The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[skepticalme]

 

To say that something can exist outside the Universe, is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. The Universe is that which contains existence(things that exist). To claim that something exists outside of the Universe, is to steal the concept of existence, and apply to something external to itself.

 

The problem with this fallacy is that it is begging the question in assuming that all existence is within time, therefore, to argue that something exists outside of time is to "steal the concept". First, you must prove that there cannot be existence outside of time in order for this assertion of fallacy to be valid.

 

LNC, you are trying to invalidate his assertion be asking him to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that there CAN be existence outside of time.

 

I see no evidence of that and, in fact, see evidence that there must be existence outside of time as the cause of time. Therefore, the assertion seems to be invalid.

 

Here you are begging the question in assuming causality outside of time.

[Shyone]

Incidentally, show me a physicist that can explain anything existing "outside of time."

 

Again, this is simply a misuse of terms, a fact that I have already pointed out on this thread. When I speak of God existing prior to the universe, I am speaking causally, not temporally. So, here again, your objection is due to your misunderstanding or misrepresenting terms, not due to a true problem with the concept. God existed apart from the universe's existence. I make no claims to God's spatial presence (above, outside, south of the universe) as God is not a physical being who takes a spatial position.

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah, no names, blah, blah, blah, no names, blah, blah, blah, no names.

 

LNC

Then give me a name of a physicist that isn't talking about God who speaks of something existing "causally" prior to the universe or a non-spatial position "outside of the physical universe."

[skepticalme]

Describe to me what physical things are LNC. Matter is particles, or is it waves, or is it wavicles? What does matter exist IN?

 

Physical things consist of matter, which consists of mass and volume. Matter exists within the bounds of the universe, if that is what you mean by your question.

 

Are you telling me that your understanding of God is one that cannot interact with nature? If you believe it can can, then you too are saying that there are non-physical occurences in nature. You see it as beginning outside of the physical and somehow being directed into the physical to cause things. I say its existence is in the physical to begin with. They go together. Seems like a minor difference because it ends up interacting with the physcial either way, yet it does pose a mountain of difference in the way we view nature. You have a controller/law giver that pushes buttons from some grand console and I have a spontaneous nature that happens on its own because of this Essence that has its existence in it.

 

I don't believe I have made that assertion. I believe that God does interact with nature and, in fact, entered into space and time, taking on human flesh about 2,000 years ago. God's existence could not begin with the physical world as that would mean that God and the physical world came into existence at the same time, therefore, both being uncaused. The concept of something being uncaused is, I believe, logically untenable. Maybe you could explain how you believe that this could happen and why we don't see more evidence of things coming into existence uncaused.

 

Wouldn't God's interactions with the physical world appear to us as uncaused events? By your own admission there is no evidence for uncaused events yet you say he does interact.

 

Why would I toss out science any more than you would? Is it not you that suggests that physical laws must have a law-giver? This suggests that this law-giver can change his mind at any time and, interfering with the physical, turn gravity on its head, water into wine and stop the sun in its tracks. What I suggest is that this runs smoothly because nature itself is the Essence that allows for water to remain water and wine to remain wine. There is nothing outside itself that interfers with it. It is It. And, if there is to be an evolution of a thistle producing figs, then that will come from the interactions of the thistle with the environment and not from some outside Being directing it.

 

So yes, there is a conflict. I'm not a materialist or a reductionist. My understanding doesn't have nature violating the laws of nature. You, LNC, are a materialist and a reductionist that sees nature in the exact same way as they do. As a machine. You have a controller of the machine and they have a fully automatic machine. Not much difference in both views of reality. I say there is no machine. The physical is alive and will produce many fruits.

 

Why does it follow that because physical laws have a law-giver that that law-giver could or would change his mind at any time?

 

Here again you are begging the question in assuming that there is a law-giver.

 

That doesn't seem to follow from premise to conclusion. Do I believe that God can suspend the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle? Sure, but then again you are proposing that the universe came into existence uncaused, which would be a violation of the laws of physics.

 

Again you have assumed causality outside of time and you are assuming the laws of physics outside of space-time.

 

The fact is that we can look at the past actions of the universe and make predictions of what will happen in the future based upon these laws of physics; however, that doesn't mean that these laws are inviolable or that we have them so well figured out that we won't make changes or adjustments to our understanding of them in the future. Past experience tells us that these adjustments in our understanding have happened and will again.

