The KCA!

[POI]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

[SiNcE_1985]

Most physicists dont make good philosophers.

Most Christians don't make good scientists.

But that shouldn't stop Christians from using science to support premises in theistic arguments.

Come to think of it, it doesn't.

Then I can completely disagree, for my previously given reasons.

I ain't mad at'cha.

'absurd results' = god?

And not only some inferred but undemonstrated impersonal god, but instead a (personal to humans) kind of undemonstrated god?

You are being disingenuous here.

This one's over, sir.

[POI]

This one's over, sir.

'opinions'

[POI]

Here is why I do not really like to plant my flag on topics like:

a) claimed 'origins' of the universe (using Cosmology)
b) claimed 'origins' of life (using abiogenesis)
c) or any other science categories which are not currently theoretical

B. Second Law of Thermodynamics: We know that the amount of useable energy in our universe is running out. What is usable energy?

If it is running out, and it hasn't run out yet, that means it couldn't have been running forever (on an infinite clock).

The second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (disorder) always increases in a closed system, doesn't necessarily apply to the entire "universe" because the "universe" may not be considered a closed system; it's constantly expanding and exchanging energy, meaning the total entropy can increase even while localized regions may exhibit decreasing entropy due to external energy sources like stars.

Key points to understand why the second law doesn't necessarily apply to "the universe":

Open system: Unlike a closed system, where no energy exchange occurs, "the universe" may be considered an open system, allowing for energy transfer from one region to another, which can locally decrease entropy while still maintaining the overall increase in the universe.

Cosmic expansion: The expansion of the universe plays a crucial role in increasing entropy as energy is spread out across a larger volume, contributing to a more disordered state.

And there is also this: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/i ... em.255948/

In conclusion, P2 of the Kalam is based upon the hope that "the universe" is instead based upon a closed system. Fingers crossed.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This is an interesting video that I ran across that somewhat relates to premise 1. i.e. the idea that everything (origin of something, motion of something, etc) must have had a cause.

The Dome Paradox: A Loophole in Newton's Law


In a nutshell, it shows that in our current understanding of the math, some things are indeterministic regarding what will happen given certain initial conditions. While not exactly what we are discussing here, it shows that what looks like 'common sense' actually breaks down under certain conditions.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled debate. Just thought this might bring another perspective to the whole 'needs a cause' type of arguments.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This is an interesting video that I ran across that somewhat relates to premise 1. i.e. the idea that everything (origin of something, motion of something, etc) must have had a cause.

The Dome Paradox: A Loophole in Newton's Law


In a nutshell, it shows that in our current understanding of the math, some things are indeterministic regarding what will happen given certain initial conditions. While not exactly what we are discussing here, it shows that what looks like 'common sense' actually breaks down under certain conditions.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled debate. Just thought this might bring another perspective to the whole 'needs a cause' type of arguments.

Too bad the one who needs to see this doesn't watch videos.

[SiNcE_1985]

Here is why I do not really like to plant my flag on topics like:

a) claimed 'origins' of the universe (using Cosmology)
b) claimed 'origins' of life (using abiogenesis)
c) or any other science categories which are not currently theoretical

I see no explanation.

I don't know whether you forgot to explain why, or this is just a "filler" for extra material.

Reminds me of when someone sends an email saying something like..

"Attached is the spreadsheet with a listings of all future markdown prices".

But they forget to actually attach the spreadsheet to the email.

The second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (disorder) always increases in a closed system, doesn't necessarily apply to the entire "universe" because the "universe" may not be considered a closed system; it's constantly expanding and exchanging energy, meaning the total entropy can increase even while localized regions may exhibit decreasing entropy due to external energy sources like stars.

Key points to understand why the second law doesn't necessarily apply to "the universe":

Open system: Unlike a closed system, where no energy exchange occurs, "the universe" may be considered an open system, allowing for energy transfer from one region to another, which can locally decrease entropy while still maintaining the overall increase in the universe.

Cosmic expansion: The expansion of the universe plays a crucial role in increasing entropy as energy is spread out across a larger volume, contributing to a more disordered state.

And there is also this: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/i ... em.255948/

In conclusion, P2 of the Kalam is based upon the hope that "the universe" is instead based upon a closed system. Fingers crossed.

So, after 3-4 days of nothing and scrambling to find something that is worthy of a legitimate response..this is what you could muster?

Our universe is an isolated system..there is nothing outside it that is replenishing it's energy.

The energy that is within the universe remains constant, it ain't going anywhere.

But the useable energy, that's what is depleting and once it's gone, it's gone.

And your explanation doesn't explain why the initial, low entropy conditions were there in the first place.

There is just no viable (logical) explanation for this, unless those conditions were placed there by an external entity.

So, I said all that to say...

The KCA is rebuttal proof.

Because you can't rebuttal truth.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This is an interesting video that I ran across that somewhat relates to premise 1. i.e. the idea that everything (origin of something, motion of something, etc) must have had a cause.

The Dome Paradox: A Loophole in Newton's Law


In a nutshell, it shows that in our current understanding of the math, some things are indeterministic regarding what will happen given certain initial conditions. While not exactly what we are discussing here, it shows that what looks like 'common sense' actually breaks down under certain conditions.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled debate. Just thought this might bring another perspective to the whole 'needs a cause' type of arguments.

Of course I didn't watch the video..but I'm certain that this video wasn't listed in your "recommneded videos" algorithm.

Which means, you searched for it.

Which means, the argument that I presented is so strong, you had to research for solutions.

Which means, the argument is giving you problems.

Anyways, from what you say about the video, it sounds like quantum mechanics is being appealed to, particularly the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Tsk tsk.

[Difflugia]

Of course I didn't watch the video..but I'm certain that this video wasn't listed in your "recommneded videos" algorithm.

It was in mine last night, too.

[POI]

I see no explanation. I don't know whether you forgot to explain why, or this is just a "filler" for extra material.

The intellectual dishonesty continues. Before I created this thread, I informed you of my position. And you even gave be kudos for admitting I do not stand behind abiogenesis. 'tsk tsk'

Our universe is an isolated system..there is nothing outside it that is replenishing it's energy. The energy that is within the universe remains constant, it ain't going anywhere. But the useable energy, that's what is depleting and once it's gone, it's gone. And your explanation doesn't explain why the initial, low entropy conditions were there in the first place. There is just no viable (logical) explanation for this, unless those conditions were placed there by an external entity.

Kool, and then there is this....

Our universe is considered an open system because, based on current cosmological observations, it is continuously expanding and not expected to collapse back in on itself, meaning there is no boundary or limit to its expansion, allowing for the continuous exchange of energy and matter within its vast expanse; essentially, it has no "outside" to interact with, but its internal components are constantly moving and changing.

Density less than critical density: An open universe is characterized by having a density of matter lower than the "critical density" needed to cause the universe to eventually collapse.

Everlasting expansion:This means the universe will continue to expand indefinitely, with galaxies moving further apart over time.

No boundary:Unlike a closed universe, an open universe does not curve back on itself, implying no defined edge or limit.

**************************************

Hmmm, decisions decisions......

[POI]

Anyways, from what you say about the video, it sounds like quantum mechanics is being appealed to, particularly the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Tsk tsk.

Feel'n deja vu here.... Oh yea, this is what was happening in that other thread in which you also strawmanned.... If you do not know what the video presents, do not try to 'rebut' it. Okay, now I'm off to start my day.,,,,