The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[bornagainathiest]

 

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.

 

Ok, point taken.

 

How about this then?

 

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy. But, what about Virtual Particles? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

Ok, we can't exactly prove that these guys are self-caused, but they do seem to exhibit characteristics that look like self-causation. They appear to 'pop' spontaneously into existence before self-annihilating. Before vanishing, they exist within the space-time continuum. They appear to be real, in as much as, there are many ways they can be detected (see 'Manifestations').

 

As far as I understand it, something that is self-caused would cause itself to 'pop' into existence within our space-time continuum, just as they do.

No need to invoke supernatural agencies, creatio ex nihilo or timelessness/spacelessness.

 

BAA.

[Legion]

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy.

I can't truthfully claim to understand self-causation at this point. There was a time when I might have agreed that it was an impossibility. And I don't know very much about physics, but I have come to suspect that living systems have some things to teach us about the nature of organized material systems, and thus about the universe. The chicken and egg "paradox" may be highlighting the presence of self-causation in living systems. The self-fulfilling prophecy may also be an instance of a self-caused phenomenon. If so, then we can conclude that our difficulty in cogitating the nature of self-causation is no barrier to nature itself.

[Ouroboros]

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy.

He loves to throw that "logical fallacy" at every argument that contradicts his belief.

 

Self-causation isn't a logical fallacy. He could argue that it's an impossibility, or that it's against some logic (which would require some premise), but it's not a logical fallacy.

[Shyone]

 

Ok, point taken.

 

How about this then?

 

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy. But, what about Virtual Particles? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

Ok, we can't exactly prove that these guys are self-caused, but they do seem to exhibit characteristics that look like self-causation. They appear to 'pop' spontaneously into existence before self-annihilating. Before vanishing, they exist within the space-time continuum. They appear to be real, in as much as, there are many ways they can be detected (see 'Manifestations').

 

As far as I understand it, something that is self-caused would cause itself to 'pop' into existence within our space-time continuum, just as they do.

No need to invoke supernatural agencies, creatio ex nihilo or timelessness/spacelessness.

 

BAA.

I used to think that this type of thing was the "cause" of the universe. Self-caused splitting with some means of transforming some particles based on spin into other particles leaving a balance of matter.

 

Virtual particles are "self-caused" apparently. The phenomenon may even have some application in black hole radiation. It has been demonstrated experimentally as well.

 

My thinking about a self-caused universe is that postulating God does not remove the cause problem - it merely puts it back a step. The depiction of God as "uncaused" is arbitrary. They "make" him uncaused because it fits their concept, not for any evidence that supports it.

 

What caused God? It's the same problem with Design: If the universe is too complex and requires a designer, then surely God is more complex and also requires a designer.

 

So you'll see theists arguing, for no particular reason, that God is the uncaused cause, the undesgned designer, the immaterial maker of material, and so forth. It's almost ironic in the long version to hear them say, "We never see a cause that doesn't have a cause..... So God is uncaused."

 

It's turtles all the way down.

 

If God has a father and a mother, then He also had grandparents. Tee-hee.

[NotBlinded]

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy.

He loves to throw that "logical fallacy" at every argument that contradicts his belief.

 

Self-causation isn't a logical fallacy. He could argue that it's an impossibility, or that it's against some logic (which would require some premise), but it's not a logical fallacy.

This is what drives me crazy about him. He wants to play within the laws of physics when he argues against us yet he can shift to God being self-caused and going outside the laws of physics himself. I would think that if he wants to have what we say operating within classical physics, his God should have to also. He may state contingent this and contingent that (or whatever he uses) but the point is is that if God can operate beyond the laws of physics, there may be something in nature that can also and still be perfectly natural.

[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>

 

It is logically untenable that a thing could be its own cause as it would have to exist to cause its own existence. Can you see why that would be a problem?