 

Yet you seem to think that we have them figured out enough to say that a purely natural universe is a violation of those laws.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi LNC!

 

'However we cannot observe them...'? Umm... now I'm confused again.

 

Your Stanford link appears to say that virtual particles are abstract, conceptual entities, not real and physical ones that can be detected. However, if we look at that Wikipedia page we can see under the heading, 'Manifestations' that...

* The Coulomb force is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.

* The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.

* The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of the interaction of virtual gluons.

* The weak nuclear force - it is the result of the exchange of virtual W bosons.

* The Casimir effect was observed in 2001 by a group from the University of Padua and is significant in the fields of micro and nanotechnologies.

* The Lamb shift (a difference of energy levels in the hydrogen atom) currently provides a measurement of the fine structure constant (Alpha) to better than one part in a million, allowing a precision test of Quantum Electrodynamics.

 

So what's the deal here? Can you help me out please? Call me slow, but I just can't get my head around the idea that abstract entities can cause real and measurable effects in our physical universe. Ouroboros' link would seem to be relevant here. Specifically, 1.1 'Immanence', where it talks about 'Pushing'. So, are virtual particles immanent (concrete and located in space-time) or transcendent (abstract and non-spatiotemporal) ? Since the main thrust of the 'pushing' argument seems to be that of interaction and the Wikipedia links do talk about manifestation thru interaction, wouldn't it be fair to say that virtual particles are, in fact, real and concrete entities, not abstract or conceptual ones? I mean, you did say that they...only exist for a brief time. Wouldn't that mean that their existence is real (immanent) and not abstract (transcendent)? If anything can exist in our universe, no matter how short it's duration, doesn't that therefore mean that it ceases to be abstract concept and becomes a concrete, interactive entity?

 

Ok LNC, lots of questions. I know. Sorry 'bout that, but I'm really puzzled over this one. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

BAA.

 

I'm not sure how you interpreted the linked article from Stanford to indicate that virtual particles are abstract conceptual entities and not real entities. I think you misread what they were saying, here is a quote:

 

Feynman diagrams have lines that represent mathematical expressions, but each line can also be viewed as representing a particle. However in the intermediate stages of a process the lines represent particles that can never be observed. These particles do not have the required Einstein relationship between their energy, momentum and mass. They are called "virtual" particles.

 

So, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation as they are talking about real particles, but those particle cannot be observed due to their relationship between energy, momentum and mass. I think your misinterpretation is what is throwing you off.

 

LNC

 

Hello LNC.

 

Yes, put simply I'm confused and most likely misinterpreting something here. That's why I'm asking for your help in explaining this topic. Perhaps the sticking point is the language used by Wikipedia and Stanford? They seem to be mutually exclusive. Or maybe there's a whole raft of assumptions that I'm making that need to be reviewed? Anyway, I'll try and put it more accurately below.

 

1. Earlier I listed six instances where Wikipedia has attributed various observable effects to the actions of various types of virtual particle. Are there any inaccuracies, misrepresentations or ambiguities in any of these listed instances?

(The content of this question rests upon the assumption that observable effects only apply to real entities, not abstract, conceptual ones. If this assumption is flawed, please say how and why. Thank you.)

 

2. If virtual particles are real entities, but can never be observed, how do they then qualify as 'real', when, presumably, real entities have physical attributes that can be observed?

(The content of this question is based upon the assumption that your words, highlighted in red, mean that if they are not abstract, they are therefore, real. If this is a misreading, I apologize and earnestly request that you clarify the status of the particles in question. Real? Abstract? Something else?)

 

3.Perhaps I'm stuck in a false dichotomy here? E.g., that which is real is therefore observable and that which is not observable is therefore abstract. Is that too simplistic? Once again, any help given to explain would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

p.s.

While I understand that your time may be limited and that you are busy with other things, I believe that the action of referring me back to prior quotes and informing me that I'm mistaken and/or misinterpreting things, does not qualify as adequately meeting the criteria of answering my questions or explaining the topic under discussion. I have no wish for this paragraph to sound peevish or difficult, but I am trying to understand, learn and grow here. If you feel that my future comprehension would be better served by asking others, then please say so and I'll gladly accept your decision and follow that new path. Thanks again.

