The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[LNC]

That is completely false because information must be written in or carried by matter or energy. Whether its the orientation of magnetic domains on your harddrive, modulations in an electromagnetic carrier wave, the state/position of a particle, the arangements of pigments on paper or neurons in the brain; information can not exist without matter or energy. So information and ideas are MATERIAL.

 

If I'm wrong feel free to name a few examples of information that exist without matter or energy.

 

Ideas are different conceptually from information. My computer has information, but my computer doesn't get ideas. Nor does it form concepts or have intentionality (think of or about things). We also have no way of knowing that information is limited to transference and storage by physical means and mechanisms. That is simply to beg the question toward physicalism.

 

I would posit that the information in our universe came from an immaterial source since the universe is past finite and the universe contains all of matter, space, time and energy.

 

LNC

[LNC]

The fact is that immaterial entities impact matter all the time,...

I actually tend to agree with this assertion. But then I think natural systems have an aspect which can be examined independently of matter, called organization.

 

(I'm going to keep using the word "organization" until someone has the guts to ask me what it is. Then I'll really have to think.)

 

When you say that natural systems can be examined independently of matter, can you explain what you mean by that? You may have explained in in subsequent posts that I have not gotten to yet, but if not, I am curious as to what you mean.

 

LNC

[LNC]

That concisely describes the problem with considering ideas, thoughts or even consciousness as "immaterial." It's a black box scenario where the mechanistic character of ideas seems to not exist when, in fact, ideas, thoughts and consciousness require matter and there are identifiable physical structures that need to be present for these to originate, perpetuate, transmit or manifest.

 

I am involved in another thread on consciousness, so these two seem to be merging together. Can you explain how you know that consciousness [b]requires[/b] the physical without begging the question? I'm curious whether you can do that. It is an area of interest to me.

 

LNC

[LNC]

 

 

When I speak of God existing prior to the universe

 

 

 

what god?

 

There is only one.

[LNC]

Perhaps you can give some names of philosophers who speak of existence outside of time that aren't speaking of God. The concept of existence outside of time was invented of whole cloth solely to excuse the absolute absence of evidence for God in the first place. What else exists outside of time?

 

My assertion? I asked a question, and made an assessment based on your silence up that time and including the present answer! You were the one that asserted that "existing outside of time or the physical universe" was something philosophers and scientists acknowledged. I simply asked for substantiation that there is any philosopher or scientist that isn't talking about God but is talking about existence outside of time or the physical universe.

 

Any? Just one? It should be a simple question to answer, but you haven't. I mean really, there may be one. I don't know everything. I'm only looking for one...

 

One?

 

As for your last paragraph there, you are shifting the burden of proof. You haven't defined God, haven't shown that it/he/she exists in any understandable way, and it is not my responsibility to show you anything about the nature of the universe.

 

The fact is that you should establish unequivocally that the universe had a cause or is uncaused. You already know that Hawking is working with Quantum Gravity which would explain that the universe is boundariless and that there was no singularity - and that the universe in all of its particulars is self-contained with no need of anything "outside".

 

I left in your post and highlighted your assertion above. You may call it an assessment, but it sure smacks of an unproven assertion. Second, scientists limit themselves to the physical world, so discussing something outside of space/time falls into the realm of metaphysics, so, although scientists posit that the universe had a beginning, they won't get into discussions of what might be the cause, per se. Second, why would a philosopher speak of existence outside of space/time without speaking of God? That is like asking if I know of any married bachelors. It is logically nonsensical.

 

I don't think it is necessary to define God in order to show that he exists. A forensic investigator does not need to explain what the agent is like before determining that an agent was the cause of the scene that they are investigating. They simply need to show that the cause was not completely accidental; that there was an agent involved. Really, the burden of proof is more on the side of the person who posits that the universe was uncaused or self caused than on me to say that it was caused by an intelligent agent. Agent causation is proved over and over again in our world, whereas, self causation or non-caused events are not evidenced in our world. Quantum is not an example of non-causation as it has not been determined that non-causation is the final explanation for quantum events. So, until that has been definitively determined, we cannot posit non-caused events. Until String Theory moves further along, we are a long way from Hawking's conclusion.

 

I have presented another theory that suggests prior universes. Then there's DSSU and a host of other concepts that are being considered. This debate is over your paygrade. And mine.