 

In regard to the rest of your post, here is what I would say. We know that the universe is past-finite, not from the premise, but from the evidence that leads us to believe that the premise is correct. What we can construe from the argument and from other evidence is that the cause of the universe is not the universe itself and therefore must be an immaterial cause as the universe is made up of all matter, energy, space and time. So, I guess you are right to an extent that we see that the argument works logically (i.e., the premises stand up to criticism and the conclusion follows logically from those premises) and then move from that conclusion and the premises to make arguments as to what the cause could be.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

 

It is logically untenable that a thing could be its own cause as it would have to exist to cause its own existence. Can you see why that would be a problem?

 

LNC

Let's apply this to theistic concepts:

 

"It is logically untenable that God could be His own cause as He would have to exist to cause His own existence."

 

And

 

"It is logically untenable that the universe could be its own cause as it would have to exist to cause its own existence."

 

Therefore, one or the other must have always existed in some form or another. Or maybe sprung into existence as the result of a quantum fluctuation.

 

We have no evidence of God. We do have evidence of the universe. While we cannot "know" what happened so many billions of years ago, we are collectively like a single fly with a lifespan of (less than) 12 hours. What the fly sees as a one time occurrence, dawn, sunset, may wind up by cyclical. The fly may even appreciate, through subtle measurements of the sun's position, that there may be seasons, but not that the seasons are cyclical.

 

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

[bornagainathiest]

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>

 

Hello LNC.

 

It is logically untenable that a thing could be its own cause as it would have to exist to cause its own existence.

 

Is this because there is no evidence for the existence of something that is self-caused?

So, if there were evidence for the existence of self-caused things, this would invalidate your above statement?

If Virtual Particles are a bona fide example of self-causation, your statement is invalid?

 

Can you see why that would be a problem?

 

Yes, I can see that it would be a problem if there were a cast-iron case against self-causation, based on physical evidence, not metaphysical argumentation. A metaphysical argument does not hold up against physical evidence. Call me wrong if you like, but if something real is experimentally verified, this (in my book) trumps any metaphysical argument that such a thing cannot exist and cannot be real.

 

In regard to the rest of your post, here is what I would say. We know that the universe is past-finite, not from the premise, but from the evidence that leads us to believe that the premise is correct. What we can construe from the argument and from other evidence is that the cause of the universe is not the universe itself and therefore must be an immaterial cause as the universe is made up of all matter, energy, space and time.

 

About the evidence...

As we have seen in this thread, the cosmological model you favor is just one of many competing models, all based on the same, scant body of information we have gleaned about our origins. Other contributors to this thread have correctly noted that this debate is beginning to devolve into a competition between the work of various scientists. So be it. I conclude that perhaps it is too soon to say that one given model is better than any other until more and better data comes in. Would you agree LNC?

 

So, I guess you are right to an extent that we see that the argument works logically (i.e., the premises stand up to criticism and the conclusion follows logically from those premises) and then move from that conclusion and the premises to make arguments as to what the cause could be.

 

LNC

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[LNC]

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?

 

Sorry, apparently you are not familiar with a fairly common philosophical term, "causally prior." Here is one of a number of articles from SEP that discuss this concept. If nothing can be causally prior to time then we wouldn't exist since time started with the origin of the universe. We do exist, therefore, there was a cause that preceded (causally) the universe. It is important that you not confuse concepts (causality vs. temporality) to avoid this confusion.

 

As to your complaint that I didn't explain myself enough, apparently that is true as you were confused by my reply. You on the other hand, could have done a simple search of the term "causally prior" to find out that it is a valid concept before posting this reply, it would have saved you from having to be publicly corrected, especially when you are so adamant about being correct.

 

So, as I said, the universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause. The universe includes all matter, space and time, therefore, the cause could not be a material or temporal cause. It logically follows from the premise to the conclusion. Does that make sense to you? I have posted references to research to indicate that the universe is past finite and the singularity unavoidable if you care to go back and take a look.

 

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?