[Ouroboros]

Regarding to your continued problem with God's existence outside of time, you may just need to read more about that as philosophically it is not problematic. You may want to read more about time and its nature as you may have a faulty understanding that as well. My intent is not to put you down with these suggestions, it is just to say that most philosophers don't seem to have a problem with the concept of God existing outside of time so your having that problem may be resolved by understanding the thinking of these people. Here is an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that would be a good place to start.

Thank you for the link. Just so you know, I have studied the topic for a couple of years, so I am not new to the arguments. My problem is rather how to explain my own view and the problems I see within current philosophical reasoning.

 

I hope you read the conclusion in the link you provided:

Questions about God’s relation to time involve many of the most perplexing topics in metaphysics. These include the nature of the fundamental structures of the universe as well as the nature of God’s own life. It is not surprising that the questions are still open even after over two millennia of careful inquiry. While philosophers often come to conclusions that are reasonably settled in their mind, they are wise to hold such conclusions with an open hand.

Meaning, to be a good philosopher, you should not let yourself fall into the "this is now settled, and all is explained" category, which I think you have.

 

My discussion has been focused on making you admit that this issue isn't clear or completely explained, but so far, my impression is that you are convinced and beyond any opposition to your standpoint. According to the conclusion above--from your own link--that is not wise.

 

Another thing you should learn from that article is: There are many different theories. How can that be? If this is logically sound and no criticism can question its soundness, then why are there different views and arguments by the philosophers? If it was a simply 1+1=2 reasoning, wouldn't all philosophers easily agree and finally settle this?

[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.

 

Could you point me to the philosophers who consider free-will to be self-causation? I would be interested in hearing how they work that out.

 

LNC

Robert Kane, but he calls it "self-forming actions." I have also seen some philosophers use the term self-determination.

 

"What is important for free will, proponents of this argument claim, is not simply that the causal chain for an agent’s volition goes through the agent, but that it originates with the agent. In other words, an agent acts with free will only if she originates her action, or if she is the ultimate source or first cause of her action [see Kane (1998)]" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/).

 

Thomas Reid expressed it this way: "I grant, then, that an effect uncaused is a contradiction, and that an event uncaused is an absurdity. The question that remains is whether a volition, undetermined by motives, is an event uncaused. This I deny. The cause of the volition is the man that willed it."

 

In other words, man causes his own free will (as a noun) to will (as a verb).

 

The question is: what causes a free-will agent to make a choice?

 

Is the cause external (deterministic)?

 

Or is the cause internal (self-caused)?

 

Or is it un-caused (non-deterministic, random choice)?

 

Is God a free-will agent?

 

What causes God to "will"? In other words, when God makes a decision, a free-will choice, does he do it from an infinite regression of logical reasoning, i.e. caused by God (God causes God to ...), or are his decisions completely random events that he has no control over?

[Ouroboros]

Again, this is simply a misuse of terms, a fact that I have already pointed out on this thread. When I speak of God existing prior to the universe, I am speaking causally, not temporally.

And herein lies the problem.

 

Your argument states: Object A exists before time.

 

The word "before" is a temporal or spatial preposition.

 

If time was a function, t, and a specific time was denoted t(x), and we decided that time started at t(0), or in mathematical terms, the domain is (0,∞), and also to denote something to be "before" something else with t(x-1), i.e. t(x-1) is time before t(x), then we have the following problem:

 

God exists at t(-1).

 

But since we already stated that the domain is (0,∞), -1 is an invalid value. t(-1) does not exist. It has no solution.

 

On the other hand, if there is a solution, perhaps the solution is an imaginary number instead of a real number. But then how could God be said to be a being, entity, person or given a masculine pronoun? All those attributes are related to space-time and real things.

 

 

---

 

 

A list of articles refuting the Cosmological Argument: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html

[Legion]

I can't yet claim to understand them, but I've seen arguments that all organisms are closed to efficient causation (yes Robert Rosen again). I think if these arguments are accurate then self-causation is not a figment of our imagination, but rather a common place reality.

[Legion]

I had another thought. Does anyone think that self-fulfilling prophecies are examples of events which are self-caused?

 

If yes, then why do you think so?

 

And if not, why not?

