Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #1

Post by historia »

From another thread:
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:38 am
There are multiple fallacies and problems with the KALAM.

. . .

Firstly,

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".
There is some uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning. They may be exceptions. Freedom of will conform the religious is real and therefore has uncaused components. Therefore the first premise is bogus.

Secondly,

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing stuff, entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation. Therefore there is an equivocation fallacy here as well.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Here he refers to material cause recombination of pre-existing stuff.
"The universe has a cause." Here he refers to divine creation-ex nihilo.

Thirdly,

He makes the fallacy of composition.
If things inside the universe(multiverse or whatever) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The fabric of Space-Time is probably finite and necessarily has a beginning state of minimum entropy(Singularity) and possibly an end state of maximum entropy(Heat Death).
The fabric of Space-time may be just a thing inside the universe(multiverse or whatever).

Fourthly,

We have also the fallacy of single cause.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an
outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

There may be that the fabric of Space-Time(this thing inside universe(multiverse or whatever) or the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself was caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Fifthly,
Scientists don't know what happened before plank time.
So all this talk is irrelevant and highly speculative.
The reality there is a gap in our knowledge.
Using this gap to make an argument for God just makes one guilty of the fallacy: argument from ignorance and plays right into the God of the Gaps.
Question for debate: Is alexxcJRO correct that the kalam cosmological argument suffers from these various logical fallacies?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #11

Post by Miles »

brunumb wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:26 pm [Replying to Miles in post #2]

Thank you for the links Miles. Let me add the following clip to the mix:

Nice video. I almost always like Matt's explanations. However, I do have one quibble with his terminology here. In explaining syllogisms he correctly identifies the validity of a syllogism as having a structure that leads to a valid conclusion; however, he then identifies the truths of the premises as the soundness of the syllogism when, in fact, the soundness of a syllogism is the combination of its the validity and the truth of the premises. If the structure of the argument is valid AND its premises are true then its conclusion can be said to be sound. Soundness only applies to the argument as a whole, not to the truth of its premises.

All M are P
S is M
___________
S is P

Is a valid syllogism. Plug in your M, P and S terms, however silly they may be, and your conclusion as shown here will be valid.




However,

All M are P
M is S
______________
S are P

is not valid. Its structure---the arrangement of M, P, and S in its premises and conclusion---simply doesn't conform to one of the several valid forms of syllogisms. You can't get "S are P" from the structure of the given premises: "All M are P," "M is S."



Now, if in using

All M are P
All S is M
___________
S are P

a valid syllogism, you say M = men, P = people, and S = Horses, of course your second (minor) premise is untrue; Horses are not men, so the conclusion; Horses are people cannot be true. This, then, would not be considered a sound argument.



.

Online
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18676
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #12

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Eloi wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:46 pm I guess such KALAM is what the Scripture says:

Heb. 3:4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

I don't need to be a philosopher to understand what it means and fully agree.
Certainly no need to be a philosopher to accept unproven claims.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #13

Post by Miles »

Eloi wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:46 pm I guess such KALAM is what the Scripture says:

Heb. 3:4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
Hardly, but if you honestly think it is, prove it. Or at the very least show us your compelling evidence.


.

User avatar
David the apologist
Scholar
Posts: 351
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #14

Post by David the apologist »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:22 am Interpretations are akin to bible interpretations it does not gets you to the reality, all it gets you it is speculative imaginative things which may well be fantasmagorical or true in part or whole.
Without an interpretation of quantum mechanics, you have no ontological commitments. Without ontological commitments, you have no case against causality. You have a bunch of equations, the meaning of which - the nature of what, exactly, they describe - you confess not knowing.
Until it can objectively be showed through experimentation that the process surrounding the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles is deterministic in nature the question remains open.
I've never said that causes have to be deterministic, and my statements about free will and agent causation should make it clear that I'm committed to the position that they don't.

