The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[bdp]

One cannot do science (physics or otherwise) without philosophy

 

This makes no sense to me. Not joining the debate, I'll stay out of the way, but just sayin'...

[LNC]

LNC keeps saying:

 

God existed ... prior to the universe existing.

 

Time began when the universe began. Would you agree with that statement?

 

First, you conveniently edited my statement. The word you left out is the word "causally" before "prior." When I speak of God existing causally prior to the existence of the universe, it is a strict philosophical designation that takes into consideration that it is not temporally prior as there is no time spoken of in this case, it refers only to cause. So, in anticipation of your question, yes, time began to exist and God was "causally" prior to time, not "temporally" prior as that would be logically fallacious. Does that distinction help? BTW, it is not logically contradictory to speak in this way, philosophers do it in these cases.

 

LNC wrote:

 

If matter, space and time (i.e., the universe) were the result of the Big Bang, then it is logical to infer...

 

Ah, I see that you would. Ok, then.

 

Since you yourself say that "space and time (i.e., the universe)" began simultaneously, how could anything happen "prior" to the universe existing? That's the same as saying "prior" to time existing, but in order to have something happen "prior" to time existing, there would have to be TIME before time existed.

 

Prior to time = time before time.

 

How can anything happen "prior" to the universe, if time began when the universe began? How can you not see the error in this logic? In order for something to happen "prior" to something else, there has to be time in between the "prior" and the "something else". Here, the "something else" is the beginning of time, and nothing can happen before time.

 

Ok, enough repetition. Here's the question...

 

LNC, can you please explain how anything can happen "prior" to the beginning of time?

 

I do have a problem with the concept of "beginning of time", but logic dictates that nothing could happen before time existed, if there ever was a beginning to it. Perhaps it was extremely slow for a while, or perhaps it always existed in one form or another, just as the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy dictates that matter and energy can't be destroyed nor created, but only change form.

 

See, that is the problem when you edit my statements, you have misrepresented what I said. Since I already commented on this above, I will not repeat myself. Next time, however, please either read more carefully or represent my comments in their entirety. It is always decent to do this when interacting with another person's ideas.

 

LNC wrote:

 

Yes, when I raise my finger or type on my computer, I decide and then I act. ... If you believe that everything is spontaneous, then your words are meaningless because you had no control over them or intention to type what you did, it is just a spontaneous and meaningless string of letters on my screen.

And yet, you believe that God's decision to create the universe was spontaneous with its creation.

 

1) If you believe that everything is spontaneous, then

2) your words are meaningless.

 

1) If you believe that God's decision to create the universe was spontaneous with its creation, then

2) God's creation is __________.

 

LNC, please fill in that blank with the one word that logically follows.

 

When did I say that God's decision was spontaneous. I think you are misrepresenting me again. Nowhere did I make such a claim, which makes the rest of your argument meaningless. Again, please be more careful in your representation of others, it doesn't reflect well on you.

 

LNC wrote:

 

Are you saying that the laws of nature have no purpose? If so, how are you defining purpose? It seems that they serve a tremendous purpose as without them we would not exist.

We (humans) just happen to exist, because the laws just happen to be what they are, and things just happened to progress the way they did. If the laws were any different, something else would exist instead of us. You seem to base your assumptions on the mistaken belief that the universe was created for humans, but that just isn't the case. The universe is what it is, and we are just products of our environment.

 

You seem to be the one making assertions that you cannot back up here. You assume naturalism and then base your assertions on that assumption. However, your statements are not based upon evidence, and in fact, it seems that the evidence would indicate the exact opposite. You assert that the laws of nature are merely accidental and that they just happen to be so finely tuned that we can exist. Well, that either shows that you don't know much about how finely tuned those laws are, or the fact that you consider humans to be so incredibly lucky that we should all be playing and winning the lottery every day (it would be extremely more likely that this would happen than that we would be alive to play the lottery). It is not just me who sees this fine-tuning. Richard Dawkins discusses it in The God Delusion, Paul Davies discusses it in The Cosmic Jackpot, as do many others. Sorry, these laws cannot be explained by chance alone as there is too much specificity to their makeup. In other words, you would need to have incredible blind faith to believe such a thing as there is absolutely no evidence that they came about or could come about by chance.

 

Our planet is just one of countless products of our universe. Eventually, conditions on this planet became favorable for some type of life, some stuff came together by some means, and whatever things were formed by that stuff began to replicate themselves. This would be the first life. From there, life evolved and branched out in so many different ways over billions of years, and will continue to do so until this planet is destroyed or is otherwise uninhabitable. Currently, humans happen to be here, because our ancestors were able to adapt and survive in their environments and continued to reproduce. With a little micro-evolution here and a little micro-evolution there, multiplied by millions of years, our descendants may eventually evolve into one or more other species, or our lineage may die out, but the universe will continue long after that.