[NotBlinded]

Are you telling me that your understanding of God is one that cannot interact with nature? If you believe it can can, then you too are saying that there are non-physical occurences in nature. You see it as beginning outside of the physical and somehow being directed into the physical to cause things. I say its existence is in the physical to begin with. They go together. Seems like a minor difference because it ends up interacting with the physcial either way, yet it does pose a mountain of difference in the way we view nature. You have a controller/law giver that pushes buttons from some grand console and I have a spontaneous nature that happens on its own because of this Essence that has its existence in it.

 

I don't believe I have made that assertion. I believe that God does interact with nature and, in fact, entered into space and time, taking on human flesh about 2,000 years ago. God's existence could not begin with the physical world as that would mean that God and the physical world came into existence at the same time, therefore, both being uncaused. The concept of something being uncaused is, I believe, logically untenable. Maybe you could explain how you believe that this could happen and why we don't see more evidence of things coming into existence uncaused.

God is the physical universe and caused itself to exist. No lawgiver, it is the laws. I'm saying it this way in order to get you to understand what I'm saying when I question you about what is matter. There is nothing but God.

 

 

Why does it follow that because physical laws have a law-giver that that law-giver could or would change his mind at any time? That doesn't seem to follow from premise to conclusion.

Sure it does. It's in your book.

 

Do I believe that God can suspend the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle? Sure, but then again you are proposing that the universe came into existence uncaused, which would be a violation of the laws of physics.

Here you admit that your idea of God can decide to do something different any time.

 

I'm not saying the universe its uncaused; I'm saying it is self-caused. The Self is It. The "Poof is in the pudding."

 

The fact is that we can look at the past actions of the universe and make predictions of what will happen in the future based upon these laws of physics; however, that doesn't mean that these laws are inviolable or that we have them so well figured out that we won't make changes or adjustments to our understanding of them in the future. Past experience tells us that these adjustments in our understanding have happened and will again.

 

 

I think we agree that nature will not violate the laws of nature - I don't suggest such a thing. However, I do believe that a Supernature can suspend the laws of nature, which is a different claim and doesn't violate the laws of nature any more than an airplane violates the laws of gravity, it merely overrides them using other laws.

This is possible from the "physical" realm if this "Supernature" is nature itself. Nothing would be violated, but can you honestly say that making the earth stand still to make it appear as if the sun stopped is not a violation of the laws of physics?

 

Now, how do you figure that I am a materialist or a reductionist? I have given no indication of being either and, in fact, am not either. If you are not a materialist or a reductionist as you claim, then surely you have room in your worldview for an immaterial reality to exist apart from nature, so you should find my claims plausible. If you are a dualist, as you have claimed, then you should hold to the idea that man is not just the sum of his parts, but has an immaterial nature to him. If that is the case, then we can agree on that point.

 

LNC

No, my immaterial reality is reality itself. Matter is waves and particles or wavicles dancing of their own accord, IMO. This is where you and the materialist are the same. Both of you see matter as innert, dead "things" as if things actually exist in nature but in reality, there is nothing but processes. Show me a thing LNC. The only difference between you two is you have an outside force animating dead matter and they have dead matter being fully automatic than runs from stupid forces.

 

Yes, all things have an immaterial nature to them. I would call myself a non-dualist, but anyway...

[NotBlinded]

That's just silly. He's personal because he had to choose to create? What if creation just happened? Are you personal because you choose to start your brain cells every morning? Your brain functions just fine without you choosing it to doesn't it? You are doing that aren't you? It happens every day doesn't it?

 

You go from sounding smart to really silly conclusions. And your silly conclusions are no better than mine are.

 

Yes. If the cause of the universe were to be an impersonal mechanism, then the cause and the effect would be concurrent and the universe would need to be infinitely old. The fact is that the universe is only about 14 billion years old, so that would seem to rule out an impersonal mechanistic cause.

No, you said he's personal because he chose to create and I questioned that. I didn't say anything about it being an impersonal mechanism. I don't believe that at all. I'm saying God didn't have to think about creating in order to create. Thoughts are linear and must proceed in this way in order to be processed. It just happens and it continues to happen every second of every day. We are what "God" is doing and we are it. So, it's not personal in the way you think it is, as in linear thoughts about every person, every electron that jumps an orbit, but how much more personal can you get to be this very essence itself?