Free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices.
And causes have to be deterministic... why?
But one uses two different meanings in this argument therefore equivocation. (Difference which is significant)
Except the meaning of causation is broad enough to cover both cases. Reasserting your claim in response to my questioning of it does not salvage it.
David the apologist wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:45 pm Not if we define the universe as "space, time, mass-energy-momentum, and quantum fields." Thoae are the basic elements of modern physics, so I see no reason not to equate the entirety of the natural universe with them. If you want to add non-physical objects to our ontology, be my guest. Your fellow skeptics will probably start whining about the burden of proof, though.
Argument from ignorance. I can’t imagine anything else therefore...
All you have is argument from ignorance. You can’t have anything outside space-time continuum says you.
I think that there are plenty of things beyond the space-time continuum. I just don't see how they could possibly be physical things.

Laws internal to the universe may not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.
Cause and effect is a law of the universe. This does not mean it applies to the universe itself.
You'll recall that I don't believe that "laws" govern "events," in the universe or otherwise. "I believe in objects/substances with intrinsic natures that govern (to to greater or lesser extent) how they act, and that such actions constitute events.
Space-time continuum may be a thing inside the universe that begin to exist. It therefore does not necessarily applies to the universe itself.
What do you propose is a part of the universe that is neither space-time nor something within space-time.
There may be multiple dimensions, where space-time continuum happened to begin to exist in only one dimension.
Clarify your meaning, please.

Also as of 2015, the big bang model has been revised by physicists using quantum mechanical equations to replace the need for the singularity, thus giving the universe the possibility of existing forever.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9314009381
All I see are a couple of 404 errors, so I'm a need something more solid there, chief. Especially given the implications of the BVG theorem and the Generalized Second Law.

The former has been done to death in debates like these, so let's focus on the latter:

Link
The generalized second law can be used to prove a singularity theorem, by generalizing the notion of a trapped surface to quantum situations. Like Penrose's original singularity theorem, it implies that spacetime is null geodesically incomplete inside black holes, and to the past of spatially infinite Friedmann--Robertson--Walker cosmologies. If space is finite instead, the generalized second law requires that there only be a finite amount of entropy producing processes in the past, unless there is a reversal of the arrow of time. In asymptotically flat spacetime, the generalized second law also rules out traversable wormholes, negative masses, and other forms of faster-than-light travel between asymptotic regions, as well as closed timelike curves. Furthermore it is impossible to form baby universes which eventually become independent of the mother universe, or to restart inflation. Since the semiclassical approximation is used only in regions with low curvature, it is argued that the results may hold in full quantum gravity. An introductory section describes the second law and its time-reverse, in ordinary and generalized thermodynamics, using either the fine-grained or the coarse-grained entropy. (The fine-grained version is used in all results except those relating to the arrow of time.) A proof of the coarse-grained ordinary second law is given.
So, in an infinite universe, spacetime is demonstrably geodesically incomplete. In a finite universe, only a finite number of entropy-generating processes can have occurred (barring a reversal of time's arrow, but that's hilariously improbable anyways).
Q: Who has established this? :o
Given that space-time is geodesically past-incomplete, and given that energy-momentum and quantum fields require spacetime in order to exist, any putative cause of all four entities will require that it not be dependent on any of them. Since physics as we know it only makes reference to those entities and entities that depend on them, it follows that the cause will be non-physical according to our present understanding.
This does not refute the problem of single cause.
If there is a non-physical quasi-personal cause of the universe, physicalism is refuted. That should be sufficient.
Talking about person or persons wishes or wants behind an argument it shows only weakness and impotence.
People have done plenty of that when analyzing my arguments. I see no reason not to "pay it forward" to other skeptics.
"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #15

Post by Miles »

David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:22 am
Free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices.
And causes have to be deterministic... why?
Q. If an event isn't determined by a cause then how did it arise? Utterly at random?


.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #16

Post by alexxcJRO »

David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm
Without an interpretation of quantum mechanics, you have no ontological commitments. Without ontological commitments, you have no case against causality. You have a bunch of equations, the meaning of which - the nature of what, exactly, they describe - you confess not knowing.
I do not have to commit to any quantum interpretations for I did not made the claim: “ atom decay and virtual particles “ are necessarily indeterministic but just pointed out there is talk of maybe uncaused things in the universe therefore the claim
“Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” is bogus.
Note for the readers The Copenhagen interpretation (which is a indeterministic) is the most common held interpretation by the scientists.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... n-physics/