 

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of billions of other planets out there (if not more), not to mention moons and other planetary bodies, where life may also exist. Conditions on some of those planetary bodies may be similar to earth and may be home to other carbon-based life forms, while conditions elsewhere may be completely different, yet have "perfect conditions" for other types of life that are not carbon-based.

 

The universe was not made for us. We are merely products of our environment, and our "purpose" is whatever we want it to be.

LNC, if you saw an irregularly-shaped hole in the ground filled with ice, would you believe the hole was made to fit around the ice so perfectly? Or, would you believe the ice got its shape from the hole?

 

Now, try to apply that ice analogy to us and the universe. The hole is the universe, while the ice is us.

 

That, my friend is what is known as a "just-so story". If you are not familiar with the concept, it is a story that is a completely ad hoc attempt to explain phenomena with no supporting evidence. It is a nice sounding story that seems plausible to the uninformed, but is untenable to those who know better.

 

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms. The more we research, it seems, the less likely it is that we will find such a solar system. It shows how finely tuned our solar system is, as well as our planet for supporting life. Yours is not a scientific explanation, it is a religious one.

 

BTW, your ice analogy is silly and not worth commenting on. It has no bearing whatsoever on the fine-tuning of the universe for life.

 

LNC

[bdp]

 

 

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

I would really - REALLY - love to see you prove this. Really. The entire universe has been mapped out and we know, for a fact, that there is nowhere else anywhere in it suitable to sustaining higher life forms? Give me the raw data on that, please.

[Shyone]

It's funny how "laws of science" seem to get thrown out without much consideration.

 

Why not apply the laws that are established to extrapolate backwards instead of some ideas derived from the unknown?

 

1. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Law of Conservation of Energy)

2. All matter and energy are derived from previous matter and energy. (from #1)

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore the universe was not created and the substance of the universe is from already existing matter and energy.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

When I read about new developments in theoretical physics I notice that efforts are being directed at including quantum gravitational effects into relativity theory to show that the boundary conditions did not require either a singularity or a "beginning" in the usual sense of the word.

 

Basing philosophy on outdated theoretical physics is like talking about the structures supporting the "firmament" or the "force" driving the sun across the skies.

 

Apparently, there is a flaw with your extrapolation as the best evidenced model for the origin of the universe, the Big Bang model posits that the universe had a beginning.

LNC

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Read my highlighted text above, then:

 

To quote Hawking:

 

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singuarity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later [in the book], it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.

 

Once again, science trumps religion. Just as Ptolemy said the sun revolved around the earth, and earlier scientists relying only on general relativity said that there must have been a singularity (big bang), more recent developments in theoretical physics have eliminated the big bang.

 

Neither you nor I are experts in theoretical physics. And I'm not flawless, and neither are you.

 

But can we at least agree that we (you and I) don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe?

[Shyone]

 

 

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

I would really - REALLY - love to see you prove this. Really. The entire universe has been mapped out and we know, for a fact, that there is nowhere else anywhere in it suitable to sustaining higher life forms? Give me the raw data on that, please.

Ask him for his parameters for the Drake equation and ask him to justify them.

[Shyone]

I would argue that the question of a cause is one of physics, not philosophy.

 

While physics can seem quite confusing to some, and the mathematics absolutely strange, the question of a cause may already be answered, and the answer is, "Maybe, maybe not."

 

In a few years, that may be refined a bit.

 

Mystery, however, to me at least, does not imply anything more than something we do not know, and something we should continue to research rather than a matter that we should concede to the philosophers.

 

Shy,

 

One cannot do science (physics or otherwise) without philosophy, so I think you have set up a false dichotomy. Causality is a philosophical principle that undergirds science and I would challenge you or anyone else to practice scientific investigation without using the principle - it won't work. We also have logic, identity and other philosophical principles that are foundational to science. Science itself is a discipline that came out of philosophy, as did mathematics.

 

So, you say that the answer to cause is, "maybe, maybe not." Do you apply that to all of science? Maybe causality applies in this case, but certainly not in that case? If so, you are tossing out science completely based upon your a priori commitments (a truly unscientific position to take.)

 

The other aspect of science that you need to keep in mind is to have an open mind to all possible explanations. One should not limit potential explanations on the grounds of religious commitments (whether it be theism or atheism).