 

If my brain functions (or yours) are impersonal, then that would rule out certain experiences that we have, such as intentionality, the thinking of or about something. It would also rule out first person subjectivity as machines do not possess this quality. However, we do have intrinsic intentionality and we have subjective, first person experiences, therefore, I believe we are personal beings (agents) as well. Our brains are not just mechanistic machines.

LNC, there are processes in our brains that happen without us thinking about it. All you are stating here is a very small area of consciousness that could be called concentrated awareness. I am speaking of a greater area of being. This is where the personal parts come in, but behind all this, there is something else operating that we aren't aware of, yet we are it. Do you understand what I'm saying yet?

 

So, my conclusions are not as silly as you seem to believe. The area of consciousness and intentionality happen to be an area of study for me these days. I started a separate thread on the subject. I can't remember whether you have participated in that one, but it has been fascinating.

Yes, I like it too and studied some myself and I have ran my "mouth" continually in your other thread. How can you not remember me in that thread. I talked to you a lot about it. I'm hurt.

 

And yes, your conclusions are just as silly to me as mine are to you I'm sure.

 

BTW, you really didn't address my other points in the previous post, so I will look forward to your reply to this post and the other points I made in the other.

 

LNC

LNC, I don't know which other post you are referring to.

[NotBlinded]

You know, LNC, I noted you did not include "omnipresent" in your list of nonsensical properties of the nonexistent god. It that because "existing outside of the physical universe" and "omnipresent" are contradictory? Everywhere except the physical universe?

Thank you. See, they knew this omnipresent property of God back then. They just had to kick him out of the universe probably during the elightenment. Early on, especially the Catholics I believe, understood God to be everywhere.

[NotBlinded]

Damn stucker, I wish I could be a succinct as you are thoughout this post and your other one. Very nice.

[Legion]

God is the physical universe and caused itself to exist. No lawgiver, it is the laws. I'm saying it this way in order to get you to understand what I'm saying when I question you about what is matter. There is nothing but God.

A variation of Spinoza?

[NotBlinded]

God is the physical universe and caused itself to exist. No lawgiver, it is the laws. I'm saying it this way in order to get you to understand what I'm saying when I question you about what is matter. There is nothing but God.

A variation of Spinoza?

I have never really studied Spinoza much that I remember and I had to go and refresh myself on his philosophy to answer your question and it seems I agree with him a lot doesn't it?

[Legion]

God is the physical universe and caused itself to exist. No lawgiver, it is the laws. I'm saying it this way in order to get you to understand what I'm saying when I question you about what is matter. There is nothing but God.

A variation of Spinoza?

I have never really studied Spinoza much that I remember and I had to go and refresh myself on his philosophy to answer your question and it seems I agree with him a lot doesn't it?

Yes, it does Notblinded. And it's about the only view of god that makes sense to me.

[NotBlinded]

God is the physical universe and caused itself to exist. No lawgiver, it is the laws. I'm saying it this way in order to get you to understand what I'm saying when I question you about what is matter. There is nothing but God.

A variation of Spinoza?

I have never really studied Spinoza much that I remember and I had to go and refresh myself on his philosophy to answer your question and it seems I agree with him a lot doesn't it?

Yes, it does Notblinded. And it's about the only view of god that makes sense to me.

Oh my God, thank you. I sometimes feel totally insane around here.

 

I have to read more Spinoza.

[Ouroboros]

Oh my God, thank you. I sometimes feel totally insane around here.

... but you're not... just kidding.

 

I have to read more Spinoza.

Definitely.

 

His works on Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/s#a473

[NotBlinded]

Oh my God, thank you. I sometimes feel totally insane around here.

... but you're not... just kidding.

Thank you. Hey!

 

 

I have to read more Spinoza.

Definitely.

 

His works on Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/s#a473

Thanks! Really!

[LNC]

The problem with the Kalam arguement is that it assumes causality outside of time. Everything we know about causality is based within the framework of a linear progression of time from past to future. To say that, "If 'A' caused 'B' then 'A' must precede 'B' or 'B' must follow 'A" is only valid if time exist and is flowing in one direction from past to future. Before the Big Bang time did not exist so the concepts of 'precede' and 'follow' are undefined prior to that point. We have no model to describe something outside of time because we have no frame of reference to draw conclusions from. Perhaps one day we will be able to model something outside of time. It took one of the greatest minds ever, Einstein, to describe physics in a framework were time was only malible. It would likely require an equal, if not greater, genius to model physics outside of time completely. Any apparent bizzarness in quantum mechanics would pale to that model.