“The Copenhagen interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics principally attributed to Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.[1][2][3] It is one of the oldest of numerous proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics, as features of it date to the development of quantum mechanics during 1925–1927, and it remains one of the most commonly taught."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm I've never said that causes have to be deterministic,
Q: So your objection against “Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” is bogus because " atom decay and virtual particles "may be conform the Copenhagen interpretation is?
You claiming “Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” so therefore cannot be in favor of the Copenhagen interpretation because this means your contradicting yourself.
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm and my statements about free will and agent causation should make it clear that I'm committed to the position that they don't.
And causes have to be deterministic... why?
I never said they have to be deterministic.
I went along with Christians beliefs that free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices. That therefore exists things that begin to exist, that do not have a cause to their existence. Therefore the premise “Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” is bogus.
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm Except the meaning of causation is broad enough to cover both cases. Reasserting your claim in response to my questioning of it does not salvage it.
Sir, in logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.

Q: Do we have the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses?
A: Answer is yes.

Example: A carpenter causes a block of wood to transform from the block to a table.

We have cause meaning things in the universe having both material causes and efficient causes and then we have meaning only efficient cause and nothing.
Something (carpenter - efficient cause) causes transformation from of something(wood - material cause ) into another thing(a table- final cause).
We have cause mean another thing something (god-“an efficient cause”) causes the something (universe?final cause) out of nothing.
There is a clear difference in meaning.
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm I think that there are plenty of things beyond the space-time continuum. I just don't see how they could possibly be physical things.
Given that space-time is geodesically past-incomplete, and given that energy-momentum and quantum fields require spacetime in order to exist, any putative cause of all four entities will require that it not be dependent on any of them. Since physics as we know it only makes reference to those entities and entities that depend on them, it follows that the cause will be non-physical according to our present understanding.
So, in an infinite universe, spacetime is demonstrably geodesically incomplete. In a finite universe, only a finite number of entropy-generating processes can have occurred (barring a reversal of time's arrow, but that's hilariously improbable anyways).
All I see are a couple of 404 errors, so I'm a need something more solid there, chief. Especially given the implications of the BVG theorem and the Generalized Second Law.

What do you propose is a part of the universe that is neither space-time nor something within space-time.
Physical in the sense space-time continuum maybe not.
But maybe physical needs to be adjusted to mean more then space-time continuum.
There may be more physics to learn about. More things outside the universe. That are maybe not constrained to cause-effect, time and so one.
That fact that you fail to imagine or are ignorant it does not meant non-existence and therefore GOD.

Q: How "I believe in objects/substances with intrinsic natures that govern (to to greater or lesser extent) how they act, and that such actions constitute events.” refutes that cause and effect as we know it may not exist or manifest outside of the universe just because it exists and manifest inside the universe?
If objects fall onto earth inside the atmosphere because of gravity it does not mean the same happens off planet in space outside the atmosphere.
It would fallacious to assume things would fall onto earth when off planet because that is what happens when on planet.

If u can’t imagine something or are ignorant it does not mean it does not exist.
Again with the argument from ignorance, argument from lack of imagination. Repeating same boring illogical nonsense.
I don’t know. it may be that the fabric between universes in a multiverse which is made out of “Sdfkjksdbnfgjksd” matter.
Or maybe just an eternal universe(Eternalism is true) in a B theory of time where Past, Present, Future exists eternally as a four-dimensional spacetime block where temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion.
“B-theory in theoretical physics[edit]
The B-theory of time has received support from physicists.[17][18] This is likely due to its compatibility with physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology, point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.
In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there is no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.
Many of special relativity's now-proven counterintuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity is often taken to imply eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four-dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and in Roger Penrose's advanced form of this argument, the Andromeda paradox.[19]
It is therefore common (though not universal) for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts. This is sometimes called a time-slice ontology.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

Here the broken link:

“Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html


David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm You'll recall that I don't believe that "laws" govern "events," in the universe or otherwise. "I believe in objects/substances with intrinsic natures that govern (to to greater or lesser extent) how they act, and that such actions constitute events.
Q: You don’t believe in the second Law of thermodynamics? :o
I don’t understand what you babble about.

David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm Clarify your meaning, please.
There may be multiple dimensions to our universe beside the 3 of space and time. M-theory revealed a universe with 10 spatial dimensions and one of time.
There may be that time itself its like 3 dimensional space and one can climb to the future and go down to the past in a 4 block b theory of time eternal timeless universe.