 

LNC

I concede that "logic" and mathematics have philosophical underpinnings, but what I was talking about was not causality, but A CAUSE. This relies on something that neither you nor I know much about (see my reply above). While Aquinas posited a cause for the universe deductively, I also used deduction in the example using the Law of Conservation of Energy. Using the same method, two different answers are found.

 

Speculating in the absence of evidence is not a characteristic of science, but it is typical of "pure philosophy." When philosophers speak of things they don't know about, before the research is done, sometimes they are right, but it is at least as likely that they are wrong.

 

Read Socrates (Plato). Follow his reasoning. It makes "perfect sense" if you know nothing about the subject matter, but when science has found answers to the questions, his reasoning becomes "as straw."

 

All I'm saying is follow the evidence, but be careful not to wander off the path.

 

As to the question of "maybe, maybe not", I was referring to the current state of theoretical physics, not science in general.

[bornagainathiest]

I opened up this thread in the hope of learning more about the KCA and with your help and the input of other members, I've been able to do just that. Now that it's been clearly resolved that the KCA positively and unequivocally identifies the certainty of a cause for this universe, but has nothing whatsoever to say about what this cause might be, I'd like to thank you for your valuable assistance.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

 

I think you are actually mistaken in your conclusion. We have established that the universe (all matter, energy, space and time) is caused and that the cause cannot consist of matter, energy, space or time since that would be self-causation, which is logically fallacious. So, actually we can draw some conclusions about the cause based upon the argument itself.

 

LNC

 

Hello LNC.

 

Just two points, please.

 

Self-causation isn't a viable option? Why not?

 

In reply to my earlier questions about the format and meaning of the KCA, you wrote, 'Yes. That would be correct. 1 & 2 are the premises and 3 is the conclusion. Yes, that is the conclusion from which we go on to explore which type of cause would best explain the universe." So if the KCA's conclusion is that the universe had a cause, then any logical inferences about the nature of the cause aren't being taken from the third, concluding sentence, they're being taken from the preceding two premises? The that you're referring to lies in the data used to construct the premises, not the concluding sentence, right? Is that what you meant?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA>

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

LNC,

 

The word you left out is the word "causally" before "prior."

 

It doesn't matter. You said something happened prior to time. Causally or not, nothing can happen prior to time, and I was hoping you could explain why you believe it can. Since you responded with ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the question itself, I can only assume that you can't explain it.

 

You see, even if there was something wrong with my question (which there wasn't), you could have clarified your position and then explained how you thought that was possible. Thinkers do this all the time when apologists make a claim like, "WE DIDN'T COME FROM MONKEYS!!!111!!!", and our response (at least mine) is something like, "True, we didn't, and no real scientist claims we did. We share a common ancestor with monkeys."

 

Do you see how easy that is? Now let's try this again...

 

Can you please explain to everyone here why you believe anything could have happened, causally or not, prior to time?

 

BTW, your ice analogy is silly and not worth commenting on. It has nobearing whatsoever on the fine-tuning of the universe for life.

 

You would not think it silly if you allowed yourself to understand the facts of the matter. The universe isn't fine tuned for us. The universe is what it is, and we are just products of it. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that. But hey, let's give it another shot, shall we?

 

Let's say you have some water, yeast, and flour. You mix it all together, and pour the mixture into the ocean. What happens to it?

 

Now, let's take those same 3 ingredients, mix them together, and pour the mixture over ice. What happens to it?

 

Now, let's take those same 3 ingredients, mix them together, and pour the mixture over hot coals. What happens to it?

 

Now, let's sprinkle yeast on ice, flour into the ocean, and water onto hot coals. What happens to each of those ingredients?

 

All of these examples are based on things we are familiar with, because our universe just happens to be the way it is. But, what about ingredients in another universe that's made up of completely different elements than the ones we're familiar with? You could mix oaisdfuoie, xoiusaoeifu, and asdkjfliejsa together, pour the mixture over liajlisjfiaosedf, and end up with oijasod8efj. Or, you could end up with goo because they didn't interact with the other two. Or, you could end up with 2 of the ingredients combining to make something else, with the 3rd leaving bubbles, disintegrating, or what have you.

 

But this is my point. Different ingredients mixed together and introduced into different environments cause different results. Mix 2 hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule together, put them in sub-zero temperatures, and you get ice. Or, take those same ingredients, stick them in a volcano, and you get steam. But again, we're talking about ingredients we're familiar with, and different ingredients in different environments will give you something completely different.

 

Our universe is a random hole in the ground. Whatever happens to fall into it over time, it must fill the shape of the hole.

[Shyone]

Euthyphro's Thorn, if it makes you feel any better, I understand you.

 

I've always said that, if things weren't as they are, they would be some other way.