 

I see no reason that this negates causality outside of time, in fact, it still tells us that everything that began to exist has a cause. You are simply equivocating on the term "prior" to mean simply temporally prior, when it can also mean causally prior, which is how it is used in the Kalam argument. You offer no explanation in its place, however. So, Kalam still stands up and also remains the most plausible explanation.

 

We don't even have a faction of what we would need to know in order to describe how the Big Bang happened. We have only scratched the surface in exploring the meer aftermath of the BB. We may still be millenia from knowing enough to even tackle the "How?" question just as the ancient Egyptians were millenia from tackling question of "How can the sun rise and set?"

 

However, the scientific is not the only aspect of the argument that needs to be addressed, there is also the philosophical aspect of the absurdity of a past eternal state of nature. It leads us to logical absurdities that you would also need to overcome. Given greater time, those still remain absurdities.

 

LNC

[LNC]

You can just as easily turn that around and ask, "Which of the MANY, MANY supernatural creation stories are the correct one and when will we have experimental data to confirm that?" Its easy to shift the burden of proof to someone else. I see many creationist take the position of, "I win by default because your explanations will never satisfy me." Yet they can't answer the same questions that they ask of others. Saying 'god-did-it' is a cop out answer that they use to dodge the hard questions themselves. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know how the universe came to be. There likely won't be an answer in my lifetime. But I won't use that as an excuse to surrender to supernatural explainations. To do so is to draw a conclusion from an unknown. Don't misunderstand, I still WANT to know and will spend the rest of my life looking for the answer, but to say that I do know and that answer is god, well, I would just be lying to myself.

 

I see two possibilities:

1. There is a god.

2. There is no god.

 

Of those two statements only #2 is falsifiable because you can't prove a negative. So my default position will be 'there is no god' until god presents himself. So far he hasn't.

 

You are posing a faulty dilemma and thereby shifting the argument. It is not a matter of which explanation (whether supernatural or natural) best explains it, it is whether any supernatural or natural explanation is sufficient. Given what we know both scientifically and philosophically, I see no viable candidates from a naturalistic perspective as the ones proffered are not even close to being experimentally explained, let alone confirmed. We have 10⁵⁰⁰possible explanations, but we don't even know if even one of them is plausible.

 

However, given an all powerful being who exists outside of time, we can know that it is logically possible and given many other arguments for that being's existence, we know that it is plausible. Therefore, explaining the origin of the universe from an intelligent, all powerful being who exists outside of time remains the best explanation.

 

Actually, of your two final possibilities regarding God, both are falsifiable. In fact, atheists try to do it all the time. The question is whether their arguments and evidence carry. So far, I haven't seen one that does.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

The problem with the Kalam arguement is that it assumes causality outside of time. Everything we know about causality is based within the framework of a linear progression of time from past to future. To say that, "If 'A' caused 'B' then 'A' must precede 'B' or 'B' must follow 'A" is only valid if time exist and is flowing in one direction from past to future. Before the Big Bang time did not exist so the concepts of 'precede' and 'follow' are undefined prior to that point. We have no model to describe something outside of time because we have no frame of reference to draw conclusions from. Perhaps one day we will be able to model something outside of time. It took one of the greatest minds ever, Einstein, to describe physics in a framework were time was only malible. It would likely require an equal, if not greater, genius to model physics outside of time completely. Any apparent bizzarness in quantum mechanics would pale to that model.

 

I see no reason that this negates causality outside of time, in fact, it still tells us that everything that began to exist has a cause. You are simply equivocating on the term "prior" to mean simply temporally prior, when it can also mean causally prior, which is how it is used in the Kalam argument. You offer no explanation in its place, however. So, Kalam still stands up and also remains the most plausible explanation.

LNC

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Can you give a reference where the distinction between "causally prior" and "temporally prior" is described? Preferably not a reference whose purpose is to prove God's existence, or one that is theologically describing the universe. Those kinds of web sites lead to logical absurdities like "outside of physics" and "outside of the universe."