 

Before we do, let me say that I shouldn't have used the word "silly" as that was inflammatory. However, I didn't find your illustration directly applicable, but let me give you another shot at it. Second, you keep saying that the universe is not finely tuned, which is a completely unscientific statement. I have already cited evidence of the fine tuning of the universe and all you have made are assertions and illustrations, neither of which serve as proof. So, let's return to your illustration and see what you've got.

 

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.

 

I am still not sure what this example has to do with the fine tuning of the universe as it is (to stick with the food metaphor) like apples and oranges.

 

Let me pose a different illustration. Let's suppose that you played the lottery every day (1 ticket with 12 million to one odds) the probability of you winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life would be better than the probability that the four fundamental constants would be how we find them in our universe. So, if you think the odds are good, I expect to see you in the news as the next lottery winner tomorrow, the next day, the day after that...

 

Your last statement is also fallacious as it assumes the hole, the water in the hole and the temperature. It is also probabilistically much too likely than the constants of the universe. Let me know when you have won your first lottery.

 

LNC

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Maybe, I am willing bet that this has already been mentioned, but how does this prove the Christian God at all?

 

If all we know of it natural, then why are we allowed to apply "supernatural" terms to it

 

What are your thoughts on this LNC

 

"The curious clause "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to "everything except God has a cause." As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence, and we are back to begging the question."

 

Source:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

[LNC]

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.

 

Why would you say that the law of conservation of mass/energy doesn't mean anything to theists. I have no problem with it when properly understood. The problem with many is that they misapply it to somehow try to prove by it that the universe didn't have a beginning, which is clearly does not prove. Matter cannot be created or destroyed within this closed universe, it has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe as the law did not exist at that point. Physical laws describe how things behave within our universe. What you want to deny is the law of entropy which goes against your theory of a past eternal universe. Given that law we should be experiencing heat death now, but we're not experiencing that. Doh! How do you explain that?

 

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.

 

Would you consider "scrunched up" a scientific term? Could you explain what would have made something that existed from eternity past in a "scrunched up" state begin to expand? Why did it begin to expand 13.73 billion years ago rather than 55 billion years ago or 10 minutes ago? In other words, what was the trigger and who or what set it to go off when it did? How do you explain the change of time passage? It seems that you are saying that the laws of physics may have changed to allow for this, can you explain how the laws of physics changed and how you know that they did? Can you explain how matter and energy could exist in a timeless state? That seems counter-intuitive as time is the measure of a sequence of events and you are telling me that matter can exist without a sequence of events. How is that possible unless that matter is completely inert down even to the sub-atomic level? But that goes against physics as we know it, so your theory about time seems impossible. That leaves you with another problem which is the illogic of having an actualized infinite, which would be the result of having matter existing from eternity past. Maybe you could explain how you work out some of these problems.

 

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.

It sounds like you have left the realm of science and are now into the realm of metaphysics, which is ultimately what happens in these conversations. What you are describing is a violation of physics as we know it, physics that is governing our universe. I would agree with you that there is another realm, call it a universe if you will, where a thousand years is like a day and where a day is like a thousand years, it is discussed in the Bible. That realm is called heaven and God, who resides there, experiences time like this.

 

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:4

 

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

 

Welcome to the metaphysics of God's realm as described in the Bible.

 

LNC

[Dagan]

I would agree with you that there is another realm, call it a universe if you will, where a thousand years is like a day and where a day is like a thousand years, it is discussed in the Bible. That realm is called heaven and God, who resides there, experiences time like this.

 

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:4

 

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

 

Welcome to the metaphysics of God's realm as described in the Bible.

 

LNC

 

Those verses were originally intended to make excuses for prophecies that didn't come true. Now you're using them to make excuses and try and make the bible and science line up.

[bdp]

"time is the measure of a sequence of events"

 

Is it?