 

Maybe we'd be a cluster of charged particles of varying densities thinking that charged particles were made especially for US!

 

Or perhaps we'd be black holes wondering why some black holes are weird.

 

Things are as they are, and we are a product of that "are". But a 5 year old will ask, "Why?" And perhaps quantum mechanics will answer that question. And the 5 year old will say, "Oh."

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Euthyphro's Thorn, if it makes you feel any better, I understand you.

Your response certainly put a smile on my face, Shy.

 

I'm no chemist or biologist, but the basic concept is so fricking simple for me to grasp, it's hard to imagine it not being simple for others... or at least possible for most people to grasp when given enough thought.

 

So many theists toss "law" and "theory" around as though "law" means something and "theory" only means a mere "guess". But throw in the "law" of conservation of mass/energy, and suddenly "law" doesn't mean anything to them, either. I know this takes us away from the points I was making, but it does relate to the KCA. If matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only change form, then wouldn't simple logic dictate that matter and energy have always existed? Doh! In other words, nothing could have come about ex nihilo because the materials have always been around.

 

To me, this is where the KCA completely breaks down at #2, because the universe never "began" to exist. Everything was just scrunched up into a tiny speck "until" (and there's another time reference) something happened that made it expand. Something happened with the already-existing materials. Something happened. This is why I can't wrap my brain around the idea of "no time," because something happened. In order for something to happen, time would be required, even if that time was moving incredibly slowly at the time. I can grasp matter and/or energy existing in a timeless state, but I cannot imagine them "doing" anything without "time", so there would have to be some measurement of time involved, regardless of how "slow" that time may be.

 

Then again, it could all be a matter of perception. If we could somehow witness that time and measure it by our standards, it could have taken billions of years to move the distance of a molecule, but it could be a micro-second by the standards of everything that is and ever will be. I would say the standards of the universe, but there may be other universes "here" along with us, and/or elsewhere. I can easily comprehend the idea of multiple universes occupying the same area before I can comprehend the idea of no time, unless the "spark" that set our universe in motion came from some other universe.

 

Anyway, I'm just rambling now.

[LNC]

It doesn't, but it should, because that's how things come into existence in our world.

 

Nothing in our world comes into existence ex nihilo. Things are just things composed of other things. Nothing really begin to exist in that categorical way the premise makes it to be.

 

Our world didn't exist causally prior to the existence of the universe, so your statement is irrelevant. You merely presuppose the existence of matter and that is question-begging and contrary to the best models for the origin of the universe.

 

It requires many causes, and something that exists can exists in many different ways.

 

Why would you suggest that? It seems to violate parsimony to suggest that. The second part of your statement also seems irrelevant to the origin of the universe, which is what we are here to discuss.

 

The premise is stated wrong and based on incomplete understanding of existence and cause.

 

Would you care to elaborate and actually defend your statement, or do you prefer to be cryptic. It seems based upon the rest of your response below that you prefer the latter.

 

I didn't post eternally existing matter or energy. I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

OK, so are you positing that something comes from nothing or do you wish to remain silent so that you don't actually have to defend a position? I'm guessing the latter.

 

Has nothing to do with my argument.

 

It seems that nothing has to do with your argument because you actually don't present one. But then, I'm sure that this has nothing to do with your argument either.

 

Has nothing to do with my argument that the Kalam premise is wrong.

 

To point to faults and errors in the premise is not the same as proposing the opposite of the conclusion.

 

Which argument was that? Sorry, I have yet to actually read an argument from you.

 

LNC

[LNC]

It's not a logical fallacy. You just accuse me of a fallacy to discredit my post.

 

If you understood my argument, you would understand why my assertion is right.

 

Never mind. We've discussed this so many times and we're of different opinions. I side with one group of philosophers, you side with the other, and we can't agree on the interpretations of words. Simple as that.

 

This time I thought I would merely group your statements together to show that you actually post meaningless replies without an actual argument. With which group of philosophers do you side and on which specific issues? Did you actually want to try to make a positive argument for what you believe and then try to defend it?

 

LNC

[LNC]

One cannot do science (physics or otherwise) without philosophy

 

This makes no sense to me. Not joining the debate, I'll stay out of the way, but just sayin'...

 

Let me explain. Logic, reasoning, identity and other concepts necessary to science are categorized under the discipline of philosophy. Science was once a discipline within philosophy. Scientific study was originated by philosophers. Click here to learn more. I hope that is helpful.

 

LNC

[LNC]

 

 

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

I would really - REALLY - love to see you prove this. Really. The entire universe has been mapped out and we know, for a fact, that there is nowhere else anywhere in it suitable to sustaining higher life forms? Give me the raw data on that, please.