 

I don't doubt that there might be a site or other reference that uses the concept, but if causally prior was invented by a theologist (such as yourself) in order to excuse your god from existing in time, then you are using circular reasoning ("I believe god created the universe, so it happened causally prior to the universe, which proves that god created the universe...).

 

If you can't, then I will have to assume that causally prior is another nonsensical concept invented by theists to create a place for god.

[Shyone]

You can just as easily turn that around and ask, "Which of the MANY, MANY supernatural creation stories are the correct one and when will we have experimental data to confirm that?" Its easy to shift the burden of proof to someone else. I see many creationist take the position of, "I win by default because your explanations will never satisfy me." Yet they can't answer the same questions that they ask of others. Saying 'god-did-it' is a cop out answer that they use to dodge the hard questions themselves. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know how the universe came to be. There likely won't be an answer in my lifetime. But I won't use that as an excuse to surrender to supernatural explainations. To do so is to draw a conclusion from an unknown. Don't misunderstand, I still WANT to know and will spend the rest of my life looking for the answer, but to say that I do know and that answer is god, well, I would just be lying to myself.

 

I see two possibilities:

1. There is a god.

2. There is no god.

 

Of those two statements only #2 is falsifiable because you can't prove a negative. So my default position will be 'there is no god' until god presents himself. So far he hasn't.

 

You are posing a faulty dilemma and thereby shifting the argument. It is not a matter of which explanation (whether supernatural or natural) best explains it, it is whether any supernatural or natural explanation is sufficient. Given what we know both scientifically and philosophically, I see no viable candidates from a naturalistic perspective as the ones proffered are not even close to being experimentally explained, let alone confirmed. We have 10⁵⁰⁰possible explanations, but we don't even know if even one of them is plausible.

 

However, given an all powerful being who exists outside of time, we can know that it is logically possible and given many other arguments for that being's existence, we know that it is plausible. Therefore, explaining the origin of the universe from an intelligent, all powerful being who exists outside of time remains the best explanation.

 

Actually, of your two final possibilities regarding God, both are falsifiable. In fact, atheists try to do it all the time. The question is whether their arguments and evidence carry. So far, I haven't seen one that does.

 

LNC

You have no clue about what the burden of proof is here, do you?

 

given an all powerful being who exists outside of time NO, we will not give you that! It is precisely that which we don't give.

 

intelligent, all powerful being who exists outside of time THIS is no explanation at all. It is beyond pure speculation, and goes clear to wishful thinking. And you have yet to demonstrate anyone (other than a theologist) that uses this concept for anything other than to find a place for the Incredible Shrinking God.

 

You don't know what falsifiable means. It is a good thing. It is the principle that a proposal could potentially be disproven if evidence existed to disprove it, and this is accompanied by some specific examples of what that evidence would be.

 

question is whether their arguments and evidence carry "THEIR" arguments? YOU are the one proposing the invisible man. YOU have to exhibit something to indicate his existence besides your desire that its existence be "given."

 

Finally, "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron. It really is. It is the equivalent of saying "we don't know, and we never will." To say that a supernatural undefinable something did something unknown using unknown methods in an unknwon way is the epitome of a useless explanation.

[LNC]

First, the concepts you refer to as having been held by "top thinkers throughout history" is nothing more than to 1) use the argument from authority without justifying it and 2) is intellectually dishonest because the top thinkers you reference are all theologians trying to find someplace to stick god where scientists can't find him.

 

Sorry, wrong on both counts. Science isn't based upon appeal to authority (or at least should not be, though that has changed somewhat in arguments like global warming). Second, I have referenced a number of scientists and no theologians in making my scientific claims. Unless, of course, you consider Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, and Arvind Borde to be theologians.

 

As for the above, I used the "big bounce" theory because there are more theories than you know of, and you don't really fully understand that the physics describing the universe, even when using the same terminology, does not have the same theological implications. You want science to stop when they land on the theology slot of the roulette wheel, but it's still spinning rapidly.

 

Here's some kind of new theory: The big suck. And are you familiar with DSSU? (Dynamic Steady State Universe)?

 

The irony is that theology will find some way to make any type of universe consistent with theology and claim it was in the bible the whole time.

 

Can you define eternal without any direct or indirect reference to time (and without using the fallacy of the stolen concept and negating time to create a "timeless eternity")?