 

Of course, in the apologetic way, you would be likely to select the most vulnerable theory and cite someone that says it's silly. Without actually refuting anything, of course.

 

You also wrote, "You would still be left to prove that nothing could exist apart from the physical universe, which again, I would consider an insurmountable feat for you to achieve."

 

Easy. There is nothing apart from the physical universe. It is undefined and nonexistent. It's Nonsense. It's Nowhere. And continuing to assert that there is "something outside of the universe" doesn't make such a thing any more reasonable. It sure as hell doesn't prove that "God", whatever that means, is outside of the universe.

 

By positing the multiverse you only push the problem back a number of steps to then explain the origin of the meta-universe, you don't escape the problem of origins.

 

Actually, if you can prove that the universe is self-contained and self-explained, you can discount the existence of reality outside of it. No explanation, whether scientific or metaphysical can be proved with 100% certainty; however, if you can show that one explanation is more plausible and the other highly implausible, then you have gone a long way. However, to simply make an assertion will not do for you or for me.

 

So, your task, as well as that of physicalist scientists, is to show that the universe (which includes the meta-universe) is completely self-explained and self-contained.

 

LNC

[bdp]

 

 

When I speak of God existing prior to the universe

 

 

 

what god?

 

There is only one.

 

Where?

[bdp]

 

 

I don't think it is necessary to define God in order to show that he exists.

 

You've got this completely backwards - you have to show that it exists FIRST, which you can't do.

[Shyone]

 

I would posit that the information in our universe came from an immaterial source since the universe is past finite and the universe contains all of matter, space, time and energy.

 

LNC

What you are positing is nonsense. It is the equivalent of sound waves traveling through a vacuum.

 

Ideas are like paintings. You are trying to imagine a painting without a canvass or paint.

 

Information requires a substrate. Matter or energy. Ideas, in the sense that we understand them, also require organization of matter an energy.

 

You aren't just positing this. You are claiming this, and this is absolute nonsense by any standard. It is unsupported, and unsupportable.

 

The universe is the information. The only ideas that we know of in the universe are our own.

[Shyone]

Perhaps you can give some names of philosophers who speak of existence outside of time that aren't speaking of God. The concept of existence outside of time was invented of whole cloth solely to excuse the absolute absence of evidence for God in the first place. What else exists outside of time?

 

My assertion? I asked a question, and made an assessment based on your silence up that time and including the present answer! You were the one that asserted that "existing outside of time or the physical universe" was something philosophers and scientists acknowledged. I simply asked for substantiation that there is any philosopher or scientist that isn't talking about God but is talking about existence outside of time or the physical universe.

 

Any? Just one? It should be a simple question to answer, but you haven't. I mean really, there may be one. I don't know everything. I'm only looking for one...

 

One?

 

As for your last paragraph there, you are shifting the burden of proof. You haven't defined God, haven't shown that it/he/she exists in any understandable way, and it is not my responsibility to show you anything about the nature of the universe.

 

The fact is that you should establish unequivocally that the universe had a cause or is uncaused. You already know that Hawking is working with Quantum Gravity which would explain that the universe is boundariless and that there was no singularity - and that the universe in all of its particulars is self-contained with no need of anything "outside".

 

I left in your post and highlighted your assertion above. You may call it an assessment, but it sure smacks of an unproven assertion. Second, scientists limit themselves to the physical world, so discussing something outside of space/time falls into the realm of metaphysics, so, although scientists posit that the universe had a beginning, they won't get into discussions of what might be the cause, per se. Second, why would a philosopher speak of existence outside of space/time without speaking of God? That is like asking if I know of any married bachelors. It is logically nonsensical.

 

I don't think it is necessary to define God in order to show that he exists. A forensic investigator does not need to explain what the agent is like before determining that an agent was the cause of the scene that they are investigating. They simply need to show that the cause was not completely accidental; that there was an agent involved. Really, the burden of proof is more on the side of the person who posits that the universe was uncaused or self caused than on me to say that it was caused by an intelligent agent. Agent causation is proved over and over again in our world, whereas, self causation or non-caused events are not evidenced in our world. Quantum is not an example of non-causation as it has not been determined that non-causation is the final explanation for quantum events. So, until that has been definitively determined, we cannot posit non-caused events. Until String Theory moves further along, we are a long way from Hawking's conclusion.