 

One doesn't have to have the whole universe mapped out to know that none that we know of is suitable. So far, there have been discoveries of planets with water and temperature that is within range (if you like a cold climate that doesn't exceed 40 degrees), but there is no indication as to whether the atmosphere would support life. One has to realize that there is a narrow band, called the Goldilocks Zone, in which potential habitable planets reside and just because a planet is within that zone doesn't automatically make it habitable. Also, just because a planet may be found to be habitable, doesn't guarantee that it is habited or has been habited in the past. However, the search continues.

 

LNC

[Dagan]

 

 

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

I would really - REALLY - love to see you prove this. Really. The entire universe has been mapped out and we know, for a fact, that there is nowhere else anywhere in it suitable to sustaining higher life forms? Give me the raw data on that, please.

 

One doesn't have to have the whole universe mapped out to know that none that we know of is suitable. So far, there have been discoveries of planets with water and temperature that is within range (if you like a cold climate that doesn't exceed 40 degrees), but there is no indication as to whether the atmosphere would support life. One has to realize that there is a narrow band, called the Goldilocks Zone, in which potential habitable planets reside and just because a planet is within that zone doesn't automatically make it habitable. Also, just because a planet may be found to be habitable, doesn't guarantee that it is habited or has been habited in the past. However, the search continues.

 

LNC

 

 

We can only observe a tiny fraction of the universe. And astronomers are finding planets all the time. Several were found recently which have all the elements to sustain life, including this one which was life-sustaining bu not habitable. It is only a matter of time before astronomers find a rocky planet with life-sustaining elements in an orbit around its star which renders it habitable.

[Ouroboros]

LNC,

 

We've discussed this topic so many times over and over, and we have different views. That's a fact. There's no use that we continue argue our points back and forth. We disagree. End of story. It's better use of your time to discuss the topic with other members here instead of insisting on that I'm wrong because you're right (in your opinion). I know what philosophers I side with, and I know why I do it, and if you had paid attention to what I'm saying, you wouldn't be asked the same questions.

 

This time, our conversation started because I merely pointed out my opinion to someone else, and you choose to pick up the discussion with me again. I'm not interested in perpetuate this futile endeavor. Good luck with your life. And perhaps one day you realize that you didn't quite listen to what I said.

 

And regarding the question if I've made any statements or arguments, then you have a very short memory. We started this discussion the first day you registered on this website, and we've been at each other in at least two or three different threads about the KCA.

 

Take care.

[LNC]

 

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Read my highlighted text above, then:

 

To quote Hawking:

 

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singuarity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later [in the book], it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.

 

Once again, science trumps religion. Just as Ptolemy said the sun revolved around the earth, and earlier scientists relying only on general relativity said that there must have been a singularity (big bang), more recent developments in theoretical physics have eliminated the big bang.

 

Neither you nor I are experts in theoretical physics. And I'm not flawless, and neither are you.

 

But can we at least agree that we (you and I) don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe?

 

Apparently, you are not up on the latest research as Borde, Ford & Roman indicate that an initial singularity cannot be avoided. They write, “it has recently been found that violations of the WEC [weak energy condition] do not allow one to avoid initial singularities.” (see, Arvind Borde, L.H. Ford, and Thomas A. Roman, “Constraints on spatial distributions of negative energy”) Borde, Guth and Vilenkin also state that even in an inflationary multiverse, “Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-eternal.” (see, Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflation is not past-eternal”)

 

I believe that science has trumped science here, sorry to burst your "boundaryless" bubble. Rumors of the demise of the Big Bang theory are premature. Lest you haven't realized, it is still be best evidenced model out there.

 

I will agree that neither of us were there at the beginning of the universe, and on that basis have no absolute knowledge of what happened, but then again, we have no absolute knowledge of anything. However, we should go where the best evidence leads us and at this point it unquestionably would lead us to the Big Bang model.

 

LNC

[LNC]

 

 

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

I would really - REALLY - love to see you prove this. Really. The entire universe has been mapped out and we know, for a fact, that there is nowhere else anywhere in it suitable to sustaining higher life forms? Give me the raw data on that, please.

Ask him for his parameters for the Drake equation and ask him to justify them.

 

Why would I need to deal with the Drake equations to know that no habitable planets have been discovered at this point? I think that the evidence justifies that independent of this calculation.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I concede that "logic" and mathematics have philosophical underpinnings, but what I was talking about was not causality, but A CAUSE. This relies on something that neither you nor I know much about (see my reply above). While Aquinas posited a cause for the universe deductively, I also used deduction in the example using the Law of Conservation of Energy. Using the same method, two different answers are found.

