The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hello, gang

This is my long-awaited thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). There will be a series of threads related to this argument. Why? Because there will more than likely be topics/sub-topics which relates to it, and I don't want things to get conflated.

The Cosmological argument has taken many forms over the past few centuries. I'd like to focus on the most popular formulation of the argument, namely, the Kalam version..which is Christian apologist William Lane Craig's version (or at least the one that he champions).

The argument goes a little something like this..

1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

And just so we take it one step at a time, I'd like this thread to focus on P1 of the argument..

P1: Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause

I really hope we don't get too bogged down with the truth value of P1, because the meat and potatoes is in P2. Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause? As tempting as it is to just jump to P2, I have to refrain..as I don't want to assume that everyone here agrees with P1.

That being said; I am here to defend the TRUTH value of P1, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

In other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING. We can sum it up these 3 ways..our common sense intuition tells us that..

Intuition
1. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
2. Nothing cannot create something.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.

Those three, in a nut shell, is ALL that is being stated in P1 of the argument. I'd like to know the wise guy who disagrees with any of the above 3.

If we can all agree to P1, then we can move to P2, where things tend to get a little ugly...not ugly for me, but for you guys.

[Bust Nak]

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle� in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle�, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a “virtual particle� disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

(Highlights added by me)

What in all this lead you to the conclusion that virtual particles are not real? At best you can say virtual particles are a misnomer.

[Goose]

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle� in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle�, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a “virtual particle� disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

(Highlights added by me)

What in all this lead you to the conclusion that virtual particles are not real?

I said the article confirms they aren't real particles. You don't seem to be disputing that.

It seems to me you are attempting to argue that "virtual particles" are a sufficient counter example to overturn the first premise of the KCM. But on what grounds? That you can say VP are real and not imagined?

At best you can say virtual particles are a misnomer.

I can also say "virtual particles" aren't real particles. So your best counter example is a misnomer?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 132 by Goose]

I re-read your post, you did say virtual particles are "not real particles," as opposed to "not real" full stop. I am not going to dispute that, other than to point out that other Physicists don't think going off on its own across space is a deciding factor and would instead say virtual particles are real particles because they have real effects.

[JoeyKnothead]

Still waiting on OP to show his P1 is a true and factual statement.

LOL

[JoeyKnothead]

Still waiting on OP to show his P1 is a true and factual statement.

LOL

Where ya at claimant?

Did ya suddenly all at once forget ya made your claim?

And it got challenged?

I will now submit, our claimant is Donald Trump himself!

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Show me nothing? Does it exist?
Are we looking at life as it has to be a switch?
The nothing state and the warm fuzzy state. A state of being that broadcast real slow and we get all the answers.
But wait my friend, if we are getting no information from nothing are we sure he is even around? Maybe something clocked nothing out early and nobody saw nothing happen. Does pointing to something and saying nothing is there make a statement about nothing which probably makes it something?

Anyway in yoga they call that position the hernia.

[JoeyKnothead]

Ever notice how OP has abandoned this thread, which sets out his Premise 1, but that he's happier'n all get out to to carry on about his premise 2?

I propose the god concept is immune to any empirical attempt at providing documentary evidence, instead preferring to hop on the train of conclusions that ain't even got tracks.

Notice, OP has been adamant in supporting his premise 2, only don't it beat all, he can't find no comfort in supporting his Premise 1.

Conclusions?

The liar lies and the preacher preaches!

[JoeyKnothead]

It must be said, with some sadness, OP has become inable or incapable of supporting his own OP.

Please, won't you all join me in being sad about how OP can't even support his own premises, his own OP.

Or, we can set to think a liar suffers him, his own fate. And how unfair it it is to ask preachers to pay taxes.