[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.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if a planet was discovered that could support life; however, the one that you referenced is not a candidate. The article concludes, "The planet is not habitable but has the same chemistry that, if found around a rocky planet in future, could indicate presence of life." So, it takes more than just having certain chemical properties to support life. However, I am open to the idea that one could be found; what I am saying is that we know of none that could support higher life forms and many cosmologists and chemists are skeptical that we ever will.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

 

You like to reframe arguments to make the other person look bad, don't you? I don't claim that you are wrong because I am right. I generally try to give factual evidence to back up my arguments. If you think you are right about a particular argument, then I would suggest that you do the same so that we can look at the evidence and determine whether it stands up to scrutiny. Yet, you like to make claims that the other person simply doesn't "pay attention" to your arguments - a weak ploy.

 

I came back to this thread because I was asked on another thread to come back and interact on an argument that was posted. Nobody has forced you to participate. However, I am fine if you would like to put forth your "opinions" unchallenged, as long as you present them as such. However, if you put ideas out there that are stated as anything more than your opinion and they are contrary to known facts, I reserve the right to challenge them.

 

You may claim that I don't understand your arguments and that I have a short memory; however, the real problem for you is that I do understand your argument and remember all too well. I do remember when I started on this site, it was at the invitation of another member of this site who are arguing this very topic on another thread and thought I would have a more challenging interaction on this site, although it was not this particular thread. If you recall how this particular thread started, it was bornagainatheist who started it and challenged Christians to participate. It was you who brought up my name in the third post as someone who likes to argue for KCA. I was then challenged in another thread to come over to this one. So, again, I was invited over here.

 

I'm sorry if the interaction hasn't been to your liking; however, I would suggest that you not attribute your displeasure with our interaction to my lack of understanding, forgetfulness, arrogance, etc. Sorry, but those are a weak excuses, ad hominems, and just plain wrong.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

You never give up.

 

As I said, we disagree.

 

I can only assume from your response that I'm not allowed to have a different view on things or agree with other philosophers.

 

Our discussions have led me to understand that we will not agree on the underlying warrants to our arguments. There's just no need to continue to try to find a commonality. Simple as that.

[Dagan]

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.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if a planet was discovered that could support life; however, the one that you referenced is not a candidate. The article concludes, "The planet is not habitable but has the same chemistry that, if found around a rocky planet in future, could indicate presence of life." So, it takes more than just having certain chemical properties to support life. However, I am open to the idea that one could be found; what I am saying is that we know of none that could support higher life forms and many cosmologists and chemists are skeptical that we ever will.

 

LNC

 

You repeated exactly what I said, and made it sound like I made an error, which I did not. The only new statement you make is what I highlighted above in bold.

 

To which I respond, that's fine, there are just as many cosmologists and chemists who are optimistic that we will someday find a planet with all the elements necessary to sustain complex forms of life.

[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."

 

It will be interesting to see what develops from the LQC theory; however, it is much too early to tell whether it will pass muster. Regarding Hawking's no boundary theory, are you familiar with his work there? If so, you would know that he uses imaginary numbers in his equations which when converted back to real numbers brings us back to the existence of the singularity. I'm surprised you wouldn't have read that. However, you also didn't mention the problems with LQC, which are many, nor did you mention that there is no experimental data confirming the theory. So, the bottom line seems to be your rejection of Big Bang cosmology which is the best supported theory for the origin of the universe, singularities, which are equally well supported and your grasping at a theory that has no experimental support and mathematical problems. OK, if that is what you want to do...

 

LNC

[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?

 

I think that you are reading a lot into a speculative theory with no experimental evidence to date, but go on...

 

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):

 

 

At this time Big Bang cosmology is the best supported model by far out there. Only a handful of cosmologists don't accept Big Bang and you have no solid evidence that it will be refuted; however, I don't believe it because if supports the Bible, I believe it because the evidence supports it and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

As for your video link about Socrates, I am not sure what exactly you are suggesting. Are you saying that Socrates (actually Plato's) writings were as silly as this video? If so, then you either haven't read or understood Socrates.

 

LNC

[LNC]

 

 

no habitable planets have been discovered at this point

 

LNC

 

Well that's different than what you said before.

