The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Ouroboros]

It's funny.

 

Like MrSpooky says, Vacuum Genesis proves that there are un-caused events in the universe, and that totally proves that the first stipulation in Kalam is wrong.

 

So, sorry X-Ray, you lost.

[Vigile]

If, for example, the universe were eternal, then I would agree with you that that proposing a cause, or a transcendent being, only complicates the issue.  But in light of the fact that there is abundant evidence for the Big Bang it is the leading theory as to the origin of the universe. Combined with the impossibility of an actual infinite we can conclude that the universe had a beginning.  So accepting the axiomatic principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause it stands to reason that the universe had a cause.  What is that cause?  So it is not “moving the solution a step back” or adding unnecessary elements to wonder about the cause.

 

 

Again, the "universe as we know it" began with the big bang. To say that there was nothing before this event is reaching and not founded on scientific theory as I understand it.

[X-Ray]

Herbert’s Hotel does not show anything about what can or cannot exist. It only shows, that our concepts for communicating about infinity are poor.

 

You presented a hotel with  “infinite number of rooms and let’s suppose that each room is occupied”. But I think, this is a false way to start. As I see it, it is possible to imagine an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests. But it is wrong to say that each room is occupied, since this so to speak requires one to compare two infinite numbers to see if they are equal, or if one is bigger then the other.

Bravo! You have just uncovered another difficulty of the argument. You understand where I am coming from now and why an actual infinite is impossible.

 

So the Herbert Hotel goes wrong because you apply mathematics ( “=”, “>” and “<”) developed for finite numbers to evaluate a situation where infinity is present. Herbert‘s Hotel does not say anything about what may or may not exist, but it shows, that our mathematical concepts are limited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Herbert’s Hotel is a thought experiment used to describe what an actual infinite would entail. Since there are no actual infinites it is necessary to revert to the use of thought experiments to express the point.

[X-Ray]

I was trying to answer in order, but that is probably not going to work out. I will try to answer all questions, but it might take some time since it, as Tu Pac might say, "me against the world."

[Ouroboros]

Aaaargh, It's not Herbert's Hotel!!!

 

German mathematician David Hilbert (1862 – 1943)

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel

 

Got it?

 

Close, but no cigars for you gentlemen!

Especially not in the Hotel, because it's smoke free!

 

(That was actually a joke, if anyone knows anything about the paradox what-so-ever! Because there is a cigar paradox there too.)

[X-Ray]

It's funny.

 

Like MrSpooky says, Vacuum Genesis proves that there are un-caused events in the universe, and that totally proves that the first stipulation in Kalam is wrong.

 

So, sorry X-Ray, you lost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How? How is a vacuum fluctuation, and by extention Vacuum Genesis, uncaused. Explain it to me.

[MrSpooky]

Tell me how a vacuum fluctuation is uncaused.

 

Because Vacuum Fluctuations and other events in quantum mechanics follow fully random probability curves, not dynamically measured events. It is the final boundary condition on empirical science, and as such can only be considered "uncaused" because we cannot verify any causes that exist.

 

 

 

Ipse dixit.

 

Please look into Big Bang cosmology and quantum mechanics before you say that.

 

 

 

Sounds suspiciously related to determinism.

 

I don't understand why discarding the classical concept of "cause and effect" for an a priori definition leads to determinism. I also don't understand what the implication is if it IS considered to lead to determinism.

 

 

 

Only on the quantum level and only certain things.

 

The quantum level affects the subatomic level, which in turn affects the atomic/molecular level, which in turn affects the macroscopic physical level. The fields aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

How so?

 

Because the very first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause," is rendered invalid. This very assertion is not only an ipse dixit (that is, what is the foundation of this argument? As much as I dislike the Problem of Induction, it is a perfectly good question to consider), it is unsupported by empirical science. Virtual particles begin to exist with no observable cause and quantum events occur with no observable cause. They occur probabilistically, not dynamically.

[X-Ray]

Again, the "universe as we know it" began with the big bang.  To say that there was nothing before this event is reaching and not founded on scientific theory as I understand it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How does scientific theory, as we know, apply to before the universe? Science, as we know it, does not exist without the universe.

[Ouroboros]

The arrival of the new guest, with the other guests moving around, required a supertask, which can only be accomplished by a superman.

