as existence then that's fine too, as long as we accept that we would be using the same word differently and make allowances for that when we interpret each others statements.

For example, for me unicorns don't exist, but for someone else they would exist because unicorns 'exist' in minds. There is no disagreement about the state of affairs regarding unicorns, just about the appropriateness of 'exist' to describe it.

That is a fallacy: Argument by assertion.

How do you know there is not an infinite number of universes?

When does a number become infinite? Is 10,000 miles infinitely bigger than 10 to the negative 20,000 miles? If I start counting in integers from 1, 2, 3, 4 onwards, at what point do I say the next number is infinite?

You have given no argument that actual infinity can not exist.

[Artie]

How do you know there is not an infinite number of universes?

There are an infinite number of universes. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/196001/ ... ses-exist/

[keithprosser3]

Infinite sets are in the imagination of mathematicians but there are no infinite set in the physical world (at least that is the working hypothesis almost everyone accepts today)

That is a fallacy: Argument by assertion.

I addressed that later in the same post:

Infinite sets are in the imagination of mathematicians but there are no infinite set in the physical world (at least that is the working hypothesis almost everyone accepts today)

As for an 'infinite'number of universes, I think if you pin down one of the scientists they would not accept the number of universes was really infinite. They will (because of the 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis)think that some simplification in the theory means the number of universes will very large but nonetheless finite.

I think you would be rather surprised if I had proved the non-existence of physical infinities. I think the entire science community would be surprised if I had done that and my everlasting fame would be ensured.

That there is no physical infinity is perhaps unprovable, but it is an assumption scientists make. For a mathematician no finite number however large is even close to being infinity. But for physicists and others infinity can 'kick in' at various scales. On my camera lens any distance above 15 feet counts as infinity as far as focussing is concerned, but I don't suppose that means 16=infinity.

[JohnA]

Infinite sets are in the imagination of mathematicians but there are no infinite set in the physical world (at least that is the working hypothesis almost everyone accepts today)

That is a fallacy: Argument by assertion.

I addressed that later in the same post:

Infinite sets are in the imagination of mathematicians but there are no infinite set in the physical world (at least that is the working hypothesis almost everyone accepts today)

As for an 'infinite'number of universes, I think if you pin down one of the scientists they would not accept the number of universes was really infinite. They will (because of the 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis)think that some simplification in the theory means the number of universes will very large but nonetheless finite.

I think you would be rather surprised if I had proved the non-existence of physical infinities. I think the entire science community would be surprised if I had done that and my everlasting fame would be ensured.

That there is no physical infinity is perhaps unprovable, but it is an assumption scientists make. For a mathematician no finite number however large is even close to being infinity. But for physicists and others infinity can 'kick in' at various scales. On my camera lens any distance above 15 feet counts as infinity as far as focussing is concerned, but I don't suppose that means 16=infinity.

That is the same fallacy: Argument by assertion.

If it a hypothesis (actual infinity is impossible) then there is evidence for it. State your evidence please.
Also, who is this everyone you refer to? Or is this an argument from authority or population?

As for an 'infinite'number of universes, I think if you pin down one of the scientists they would not accept the number of universes was really infinite. They will (because of the 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis)think that some simplification in the theory means the number of universes will very large but nonetheless finite.

But use Artie already posted a link of this:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/196001/ ... ses-exist/

Also, here are a few more (older as above, but valid still):
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists ... erses.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-universe
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-rethinking ... verse.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#See_also

That is besides the fact that there are multi-verse theorists working on the problem. Surely, why would these people even do this if there is no reason to think a multi-verse is possible? Why would these scientists waste their time?

Sure, it has not been confirmed that an infinite number of universes exists, but there are reason to think so: eternal inflation, cosmic microwave background (CMB).

I think you would be rather surprised if I had proved the non-existence of physical infinities. I think the entire science community would be surprised if I had done that and my everlasting fame would be ensured.