 

I have presented another theory that suggests prior universes. Then there's DSSU and a host of other concepts that are being considered. This debate is over your paygrade. And mine.

 

Of course, in the apologetic way, you would be likely to select the most vulnerable theory and cite someone that says it's silly. Without actually refuting anything, of course.

 

You also wrote, "You would still be left to prove that nothing could exist apart from the physical universe, which again, I would consider an insurmountable feat for you to achieve."

 

Easy. There is nothing apart from the physical universe. It is undefined and nonexistent. It's Nonsense. It's Nowhere. And continuing to assert that there is "something outside of the universe" doesn't make such a thing any more reasonable. It sure as hell doesn't prove that "God", whatever that means, is outside of the universe.

 

By positing the multiverse you only push the problem back a number of steps to then explain the origin of the meta-universe, you don't escape the problem of origins.

 

Actually, if you can prove that the universe is self-contained and self-explained, you can discount the existence of reality outside of it. No explanation, whether scientific or metaphysical can be proved with 100% certainty; however, if you can show that one explanation is more plausible and the other highly implausible, then you have gone a long way. However, to simply make an assertion will not do for you or for me.

 

So, your task, as well as that of physicalist scientists, is to show that the universe (which includes the meta-universe) is completely self-explained and self-contained.

 

LNC

NOT A SINGLE GOD DAMNED FUCKING NAME IN THE POST OF ANY SCIENTIST THAT USES THE CONCEPT OF "OUTSIDE OF TIME" OR "OUTSIDE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE."

 

I have substantiated my claim that there are no scientists that use these nonsensical concepts, because IF THERE WERE ANY YOU WOULD HAVE NAMED ONE.

 

AND QUITE SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF! YOU ARE THE ONE THAT MAKES AN ASSERTION OF SOMETHING EXISTING OUTSIDE OF TIME AND/OR SPACE - A GOD - AND IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DISPROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS.

 

If you can't define God, then there is nothing to discuss.

[Shyone]

That concisely describes the problem with considering ideas, thoughts or even consciousness as "immaterial." It's a black box scenario where the mechanistic character of ideas seems to not exist when, in fact, ideas, thoughts and consciousness require matter and there are identifiable physical structures that need to be present for these to originate, perpetuate, transmit or manifest.

 

I am involved in another thread on consciousness, so these two seem to be merging together. Can you explain how you know that consciousness [b]requires[/b] the physical without begging the question? I'm curious whether you can do that. It is an area of interest to me.

 

LNC

The best way to show that consciousness requires some physical substrate is that there are no examples of anything conscious that is "nonphysical." This is what we know. If there is an exception to this rule, you may provide it and the evidence for it.

 

The second best way is to show that "nonphysical" in the sense of immaterial without energy is the same as nothing. A vacuum. Consciousness requires order, and there is no order in nothing.

[Ouroboros]

what god?

 

There is only one.

 

Where?

There! Don't you see it? It crawled under the rock over there.

[NotBlinded]

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.

Let me solve it for you.

 

This all powerful being exists within time and within nature, and can't be experimentally explained, did it.

 

Now that's solved, we can move on.

[NotBlinded]

what god?

 

There is only one.

 

Where?

There! Don't you see it? It crawled under the rock over there.

Hey! It's Jesus! He said to turn over a rock and you will find him!

 

Oops...that's means that God is in nature. That can't be! He's outside of space and time. Oh noze...

[Ouroboros]

Hey! It's Jesus! He said to turn over a rock and you will find him!

 

Jesus the slug.

 

Oops...that's means that God is in nature. That can't be! He's outside of space and time. Oh noze...

Completely.

 

Have you watched Mr. Deity? If not, watch the episode about God and time. Hilarious.

[bdp]

 

we can know that it is logically possible and given many other arguments for that being's existence, we know that it is plausible.

 

Claptrap. And what 'arguments?' Honestly, do you really read what you write, and do you seriously believe it? If so, it's just sad.

[LNC]

You won't understand, but here goes:

 

The qualities you named are two stolen concepts that are meaningless (and contradictory) and two are human constructs that have been hijacked by religion. None of these are descriptions in the sense that they indicate something rather than nothing.