 

Speculating in the absence of evidence is not a characteristic of science, but it is typical of "pure philosophy." When philosophers speak of things they don't know about, before the research is done, sometimes they are right, but it is at least as likely that they are wrong.

 

Read Socrates (Plato). Follow his reasoning. It makes "perfect sense" if you know nothing about the subject matter, but when science has found answers to the questions, his reasoning becomes "as straw."

 

All I'm saying is follow the evidence, but be careful not to wander off the path.

 

As to the question of "maybe, maybe not", I was referring to the current state of theoretical physics, not science in general.

 

OK, you said that the Cause is a question of physics and not philosophy, which is a mistaken assertion as the cause would have preceded physics. There is no physics when there is no physical world (that was what was being created). So, you cannot correctly assert that the cause of the universe was physics as that would assume that the physical world was self-caused and that is logically untenable.

 

Also, you cannot use the law of conservation of energy in this explanation as that law did not exist causally prior to the universe as there was no energy. That law only applies in our current universe.

 

You are right that science is not about speculating in the absence of evidence; however, is that what you think that physicists and cosmologists are really doing? I don't. I think that they are taking the evidence and data and building models to best explain that data. I also think that you misrepresent philosophy and I am not sure what you mean by "pure philosophy" so maybe you can explain that . Philosophy, of which science is an offshoot, is based on looking at the evidence and data and building models to explain that data and evidence. I don't know that philosophers speak of things that they don't know any more than scientists do. Scientists have been known to be wrong quite often as well as you cite in your earlier post with Ptolemy (an early scientist). In fact, it was early scientists/philosophers who thought that the earth was flat, the atmosphere a canopy, etc. It was also scientists who thought that bleeding people would cure disease. So science is not without its share of mistaken assumptions.

 

Now, for your slams against Socrates (Plato), could you actually cite for me where you think that his reasoning was wrong? I'm not saying that he/they were right about everything, but you seem to portray them as thinkers who were just wrong about their reasonings and that is completely fallacious. If it weren't for their thinking and what they brought to reasoning, science would never have gotten off the ground. I wonder how much you have really read and understood of Plato for you to make these statements. From your statement, I would guess you are very well read in his writings. However, I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong by citing examples to back up your statement. I'll look forward to your reply.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

 

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Read my highlighted text above, then:

 

To quote Hawking:

 

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singuarity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later [in the book], it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.

 

Once again, science trumps religion. Just as Ptolemy said the sun revolved around the earth, and earlier scientists relying only on general relativity said that there must have been a singularity (big bang), more recent developments in theoretical physics have eliminated the big bang.

 

Neither you nor I are experts in theoretical physics. And I'm not flawless, and neither are you.

 

But can we at least agree that we (you and I) don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe?

 

Apparently, you are not up on the latest research as Borde, Ford & Roman indicate that an initial singularity cannot be avoided. They write, “it has recently been found that violations of the WEC [weak energy condition] do not allow one to avoid initial singularities.” (see, Arvind Borde, L.H. Ford, and Thomas A. Roman, “Constraints on spatial distributions of negative energy”) Borde, Guth and Vilenkin also state that even in an inflationary multiverse, “Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-eternal.” (see, Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflation is not past-eternal”)

 

I believe that science has trumped science here, sorry to burst your "boundaryless" bubble. Rumors of the demise of the Big Bang theory are premature. Lest you haven't realized, it is still be best evidenced model out there.

 

I will agree that neither of us were there at the beginning of the universe, and on that basis have no absolute knowledge of what happened, but then again, we have no absolute knowledge of anything. However, we should go where the best evidence leads us and at this point it unquestionably would lead us to the Big Bang model.

 

LNC

It took a while to find it, but your reference would be:

 

Arvind Borde. Constraints on spatial distributions of negative energy

(with L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman), Phys. Rev. D Vol. 65, 084002 (2002)

 

Perhaps you might be interested in some current research and publishing.

 

http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2007-news/Bojowald6-2007.htm

 

Kennedy, B.K. (2007). "What Happened Before the Big Bang?"

 

The idea that the universe erupted with a Big Bang explosion has been a big barrier in scientific attempts to understand the origin of our expanding universe, although the Big Bang long has been considered by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically nonsensical state — a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy. Now, however, Bojowald and other physicists at Penn State are exploring territory unknown even to Einstein — the time before the Big Bang — using a mathematical time machine called Loop Quantum Gravity. This theory, which combines Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with equations of quantum physics that did not exist in Einstein's day, is the first mathematical description to systematically establish the existence of the Big Bounce and to deduce properties of the earlier universe from which our own may have sprung. For scientists, the Big Bounce opens a crack in the barrier that was the Big Bang.