 

My point to you was that you were critiquing me for using euphemistic language ("Big Bang") to describe events and I simply pointed out that you were doing the same. I am familiar with the Big Bounce theory and read the article that appeared last year (I believe, it could have been the year before) in New Scientist on the theory. It is interesting, but highly speculative in many ways and makes a lot of what appear to be non-falsifiable assumptions, which is problematic to a scientific theory. The sames to be true for the Big Suck theory. We have no observational data for other universes, either in other dimensions or existing prior to this one.

 

There is not a lot of debate regarding the fact that time began to exist, so I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe you are asking whether God could exist timelessly, and again, there is nothing philosophically untenable about such a concept. If you think so, maybe you could come out and explain why.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

First, the concepts you refer to as having been held by "top thinkers throughout history" is nothing more than to 1) use the argument from authority without justifying it and 2) is intellectually dishonest because the top thinkers you reference are all theologians trying to find someplace to stick god where scientists can't find him.

 

Sorry, wrong on both counts. Science isn't based upon appeal to authority (or at least should not be, though that has changed somewhat in arguments like global warming). Second, I have referenced a number of scientists and no theologians in making my scientific claims. Unless, of course, you consider Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, and Arvind Borde to be theologians.

 

As for the above, I used the "big bounce" theory because there are more theories than you know of, and you don't really fully understand that the physics describing the universe, even when using the same terminology, does not have the same theological implications. You want science to stop when they land on the theology slot of the roulette wheel, but it's still spinning rapidly.

 

Here's some kind of new theory: The big suck. And are you familiar with DSSU? (Dynamic Steady State Universe)?

 

The irony is that theology will find some way to make any type of universe consistent with theology and claim it was in the bible the whole time.

 

Can you define eternal without any direct or indirect reference to time (and without using the fallacy of the stolen concept and negating time to create a "timeless eternity")?

 

My point to you was that you were critiquing me for using euphemistic language ("Big Bang") to describe events and I simply pointed out that you were doing the same. I am familiar with the Big Bounce theory and read the article that appeared last year (I believe, it could have been the year before) in New Scientist on the theory. It is interesting, but highly speculative in many ways and makes a lot of what appear to be non-falsifiable assumptions, which is problematic to a scientific theory. The sames to be true for the Big Suck theory. We have no observational data for other universes, either in other dimensions or existing prior to this one.

 

There is not a lot of debate regarding the fact that time began to exist, so I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe you are asking whether God could exist timelessly, and again, there is nothing philosophically untenable about such a concept. If you think so, maybe you could come out and explain why.

 

LNC

You're dissimulating again, LNC. You quoted out of context, but then changed the context.

 

Here's the context:

 

This is incoherent, but if you have chased God right out of the universe as an immaterial being, then He cannot interact with matter, right?

 

That which interacts with matter and affects the laws of physics must have properties that pertain to the universe.

 

You want it both ways. Not subject to the laws of physics and immaterial, but capable of maneuvering and altering matter. How would you say this is possible? It makes no sense.

 

You want time to begin with the universe, but refer to God as eternal - lasting as long as time has existed. That could only mean that God was born with the universe - if there were such a thing, or unless you define God as the Universe.

 

Likewise, "always" is a reference to time. Did time begin? Or do you now agree with the Big Bounce Theory?

 

Immaterial can also be a word to refer to importance. "Lacking importance; not mattering one way or the other" God is immaterial indeed.

 

I think this is relevent:

 

 

Actually, the concept is quite coherent and has been held by top thinkers throughout history. I don't know where you get the idea that that which interacts with the universe must contain the properties of the universe. That seems to be question begging unless you can explain why that must be the case.

 

You quote physicists as "top thinkers" but you haven't demonstrated that they accept and use these concepts:

 

1. immaterial being

2. Not subject to the laws of physics and immaterial, but capable of maneuvering and altering matter

 

Those are the concepts that are nonsensical, and I'd like to see Borde talk about them.

 

And yes there is a lot of debate about time beginning. There is a lot of debate about a lot of things. A lot of things.

 

Best not to hang your hat on a theory while the scientists are in the process of working things out. I don't subscribe to the Big Crunch or Bounce or Bang. I don't insist on my own theory either. I just really think that there is more to be learned. I believe you probably also see this too, and I hope you don't discourage research into such things because it might conflict with your current beliefs.