 

Could you point out where I said something that contradicts this?

[LNC]

Ok, point taken.

 

How about this then?

 

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy. But, what about Virtual Particles? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

Ok, we can't exactly prove that these guys are self-caused, but they do seem to exhibit characteristics that look like self-causation. They appear to 'pop' spontaneously into existence before self-annihilating. Before vanishing, they exist within the space-time continuum. They appear to be real, in as much as, there are many ways they can be detected (see 'Manifestations').

 

As far as I understand it, something that is self-caused would cause itself to 'pop' into existence within our space-time continuum, just as they do.

No need to invoke supernatural agencies, creatio ex nihilo or timelessness/spacelessness.

 

BAA.

 

BAA,

 

Virtual particles appear in quantum vacuums that contain quantum energy (so they are not complete vacuums), so I don't think that they are of any help in explaining the origin of the universe as quantum energy would have been contained within the singularity. Also, virtual particles are highly unstable and only exist for a brief time. However, we cannot observe them so there is some dispute as to whether they really exist. Here is a page from Stanford that gives some detail

[LNC]

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy.

He loves to throw that "logical fallacy" at every argument that contradicts his belief.

 

Self-causation isn't a logical fallacy. He could argue that it's an impossibility, or that it's against some logic (which would require some premise), but it's not a logical fallacy.

 

It is a violation of the law of identity. A thing would have to already exist in order to cause its own existence, but if it already exists, then it could not have caused its own existence. Can you see the circularity problem one runs into with this? If not, then please tell me how you overcome this problem without violating the law of identity.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I used to think that this type of thing was the "cause" of the universe. Self-caused splitting with some means of transforming some particles based on spin into other particles leaving a balance of matter.

 

Virtual particles are "self-caused" apparently. The phenomenon may even have some application in black hole radiation. It has been demonstrated experimentally as well.

 

My thinking about a self-caused universe is that postulating God does not remove the cause problem - it merely puts it back a step. The depiction of God as "uncaused" is arbitrary. They "make" him uncaused because it fits their concept, not for any evidence that supports it.

 

What caused God? It's the same problem with Design: If the universe is too complex and requires a designer, then surely God is more complex and also requires a designer.

 

So you'll see theists arguing, for no particular reason, that God is the uncaused cause, the undesgned designer, the immaterial maker of material, and so forth. It's almost ironic in the long version to hear them say, "We never see a cause that doesn't have a cause..... So God is uncaused."

 

It's turtles all the way down.

 

If God has a father and a mother, then He also had grandparents. Tee-hee.

 

Your's is a common question and an equally common misunderstanding. Physical things like universes require causes according to both physics and philosophy. Non-physical entities do not require causes as they are not bound by physical limitations. God, by definition, is an uncaused, eternal being. The question is whether this sort of being exists, which is where others arguments come in, but the definition is the definition and it is not arbitrary as you claim. It is about time that skeptics moved on from this question as it has been answered repeatedly and exhaustively, but I don't expect that will happen.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

It is a violation of the law of identity. A thing would have to already exist in order to cause its own existence, but if it already exists, then it could not have caused its own existence. Can you see the circularity problem one runs into with this? If not, then please tell me how you overcome this problem without violating the law of identity.

It's a fallacy of definition.

 

"Self-caused" is usually interchangeable with "un-caused," which isn't a violation of the law of identity. And why does "self-caused" mean "a thing caused itself to exist"? It's your definition, so you create the conflict.

 

What about love? Can love be caused? Is it a thing? Did a thing cause it? I thought you argued that love isn't a thing at all, but something beyond physical reality. So is your love to your wife a thing that was caused? Did God's love cause you to love... no wait... love can't cause love, because that would be a violation of identity, and those things are not things, or are they?

 

But I do see the problem how God being a "thing" and existing before Time-Zero.

[Ouroboros]

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy.

Here's a link to an article from Stanford about all the issue regarding "causation": http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

 

I've read that some philosophers consider free will as a form of self-causation.