 

Also, remember that it was Hawking that proposed the singularity in the first place and later developed the quantum mathematical model that demonstrated the absence of a singularity. I believe his words were:

 

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singuarity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later [in the book], it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.

 

IOW, Borde et al. are the "other physicists."

[Shyone]

I concede that "logic" and mathematics have philosophical underpinnings, but what I was talking about was not causality, but A CAUSE. This relies on something that neither you nor I know much about (see my reply above). While Aquinas posited a cause for the universe deductively, I also used deduction in the example using the Law of Conservation of Energy. Using the same method, two different answers are found.

 

Speculating in the absence of evidence is not a characteristic of science, but it is typical of "pure philosophy." When philosophers speak of things they don't know about, before the research is done, sometimes they are right, but it is at least as likely that they are wrong.

 

Read Socrates (Plato). Follow his reasoning. It makes "perfect sense" if you know nothing about the subject matter, but when science has found answers to the questions, his reasoning becomes "as straw."

 

All I'm saying is follow the evidence, but be careful not to wander off the path.

 

As to the question of "maybe, maybe not", I was referring to the current state of theoretical physics, not science in general.

 

OK, you said that the Cause is a question of physics and not philosophy, which is a mistaken assertion as the cause would have preceded physics. There is no physics when there is no physical world (that was what was being created). So, you cannot correctly assert that the cause of the universe was physics as that would assume that the physical world was self-caused and that is logically untenable.

 

Also, you cannot use the law of conservation of energy in this explanation as that law did not exist causally prior to the universe as there was no energy. That law only applies in our current universe.

 

You are right that science is not about speculating in the absence of evidence; however, is that what you think that physicists and cosmologists are really doing? I don't. I think that they are taking the evidence and data and building models to best explain that data. I also think that you misrepresent philosophy and I am not sure what you mean by "pure philosophy" so maybe you can explain that . Philosophy, of which science is an offshoot, is based on looking at the evidence and data and building models to explain that data and evidence. I don't know that philosophers speak of things that they don't know any more than scientists do. Scientists have been known to be wrong quite often as well as you cite in your earlier post with Ptolemy (an early scientist). In fact, it was early scientists/philosophers who thought that the earth was flat, the atmosphere a canopy, etc. It was also scientists who thought that bleeding people would cure disease. So science is not without its share of mistaken assumptions.

 

Now, for your slams against Socrates (Plato), could you actually cite for me where you think that his reasoning was wrong? I'm not saying that he/they were right about everything, but you seem to portray them as thinkers who were just wrong about their reasonings and that is completely fallacious. If it weren't for their thinking and what they brought to reasoning, science would never have gotten off the ground. I wonder how much you have really read and understood of Plato for you to make these statements. From your statement, I would guess you are very well read in his writings. However, I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong by citing examples to back up your statement. I'll look forward to your reply.

 

LNC

This reply won't be too detailed, but if you read my earlier post, the most recent theoretical physics model, consistent with what Hawking had determined earlier, requires a "Big Bounce" in that this universe is the result of the collapse of a previous universe. While it is not stated explicitly, and it was not part of the reason for the theory, this is consistent with the Law of Conservation of Energy which would also apply to the previous universe as well.

 

With me so far?

 

Scientists do make eroneous assumptions, but the beauty of science is that it is self correcting through observations and research. Ptolemy proposed the geocentric universe, Copernicus proposed the heliocentric universe, but with perfectly round orbits and bodies (since God would only create Perfection). Kepler then deduced that an eliptical orbit would fit the paths of the planets better, and subsequent observations have confirmed this.

 

The reason we know Ptolemy's geocentric theory is incorrect is that it was corrected by later science.

 

At this time, the events of the Big Whatever are not settled, although you wish they were. I recommend that you not hitch your God to a proposal that will later be "corrected" as better and better models are determined from ongoing modeling and research.

 

As for Socrates, I left that book 1,000 miles away from where I am now. Memory is less than perfect for the words written, but my impressions are vivid.

 

This video illustrates the Socratic method when the listeners are dunces, but the actual writing was very similar in content (well, just as silly at any rate):

 

[Shyone]

 

 

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

I would really - REALLY - love to see you prove this. Really. The entire universe has been mapped out and we know, for a fact, that there is nowhere else anywhere in it suitable to sustaining higher life forms? Give me the raw data on that, please.

Ask him for his parameters for the Drake equation and ask him to justify them.

 

Why would I need to deal with the Drake equations to know that no habitable planets have been discovered at this point? I think that the evidence justifies that independent of this calculation.