 

I think you have misunderstood and are misapplying the stolen concept fallacy. Nowhere do I deny the concepts that I am using within my argument, which is the basis of the fallacy. It doesn't count when you deny the meaning of the concept, that is not the stolen concept fallacy. It is when I use a concept definitionally that I have previously denied that the fallacy applies, and I have not done that. You have wrongly asserted that fallacy in relation to my argument.

 

Now, if these concepts are meaningless to you, then you have to explain why they are meaningless. Do you not understand what they mean or do you believe that the concepts do not obtain? If the former, then you can simply Google the meaning, if the latter, you will have to explain why you believe that they cannot obtain without begging the question in the process.

 

You are also wrong in saying that these concepts are indistinguishable from nothing as they have clearly defined definitions that distinguish them from nothing. Omniscience - all knowing; omnipotence - all powerful; justice - the quality of being impartial or fair; love - benevolence, concern.

 

"God is love" is meaningless as a means of identifying love because love is independent of God. I love my work!

 

"God is omniscient" is also nondescript because it has no identifiable quality that distinguishes it from a fantasy.

 

Anselm's Ontologic argument does not establish the existence of God any more than the concept of a "unicorn greater than that which can be imagined" establishes a super unicorn. Attaching superlatives that don't exist does not create a being that exists.

 

The "revelation" is certainly nothing you want to hang your hat on, or you'll be hanging your hat on the bloody end of the Hebrew sword.

 

When you say that you love your work, is that a meaningless statement since love is independent of you? I don't think you would agree to that, therefore, you thinking is incorrect on this statement as you simply misunderstand what the verse means when it says that "God is love" You are also incorrect when you say that omniscience is nondescript as you are begging the question in assuming it does not exist (i.e., is fantasy) in order to prove that it does not exist as an attribute of God.

 

Maybe you could give me a fuller treatment of the ontological argument and its weaknesses in your eyes. Your unicorn example is a faulty analogy and a faulty treatment of the ontological argument. Super unicorns are not necessary beings, whereas, God, by definition, is.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your argument against revelation. Why do bloody Hebrew swords have anything to do with revelation? I find them recounted in the historical genre, not the apocalyptic genre. Please explain.

 

You also didn't answer the questions that I asked of your post, so maybe you can get back to that as well.

 

Thanks,

 

LNC

[LNC]

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?

 

I think what you are getting at is found in the text of Ecclesiastes 13.

 

It was not meant to be an exhaustive list, nor was it nonsensical, as I explained in my previous post. I see no contradiction. God is not a physical being and as such does not take up space; therefore, he can be omnipresent and exist outside of time. There is no contradiction.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

 

You are mistaken in that negatives can be proved. I can prove that a married bachelor cannot exist. I can prove that square circles cannot exist. I gave he ways of proving that God does not exist (I didn't even set the bar as high as "cannot exist"). I have given evidence of existence outside of space and time by showing that the universe had a beginning and that that beginning must have existed outside of space and time (since they too were created with the universe). All I have to do is show that it is plausible, which I have done.

 

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

 

Sorry, but nowhere did I assume causality outside of time, I arrived at that conclusion through deductive reasoning and scientific evidence. You can go back and read my posts for verification.

 

LNC

[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."

 

It is not my job to argue your case for you. I am not a physicalist and, in fact, that is the problem with physicalism in that it cannot explain the existence of the universe without making metaphysical claims that cannot be empirically verified. Positing multiverses, wormholes and the like are not theories that can be empirically verified since we cannot see before Plank time and cannot see beyond our Hubble volume.

 

LNC

[Skankboy]

Omniscience - all knowing; omnipotence - all powerful;

Those are pretty vague definitions really.

 

What exactly do you mean by "all knowing"? What exactly do you mean by "all powerful"?

[Shyone]

 

I think you have misunderstood and are misapplying the stolen concept fallacy. Nowhere do I deny the concepts that I am using within my argument, which is the basis of the fallacy.

 

Maybe you could give me a fuller treatment of the ontological argument and its weaknesses in your eyes. Your unicorn example is a faulty analogy and a faulty treatment of the ontological argument. Super unicorns are not necessary beings, whereas, God, by definition, is.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your argument against revelation. Why do bloody Hebrew swords have anything to do with revelation? I find them recounted in the historical genre, not the apocalyptic genre. Please explain.