David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm If there is a non-physical quasi-personal cause of the universe, physicalism is refuted. That should be sufficient.

Q: Who said the cause is non-physical?
Physical multiple causes(that may be sentient or not) that are nor made of what u think of as physical. Like ani-matter added to what was one taught as physical and then revised with dark matter and so one.
Or maybe multiple non-physical causes.
I don’t care if physicalism is refuted.

What do u mean by non-physical?
If I define as physical: all the matter in the universe.
Q: Is anti-matter not physical?

If I define as physical: all the matter and anti-matter in the universe.
Q: Is dark matter not physical?

You keep babbling vague nonsense.
Q: Why are apologists so confusing and vague, huh? :)
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
David the apologist
Scholar
Posts: 351
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #17

Post by David the apologist »

Miles wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:22 am
Free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices.
And causes have to be deterministic... why?
Q. If an event isn't determined by a cause then how did it arise? Utterly at random?


.
Causation is just the production of an effect. There's no reason to think that "X produced Y" is inconsistent with "X didn't have to produce Y."

Whether X produced Y "at random," or triggered an event with multiple possible outcomes of which Y was one, or made a free choice to produce Y, it doesn't matter. As long as Y was produced by something, causation is satisfied.
"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian

User avatar
David the apologist
Scholar
Posts: 351
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #18

Post by David the apologist »

alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:36 am
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm
Without an interpretation of quantum mechanics, you have no ontological commitments. Without ontological commitments, you have no case against causality. You have a bunch of equations, the meaning of which - the nature of what, exactly, they describe - you confess not knowing.
I do not have to commit to any quantum interpretations for I did not made the claim: “ atom decay and virtual particles “ are necessarily indeterministic but just pointed out there is talk of maybe uncaused things in the universe therefore the claim
“Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” is bogus.
I've given you a dilemma.

Either you have an ontological hypothesis about what's going on with atomic decay, or you don't.

If you do, you have to explain 1. How, on your hypothesis, "noncausality" is entailed, and 2. Why your hypothesis is better than any of the ones where causality is entailed.

If you don't, you're gesticulating at equations yelling "maybe maybe maybe!"
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm I've never said that causes have to be deterministic,
Q: So your objection against “Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” is bogus because " atom decay and virtual particles "may be conform the Copenhagen interpretation is?
You claiming “Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” so therefore cannot be in favor of the Copenhagen interpretation because this means your contradicting yourself.
1. Since I don't believe that causes have to be deterministic, the only commitment I have regarding the Copenhagen interpretation is that "measurements" be causal.

2. You appear to be changing the topic, and in a very confused manner. Let's focus on whether or not causes have to be deterministic, please.
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm and my statements about free will and agent causation should make it clear that I'm committed to the position that they don't.
And causes have to be deterministic... why?
I never said they have to be deterministic.
Then why does the Copenhagen interpretation being "nondeterministic" have any impact on whether or not quantum events have causes?
I went along with Christians beliefs that free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices. That therefore exists things that begin to exist, that do not have a cause to their existence. Therefore the premise “Everything that begin to exist has a cause to its existence” is bogus.
Past events don't determine our choices, but we cause our choices non-deterministically. That is my position.
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm Except the meaning of causation is broad enough to cover both cases. Reasserting your claim in response to my questioning of it does not salvage it.
Sir, in logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.
Causation = production.

Production can occur with or without preexisting materials.

I don't see how specifying whether or not there were preexisting materials changes the sense of the word "cause."

I understand what the alleged fallacy is, I just don't see how it could possibly apply.

David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm I think that there are plenty of things beyond the space-time continuum. I just don't see how they could possibly be physical things.
Given that space-time is geodesically past-incomplete, and given that energy-momentum and quantum fields require spacetime in order to exist, any putative cause of all four entities will require that it not be dependent on any of them. Since physics as we know it only makes reference to those entities and entities that depend on them, it follows that the cause will be non-physical according to our present understanding.
So, in an infinite universe, spacetime is demonstrably geodesically incomplete. In a finite universe, only a finite number of entropy-generating processes can have occurred (barring a reversal of time's arrow, but that's hilariously improbable anyways).
All I see are a couple of 404 errors, so I'm a need something more solid there, chief. Especially given the implications of the BVG theorem and the Generalized Second Law.