 

Since the superman doesn't exist, then the task can't be done, and the paradox never occur.

 

Or the superman does exist, and the paradox is a paradox.

 

So it still doesn't prove anything.

[Ouroboros]

How does scientific theory, as we know, apply to before the universe?  Science, as we know it, does not exist without the universe.

 

And same goes for causality.

 

You base your argument on logic and reasoning, and yet in the next breath, you say it can’t be used.

 

Is scientific theory a product of the universe, if so, then your argument of cause-and-effect doesn’t apply either, and your argument is still BUNK!

[MrSpooky]

How does scientific theory, as we know, apply to before the universe?  Science, as we know it, does not exist without the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep. Existence is epistemically necessary.

 

If you recognize that, why do use an argument that, as a premise, says the contrary?

[Ouroboros]

How?  How is a vacuum fluctuation, and by extention Vacuum Genesis, uncaused.  Explain it to me.

 

Actually it's up to you to prove that it isn't, because the science says it is.

 

You only want it to have a cause, so your first stipulation still can be argued to be true.

 

But just because now there is evidence of non-causality in the universe, you refuse to believe it, because it doesn’t fit you argument.

 

So your argument only will come true, if we accept (against knowledge) the stipulations you do.

 

You believe because you believe, and we don’t because we don’t, and there’s no logic that can make these opinions meet.

[♦ nivek ♦]

X-Ray,May 29 2005, 12:54 PM

This is a misunderstanding of the word infinite.  The infinite nature of God is qualitative, not quantitative, in that we are not using it in a mathematical sense. God is not an aggregate formed by successive addition.  Instead, we are using the term to describe the attributes of God. (emphasis added by daFatman)

 

 

..Get defining...

 

Reallllly interested in what sectarian definitions get tossed out here..

 

n

[Mike D]

The treasure is God.

The map is the answer to the question; does God exist.

 

So in which category do you place yourself?

Well I have a few minutes, so ok i'll bite

 

Some have searched exhaustively and concluded there is no treasure, based on just about every possible definition of what the treasure could be. Isn't there a point where after an extensive search it becomes reasonable to conclude that, based on those definitions, the treasure probably just doesn't exist? I mean sure, if we never define the treasure then we should draw no conclusion - how could we?

 

Having said that, I personally disbelieve in any god "revealed" (and therefore defined) by some crazy prophet or mullah or disciple, as there is very little evidence to support their existence, based on their respective definitions. As far as some undefined cause/god/supreme being, if there's no definition of what it is then the question of whether it exists seems invalid or unintelligible. No?

[MrSpooky]

This is a misunderstanding of the word infinite.  The infinite nature of God is qualitative, not quantitative, in that we are not using it in a mathematical sense. God is not an aggregate formed by successive addition.  Instead, we are using the term to describe the attributes of God.

 

This is what I find so problematic with Craig's arguments about infinity. They never clarify exactly what CONTEXT in which he uses the term "infinity."

 

Using the Hotel Paradox to dismiss infinity as an "absurdity" is like taking a literal reading of Shroedinger's Cat to dismiss quantum physics as an "absurdity."

[Ouroboros]

I was trying to answer in order, but that is probably not going to work out.  I will try to answer all questions, but it might take some time since it, as Tu Pac might say, "me against the world."

 

Did you expect anything less?

 

Do you jump into a pit of lions, covered in honey and bacon, and expect the lions to smile at you and play a quiet game of poker?

 

Which Planet of the Grapes did you come from?

 

 

(I'm just teasing)

[Ouroboros]

Some have searched exhaustively and concluded there is no treasure, based on just about every possible definition of what the treasure could be.  Isn't there a point where after an extensive search it becomes reasonable to conclude that, based on those definitions, the treasure probably just doesn't exist?  I mean sure, if we never define the treasure then we should draw no conclusion - how could we? 

 

 

I searched for the map too, and found one, but it was all wet, and the text was gone, so I still don't know...

 

(And it's definitely not here under ground)

[MrSpooky]

Okay, seriously, while X-Ray really should expect some smarminess from us being an ExChristian forum and all, this doesn't excuse any rudeness on our part towards him. I can expect some annoyed comments here and there, but it'd be much more mature to approach this problem seriously and have some restraint before we go off on the half-unsheathed insults.