 

You also didn't answer the questions that I asked of your post, so maybe you can get back to that as well.

 

Thanks,

 

LNC

When your whole definition depends on the absolute negation of another definition, it has no intrinsic meaning. It's like describing God as "non-water".

 

Your description of "god" as "necessary being" is, by your own description, a tautology. You defined the concept as a "necessary being" and I do not accept that it is necessary or a being. You have not established existence by declaring that it exists - and it becomes no more meaningful to say it exists necessarily. Unicorns have the same criteria for existence as god does. Deny one, deny the other.

 

If it weren't for the bible, you wouldn't know about Yahweh. Even Aquinas says that "God" is not self-evident. The revelation via the bible, however, is disgusting and the treatment of the "chosen people" of the "people that aren't chosen" is typical for bronze age civilizations whose gods are as cruel as their people. If that's your idea of a god, then you might ask yourself why you don't even believe what is written about how to please your god.

 

Are you as dedicated to your god as Jephthah was?

[Shyone]

When you say that you love your work, is that a meaningless statement since love is independent of you? I don't think you would agree to that, therefore, you thinking is incorrect on this statement as you simply misunderstand what the verse means when it says that "God is love" You are also incorrect when you say that omniscience is nondescript as you are begging the question in assuming it does not exist (i.e., is fantasy) in order to prove that it does not exist as an attribute of God.

 

LNC

Love is not "independent of me." It is an emotion I feel based on personal experience. It is not a "being". It does not exist outside of me, and if I die, my "love" dies too.

 

Omniscience is incoherent and self contradictory. If God knows, then he can't change his mind, or he didn't know he would change his mind. Your "Middle Knowledge" makes omniscience much less that what you would want it to be. "What is important to see here is that “omniscience” has been whittled down bit by bit until there is very little left of the original concept. Arguably, you and I are “omniscient” under some of these “refined” conceptions which have become so weak. Any conception of omniscience which could allow us to argue that we are also omniscient has become irrelevant, especially when combined with the observation that we are capable of knowing a great many things well outside the ability of this allegedly omniscient god." For more on the incoherence of omniscience, see this link.

[Shyone]

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."

 

It is not my job to argue your case for you. I am not a physicalist and, in fact, that is the problem with physicalism in that it cannot explain the existence of the universe without making metaphysical claims that cannot be empirically verified. Positing multiverses, wormholes and the like are not theories that can be empirically verified since we cannot see before Plank time and cannot see beyond our Hubble volume.

 

LNC

Nevermind. I found the man that invented the concept, and as usual, he starts with the conclusion and tries to fit science to his conclusion. Just like you!

 

Do you know the name of the man who came up with the concept?

 

Hubble sphere.

[Shyone]

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?

 

I think what you are getting at is found in the text of Ecclesiastes 13.

 

It was not meant to be an exhaustive list, nor was it nonsensical, as I explained in my previous post. I see no contradiction. God is not a physical being and as such does not take up space; therefore, he can be omnipresent and exist outside of time. There is no contradiction.

 

LNC

Omnipresent, but no where. Outside of time. Doesn't take up space. Immaterial.

 

Matter is something, energy is something. The universe is something. The negation of all of these is - nothing.

 

God is nowhere, nothing, never. No contradiction at all. We agree that god doesn't exist. You just define his nonexistence very precisely.

[skepticalme]

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,

 

Of couse, if you can't refute it, dismiss it. Typical creationist tactic.

 

in fact, it still tells us that everything that began to exist has a cause.

 

How did you jump to that conclusion? We're still waiting for you to explain how cause and effect work without time. Good luck doing that without begging the question.

 

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.

 

Please define 'causally prior'. You appear to be making up terms in order to support your argument. Nothing but special pleading.

 

You offer no explanation in its place, however.

 

That doesn't mean you explaination is correct. "You can't answer this, therefore god" isn't much of an argument.

 

So, Kalam still stands up and also remains the most plausible explanation.

 

Only if you reject reality and substitute your own.

 

 

 

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

 

Who's claiming its past eternal? You are the one claiming a past eternal being which I find equally absurd. Why is it that god is immune from all those same logical absurdities?