What do you propose is a part of the universe that is neither space-time nor something within space-time.
Physical in the sense space-time continuum maybe not.
But maybe physical needs to be adjusted to mean more then space-time continuum.
There may be more physics to learn about. More things outside the universe. That are maybe not constrained to cause-effect, time and so one.
1. Physics has always been about stuff in space that changes over time, described mathematically. Including stuff that isn't in space, doesn't change over time, or isn't even "stuff" in any meaningful sense? That seems to me to be to stop doing physics and start doing something else.

2. I don't know what you mean by "cause-effect" being "a constraint." An event just is the action of some entity. It can be shown that a similar thing could be said about the existence of a contingent thing. So unless events don't happen outside of the universe, I don't see how things outside the universe could avoid "cause-effect."

Q: How "I believe in objects/substances with intrinsic natures that govern (to to greater or lesser extent) how they act, and that such actions constitute events.” refutes that cause and effect as we know it may not exist or manifest outside of the universe just because it exists and manifest inside the universe?
An event is the action of an agent.
Agents produce their actions.
Production is causation.
Therefore, an event is an instance of causation.

QED.
I don’t know. it may be that the fabric between universes in a multiverse which is made out of “Sdfkjksdbnfgjksd” matter.
When you have to bang randomly on your keyboard to make a point, that isn't a good sign for your position.
Or maybe just an eternal universe(Eternalism is true) in a B theory of time where Past, Present, Future exists eternally as a four-dimensional spacetime block where temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion.
If you can come up with a valid explanation of how things change in our perception if nothing ever really changes AND an explanation of why multiplying by i/c suddenly places huge constraints on the "shape" things can take with respect to a coordinate, then I will CONSIDER taking eternalism seriously. Until then, it strikes me as a case of mistaking the map for the territory.
Here the broken link:

“Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
We studied Bohmian deviation equation and Raychaudhuri’s equation. After investigating the problem, we found that the totality of the singularity theorems and their results do not change. In other words, by using this method, we can not remove the singular or conjugate points of space-time. Because, the output of this method is the sum of old space-time features with additional features due to the Bohmian quantum potential that are not correlated to each other. Thus, the main features of classical curvature e.g. singular points, horizons and etc, remain unaffected and what changes is a deviation from geodesic equation. Only in one case the singularities of space-time may be removed, and it is when we consider the effects of back-reaction of matter on space-time in the Bohmian framework. These results are obtained in the framework of BQM in which the definition of trajectory is possible. Otherwise, it was not possible to get these results through the SQM.

Regarding the claim that singularities can be removed even with back reaction, they have the following to say:
Here, we have an additional term with respect to the classical Raychaudhuri’s equation due to Bohmian quantum potential. For the classical case, where ωµν = 0 and the strong energy condition is held, we conclude that the expansion must decrease during the congurence evolution. The term 12∇µ∇µ Q may have different signs during theevolution. This makes it difficult to judge about the behavior of trajectories during the
evolution. But, from the our previous discussion about the conjugate points and deviation equation we found that since the classical curvature is not affected by Bohmian terms, the main features of space-time do not change and singularities will not be removed. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated in ref [9] p.225-226, that the singular points and the expansion have close and direct relationship. In other words, when η → 0, for a singular point, the geodesics expansion tends to infinity(θ → −∞). Since, in our approach the singular points will not be removed, we expect that the end
of trajectories evolution leads to singular points finally. The only difference with respect to the classical procedure is that the trajectories fluctuate around the geodesics curves due to Bohmian quantum force. If, we consider the back-reaction effects by writing the full action, then some features of new space-time, like the singular points, may change.[13]. Nevertheless, the consequences of singularity theorems remain unaffected. Because, singularity theorems are independent of the specific space-time whether it is classical space-time or quantum space-time.
Emphasis added.

So, it seems like the ability of "bohmian trajectories" to get around singularity theorems has been exaggerated by a sensationalist media. No surprise there.