Correct, you have not proved it at all. Since proof belongs to math and math alone, you have to deal with the problem of set theory in math that says infinities exists.
You are looking for evidence, and you provided none.

That there is no physical infinity is perhaps unprovable, but it is an assumption scientists make.

Science makes no such assumption, where did you hear this? Assertion fallacy again.

For a mathematician no finite number however large is even close to being infinity.

That assertion of yours is self-refuting. Not only that, set theory in math says you are wrong.

But for physicists and others infinity can 'kick in' at various scales. On my camera lens any distance above 15 feet counts as infinity as far as focusing is concerned, but I don't suppose that means 16=infinity.

So, now you accept that infinity can exist? You are arguing in circles my friend.

[keithprosser3]

Science makes no such assumption, where did you hear this? Assertion fallacy again.

Get this right - making an assertion is not a fallacy. I asserted that scientists use the 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis to draw your attention to what - I had assumed - was common knowledge, not to prove the point.

My assertion is true, not a fallacy.

Let me use an example of how physicists reject physical infinities a paragraph from the article you linked to that 'proves' them.

"Efstathiou said the pioneers of inflation theory should start thinking about their own Nobel prizes. Two of those theorists – Paul Steinhardt of Princeton and Andreas Albrecht of University of California Davis – said before the announcement that they were sort of hoping that their inflation theory would not be bolstered.

That’s because taking inflation a step further leads to a sticky situation: An infinite number of universes."

Mathematicians might be ok with infinity, but physicists most certainly aren't.

[JohnA]

Science makes no such assumption, where did you hear this? Assertion fallacy again.

Get this right - making an assertion is not a fallacy. I asserted that scientists use the 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis to draw your attention to what - I had assumed - was common knowledge, not to prove the point.

My assertion is true, not a fallacy.

Let me use an example of how physicists reject physical infinities a paragraph from the article you linked to that 'proves' them.

"Efstathiou said the pioneers of inflation theory should start thinking about their own Nobel prizes. Two of those theorists – Paul Steinhardt of Princeton and Andreas Albrecht of University of California Davis – said before the announcement that they were sort of hoping that their inflation theory would not be bolstered.

That’s because taking inflation a step further leads to a sticky situation: An infinite number of universes."

Mathematicians might be ok with infinity, but physicists most certainly aren't.

Assertion fallacy is when you say that X is true. Therefore X is true.
Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction. While this may seem stupid, it's actually an easy trap to fall into and is quite common.

I asserted that scientists use the 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis to draw your attention to what - I had assumed - was common knowledge, not to prove the point.

You are asserting it is true therefore it is true?
If science has formulated a 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis for this, why are you refusing to provide the evidence for this? Surely you know that in order to formulate a hypothesis in science you need evidence. Please enlighten us on this evidence you claim. I have never even heard of this so called 'no physical infinity exists' hypothesis. That is just another Assertion fallacy.

Code: Select all

My assertion is true, not a fallacy. 

To make a claim (assertion) you need logic, an argument, and evidence before we can accept your assertion is true. You are now for the 3rd time committing Assertion fallacy.

a sticky situation: An infinite number of universes

You are now quote mining. Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.
Also, the above just says it makes the scientists uncomfortable, it does not say this scientist says it is impossible for an actual infinity to exist. And even if this scientist did say this, it would merely be a fallacious argument from authority on your behalf.

Mathematicians might be ok with infinity, but physicists most certainly aren't.

But why?
So you are saying it is logical (mathematics is part of logic) for an actual infinity to exist.
And then you say physics (science are not saying an actual infinity can exist)?
So you are saying that physics are not logical? Is that an argument from ignorance?
But physics uses math all the time. Math is the language of science, they can find another one if needed.
"If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week." Richard P. Feynman (1918 - 1988).




If you want to convince anyone that an actual infinity does not exist then you need to provide logic, arguments and evidence for your claim. Without that your assertion is a vapor empty claim.

Good luck.