 

Stop it. Please.

 

EDIT: This was not something against the joke HanSolo made in the previous post. Jokes are all well and good, I crack them all the time.

 

Sorry. I just think it's much more productive if we try to treat each other courteously rather than polarizing the issue with snide comments.

[Ouroboros]

MrSpooky,

 

Yes Sir!

 

[edit]

 

Plus, I have uttermost respect for you guys, and you too X-Ray, so do not ever think that I view you as second-rate in any way.

 

Personally I just love to have a heated debate, and crunch through these things.

 

It's good for the brain

 

[Vigile]

How does scientific theory, as we know, apply to before the universe?  Science, as we know it, does not exist without the universe.

 

 

How so? Are you saying that prior to the big bang other physical law was in effect? I'm admittedly having trouble keeping up here and am a bit lost in the details but I think I get the gist of the argument. It seems to me that you are stating that matter and the universe were somehow "spoken" into existence at the point of the big bang. Spooky already noted that there are several big bangs postulated, one of which argues for a series of bangs with the universe expanding and contracting from and to infinity - the theory I am most familiar with.

 

Whatever it is that we have now, the raw material had to have come from somewhere and for me it is much easier to wrap my mind around the idea that the material always existed in some form than it is for me to wrap my mind around the idea that some intelligent being preexisted the raw material and moreover through some "magical" power was able to speak and POOF! raw material formed. I just don't see how you can argue that you have proven infinity does not exist and in the very same breath postulate god who always existed. This is an absurdity in my mind.

 

Again, I realize I'm just a babe in the woods here and this is an oversimplification of the debate. I do have to tell you and all here that contributors to this thread, including you X-ray, have truly gained my respect today. For what that’s worth.

[X-Ray]

Because Vacuum Fluctuations and other events in quantum mechanics follow fully random probability curves, not dynamically measured events.  It is the final boundary condition on empirical science, and as such can only be considered "uncaused" because we cannot verify any causes that exist.

You were able to explain it. I wanted you to explain it because by explaining it you are showing the cause. An uncaused thing, cannot, by definition, be explained, right.

 

A vacuum fluctuation may have no efficient cause, but it does have material causes such as the energy in the vacuum. Vacuum fluctuations do not occur everywhere and anywhere at any time. The right conditions -- like those in a laboratory -- have to be created. it should also be noted that vacuum fluctuations appear and disappear at a time so small as to be almost incomprehensible -- Planck time. If there is truly, absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, than vacuum fluctuation will not occur as they presuppose certain conditions.

 

 

Please look into Big Bang cosmology and quantum mechanics before you say that.

I have. If you assume that our universe came from a vacuum fluctuation then you also have to assume that there is something outside our universe, such as a superuniverse, from whence our universe came. Then you have to go back and ask where that universe came from. Since we have no way of knowing about anything outside the universe, if there is anything indeed, we can only surmise. This is highly theoretical.

 

I don't understand why discarding the classical concept of "cause and effect" for an a priori definition leads to determinism.  I also don't understand what the implication is if it IS considered to lead to determinism.

It sounded like you were saying that physical make up makes us act in a certain way. I'll have to think about it more. I'm not a big fan of Objectivism.

 

The quantum level affects the subatomic level, which in turn affects the atomic/molecular level, which in turn affects the macroscopic physical level.  The fields aren't mutually exclusive.

At the quantum level, things behave differently than they do at the macrolevel. For example particles (vacuum fluctuations) can appear and disappear spontaneaosly, but a dog, won't just disappear in thin air. Yes, they influence each other, but they are different than one another.You are committing the fallacy of composition.

 

Because the very first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause," is rendered invalid.  This very assertion is not only an ipse dixit (that is, what is the foundation of this argument?  As much as I dislike the Problem of Induction, it is a perfectly good question to consider), it is unsupported by empirical science.  Virtual particles begin to exist with no observable cause and quantum events occur with no observable cause.  They occur probabilistically, not dynamically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a basic principle of metaphysics. it is axiomatic. We encounter 1000's of things everyday and the underlying assumption is that there is a reason for it's existence. And as I explained, there are indirect causes of vacuum fluctuations. It is safe to assume that whatever that comes into existence has a cause. That everything has a cause may not be able to be empirically proven, but it is a proposition that is presupposed by rational thought. The only time atheists reject this premise is when they are objecting to the CA.