 

LNC

Point taken. I thought you were implying that there are no other inhabitable planets with intelligent life - and that there never will be any discovered.

 

My mistake.

[bdp]

 

 

no habitable planets have been discovered at this point

 

LNC

 

Well that's different than what you said before.

[bornagainathiest]

Perhaps you might be interested in some current research and publishing.

 

http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2007-news/Bojowald6-2007.htm

 

Kennedy, B.K. (2007). "What Happened Before the Big Bang?"

 

The idea that the universe erupted with a Big Bang explosion has been a big barrier in scientific attempts to understand the origin of our expanding universe, although the Big Bang long has been considered by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically nonsensical state — a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy. Now, however, Bojowald and other physicists at Penn State are exploring territory unknown even to Einstein — the time before the Big Bang — using a mathematical time machine called Loop Quantum Gravity. This theory, which combines Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with equations of quantum physics that did not exist in Einstein's day, is the first mathematical description to systematically establish the existence of the Big Bounce and to deduce properties of the earlier universe from which our own may have sprung. For scientists, the Big Bounce opens a crack in the barrier that was the Big Bang.

 

Also, remember that it was Hawking that proposed the singularity in the first place and later developed the quantum mathematical model that demonstrated the absence of a singularity. I believe his words were:

 

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singuarity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later [in the book], it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.

 

Hey Shyone!

 

This (LQG and Hawking's statement) is news to me!

 

I've been laboring under the idea that the Big Bang singularity model was still the 'best fit' for the data. OK, so the previous universe contracted down to the required size for a 'Big Bounce', giving rise to ours. I have no problem with that. Nope, it's when I compare the predicted fate of our universe with that of it's predecessor - that's where I begin scratching my head. If Dark Energy is accelerating the expansion of our universe, doesn't that suggest that ours will never reverse it's expansion and contract again? Perhaps Bojowald's work will help us understand Dark Energy in a new light? (Sorry about the pun!)

 

To be quite honest, while I accept the interpretation of the data that lead to the discovery of Dark Energy, I never really liked the consequences of it's effects on our universe. It's just an emotional bias, nothing more. But if everything shrinks back down to a new 'bounce', that's more appealing. However, I just can't seem to see a way that our accelerating universe can ease off the gas, apply the brakes, shift itself into reverse and 'bounce' again!

 

Btw, Shyone, I'm a real fan of Andrei Linde's Multiverse concept. Do you think there's any way his work and Bojowald's might mesh smoothly together? I'm mean, the existence of a prior universe to ours might fit with the idea of 'daughter' universes eternally budding off older ones. Instead of universes 'bouncing' strictly in a series, one after the other, this would be universe creation running in parallel. Any thoughts?

 

BAA.

[Shyone]

 

Hey Shyone!

 

This (LQG and Hawking's statement) is news to me!

 

I've been laboring under the idea that the Big Bang singularity model was still the 'best fit' for the data. OK, so the previous universe contracted down to the required size for a 'Big Bounce', giving rise to ours. I have no problem with that. Nope, it's when I compare the predicted fate of our universe with that of it's predecessor - that's where I begin scratching my head. If Dark Energy is accelerating the expansion of our universe, doesn't that suggest that ours will never reverse it's expansion and contract again? Perhaps Bojowald's work will help us understand Dark Energy in a new light? (Sorry about the pun!)

 

To be quite honest, while I accept the interpretation of the data that lead to the discovery of Dark Energy, I never really liked the consequences of it's effects on our universe. It's just an emotional bias, nothing more. But if everything shrinks back down to a new 'bounce', that's more appealing. However, I just can't seem to see a way that our accelerating universe can ease off the gas, apply the brakes, shift itself into reverse and 'bounce' again!

 

Btw, Shyone, I'm a real fan of Andrei Linde's Multiverse concept. Do you think there's any way his work and Bojowald's might mesh smoothly together? I'm mean, the existence of a prior universe to ours might fit with the idea of 'daughter' universes eternally budding off older ones. Instead of universes 'bouncing' strictly in a series, one after the other, this would be universe creation running in parallel. Any thoughts?

 

BAA.

Who the heck knows? I've read so many theories lately it makes my head swim. Even theories about how many more theories there will be.

 

And that's kind of the point of my post. This (theoretical physics) is controversial, unsettled, and complicated. What a recipe for misunderstanding or imposing our own prejudices!

 

All I can say is that the next reply I expect to get is an Argment from Authority: "My physicist is better than your physicist!"

 

As for multiverse versus multidimensions versus string theory versus a potential "Theory of Everything", I can't really comment.