David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm You'll recall that I don't believe that "laws" govern "events," in the universe or otherwise. "I believe in objects/substances with intrinsic natures that govern (to to greater or lesser extent) how they act, and that such actions constitute events.
Q: You don’t believe in the second Law of thermodynamics?
Depends. Is the "second law" supposed to explain behaviors, or is it supposed to describe behaviors?

The latter I can believe in, the former I cannot.
I don’t understand what you babble about.
Funny you accuse me of "babbling" when your own posts are so confused and ungrammatical.

David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm Clarify your meaning, please.
There may be multiple dimensions to our universe beside the 3 of space and time. M-theory revealed a universe with 10 spatial dimensions and one of time.
There may be that time itself its like 3 dimensional space and one can climb to the future and go down to the past in a 4 block b theory of time eternal timeless universe.
Are you defending eternalism? Or are you saying there are multiple dimensions of time? Every time you seem to get close to a meaningful counterpoint, you're either demonstrably wrong, or at a loss for words.


David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm If there is a non-physical quasi-personal cause of the universe, physicalism is refuted. That should be sufficient.

Q: Who said the cause is non-physical?
How many times do we have to do this song and dance? If the cause isn't space-time, energy-momentum, a quantum field, or something dependent on the above, then it isn't physical.

I don’t care if physicalism is refuted.
You should, since if not everything is reducible to physics, then the closest thing to an "argument" for naturalism (the "march of science" thesis) is torpedoed, and there's no reason to enforce a presumption in favor of a dead hypothesis.
What do u mean by non-physical?
Something independent of spacetime, energy-momentum, and quantum fields.
"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #19

Post by Miles »

David the apologist wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:24 am
Miles wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am
David the apologist wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:56 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:22 am
Free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices.
And causes have to be deterministic... why?
Q. If an event isn't determined by a cause then how did it arise? Utterly at random?


.
Causation is just the production of an effect.
Yup. It's turtles all the way down.
There's no reason to think that "X produced Y" is inconsistent with "X didn't have to produce Y."
If X, which stands for any unknown in this context didn't produce Y, which stands for any effect in this context then what did produce Y? That R produced Y instead of X producing Y gets you nowhere because in the end you still have something causing Y.
Whether X produced Y "at random," or triggered an event with multiple possible outcomes of which Y was one, or made a free choice to produce Y, it doesn't matter.
But aside from the possibility that utterly random events may occur at the quantum level (something not yet confirmed) your "at random" is meaningless. All events have a cause. And it makes no difference if X causes Y or Z, the point is, X causes something.

And just how could X make a free choice that produced Y or anything else?


As long as Y was produced by something, causation is satisfied.
A rather odd remark, but okay.


.

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #20

Post by mgb »

historia wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:50 am
Firstly,

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".
There is some uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning. They may be exceptions. Freedom of will conform the religious is real and therefore has uncaused components. Therefore the first premise is bogus.
Radioactive decay is said to be random (whatever that means) but randomness is not equivalent to uncaused. Freedom of will does not exclude a complex cause. Freedom of will is moral freedom, not total freedom (we are not free to fly around the room or walk through walls.) If our moral choices are determined by the good and the good is infinite then our moral choices are grounded in the infinite and that looks free will to me.
Secondly,

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing stuff, entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation. Therefore there is an equivocation fallacy here as well.
No. "Caused" refers to contingent or created things, not to the eternal positive which must exist if other things are to exist.
Thirdly,

He makes the fallacy of composition.
If things inside the universe(multiverse or whatever) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
But it does mean the universe has a complex of causes. No big deal here.
The fabric of Space-Time is probably finite and necessarily has a beginning state of minimum entropy(Singularity) and possibly an end state of maximum entropy(Heat Death).
The fabric of Space-time may be just a thing inside the universe(multiverse or whatever).
Time is not relevant. What matters is that there is a logical coherence between one thing and another: the cause and the caused. The cause must exist if that which is caused is to exist. That is all that matters. (At any rate, time itself is caused because it is an emergent property of matter: no matter no time (physical time that is))
Fifthly,
Scientists don't know what happened before plank time.
So all this talk is irrelevant and highly speculative.
The reality there is a gap in our knowledge.
Using this gap to make an argument for God just makes one guilty of the fallacy: argument from ignorance and plays right into the God of the Gaps.
As said above, time is not the issue. Order and logic are the issue.

Post Reply