[X-Ray]

I have been sitting here for some time and need to go eat now. So I will be back later to answer more questions.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, let’s talk a little about the Hotel Paradox

(And it’s still Hilbert’s Hotel, and it’s located somewhere between the Horsehead Nebula and Ursa Minor)

 

Static/Infinite Set

One hotel

Infinite number of rooms

Infinite number of guests

All rooms occupied

 

Infinite Recursive Function/Supertasking within Finite Time

One new guest arrives (and where the heck did he come from?)

Now if all guests move to the next room, the first room will be empty

The guest can move in

But all the other guests will keep on moving around the rooms for eternity.

 

The problem is the first section is a static situation, and the second section requires an action in time, and also generates an infinite recursive function. It also requires this to happen in a super fast, blink of an eye, bullet time, and flash of light speed, matrix style.

 

You moved the object of observation from one static view, and then moved it into a dynamic/time view, with multiple variables and infinite recursion. You moved from a Euclid's geometric 3D setup, to an Einstein relative time/space view. It’s a trap! It’s clever, and it’s fun, but it doesn’t apply for reality.

 

And I think that’s what X-Ray is trying to say; that this situation can not be replicated in reality, and consequently infinity can’t exist in reality, just because the paradox can’t be replicated. It can only exist in theory.

 

Similar argument can be done to the perfect circle that only exists in theory and not in reality.

 

So the big question is if a paradox that can’t be applied to reality, still can be used to contradict reality?

 

This whole experiment is like comparing a rational integer like 3, with an irrational number like pi. They’re just not the same. You can have 3 apples, and you can have apple pie, but you can’t have “pi” apples. So does the apple exists or not? And how many apples do you need for the pie?

 

It’s a funny mind trick, but it doesn’t mean anything more about reality then the story about the arrow that never hit the tree:

 

static

Arrow on the bow

Certain distance to the tree

 

dynamic

Arrow has to travel half the distance

Then it has to travel half the remaining distance

Then it has to travel half the remaining distance

And so on.

 

It will never hit the tree

 

Ergo, you can’t hit a tree with an arrow.

Or does it mean that arrow and trees don’t exist?

 

 

Summary

The paradox only shows a problem with sets of infinity.

It doesn’t prove if infinity is a non-reality.

[Ouroboros]

I have.  If you assume that our universe came from a vacuum fluctuation then you also have to assume that there is something outside our universe, such as a superuniverse, from whence our universe came.  Then you have to go back and ask where that universe came from.  Since we have no way of knowing about anything outside the universe, if there is anything indeed, we can only surmise.  This is highly theoretical.

 

Which is totally true, and if you want to call the super-universe for God, then I hope it’s ok with you if I call my cat God too.

 

What we call it doesn’t change what it is.

 

But I thought the argument was trying to prove that The First Mover is a Sentient Being with a Purpose for the Events.

 

All we can see with the arguments is that there is something beyond our current understanding of the universe.

 

If you call it God … I call it Bob.

You call it Sentient … and I call it Senile.

You call it Purpose … but I like Purple.

 

We can play with words, but God still doesn’t show his face.

[MrSpooky]

You were able to explain it. I wanted you to explain it because by explaining it you are showing the cause. An uncaused thing, cannot, by definition, be explained, right.

 

No. Being inexplicable and uncaused are not the same thing.

 

EDIT: Actually, hrmmmm... I need to think about this a little more.

 

 

 

A vacuum fluctuation may have no efficient cause, but it does have material causes such as the energy in the vacuum. Vacuum fluctuations do not occur everywhere and anywhere at any time. The right conditions -- like those in a laboratory -- have to be created. it should also be noted that vacuum fluctuations appear and disappear at a time so small as to be almost incomprehensible -- Planck time. If there is truly, absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, than vacuum fluctuation will not occur as they presuppose certain conditions.

 

It is to my understanding that laboratory conditions of high energy conditions serve to increase the PROBABILITY of a vacuum genesis event, it is not a necessary threshold.

 

I do not think that there is "nothing" before the Big Bang. No matter, true. But there is Existence, which I have pointed out is epistemically necessary and sufficient to place the universe in an explanatory context.