The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[LNC]

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.

 

We can use logic inductive and deductive methods to arrive at conclusions. However, if you must, please look up George Lemaître, the man who first proposed the Big Bang theory. He was a Roman Catholic priest, so I would assume that he believed in an immaterial being. Max Planck, for whom Planck time is named, was also a committed theist who believed in an immaterial being. I could go on and mention Kelvin, Faraday, Newton and others who were all theists, but this isn't about numbers, you just wanted to know that a top physicist could believe in an immaterial being, which I believe I have shown.

 

These people also believed that this immaterial being was responsible for the material world, so if the concept is nonsensical as you say, then maybe these people were nonsensical. Or, maybe your understanding is faulty.

 

I am not alone in hanging my hat on Big Bang cosmology, I believe that I am in good company as the theory has the most confirming data of any theory. In fact, other theories are not even close to the amount of confirming data as Big Bang cosmology. I never discourage research; however, if I was in charge of investing in research, there would be some theories that I would be much more inclined to support than others. I think you would do the same if it came down to spending your own money. However, I'm wondering why you wouldn't be willing to take a side in this issue as one theory is so far superior in evidential support than any other. Could it be that it doesn't fit with your beliefs?

 

LNC

[Shyone]

 

Given the fact that Mackie himself used the term, causally prior, I will assume that I have satisfied your question about it legitimacy.

 

LNC

Does this have to come down to semantics?

 

This speaks of causally prior but I can't find where it is also not temporally prior.

 

You were using causally prior with respect to an event outside of time. That I can't find. Any event b caused by event a means that event a is causally prior to event b. Duh.

 

That implies that event a is also temporally prior to event b.

 

Google books doesn't allow for searching, and one reference was only partial, so I can't find any reference to an event that is causally prior but not temporally prior.

 

Are you perhaps referring to events in time that are quantum events?

 

Doesn't the occurrence of quantum events without causation mean there is no god? Or any need for god?

 

I'm really beyond caring at this point.

[Shyone]

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.

 

We can use logic inductive and deductive methods to arrive at conclusions. However, if you must, please look up George Lemaître, the man who first proposed the Big Bang theory. He was a Roman Catholic priest, so I would assume that he believed in an immaterial being. Max Planck, for whom Planck time is named, was also a committed theist who believed in an immaterial being. I could go on and mention Kelvin, Faraday, Newton and others who were all theists, but this isn't about numbers, you just wanted to know that a top physicist could believe in an immaterial being, which I believe I have shown.

 

These people also believed that this immaterial being was responsible for the material world, so if the concept is nonsensical as you say, then maybe these people were nonsensical. Or, maybe your understanding is faulty.

 

I am not alone in hanging my hat on Big Bang cosmology, I believe that I am in good company as the theory has the most confirming data of any theory. In fact, other theories are not even close to the amount of confirming data as Big Bang cosmology. I never discourage research; however, if I was in charge of investing in research, there would be some theories that I would be much more inclined to support than others. I think you would do the same if it came down to spending your own money. However, I'm wondering why you wouldn't be willing to take a side in this issue as one theory is so far superior in evidential support than any other. Could it be that it doesn't fit with your beliefs?

 

LNC

You partially addressed my question. The scientists you mentioned "accepted" that an immaterial being exists, but they did not use the concept to formulate any of their theories. Perhaps that is because science does not accept theories that say, "And a miracle happened."

 

Big Bang cosmology does nothing to establish anything other than the existence of a physical universe, and anything beyond that is speculation. Some speculation may have mathematical or experimental evidence, but the one that doesn't and never will is a creator god.

 

The entire field of cosmology as it stands now is largely dependent on some simple observations and logical deductions, but for the theory to hold it will need to contend with the information that doesn't fit or it will be replaced with another theory.

 

You might want to seriously investigate the way scientists are discussing the "Big Bang." Seriously. It sounds very different from what was originally proposed.

 

From: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

The true size of the universe is probably much larger than the visible universe. The geometry of the universe suggests that it may have an infinite size and that it will expand forever. Even if the universe is not infinite, our visible universe must be a minute speck in a much larger totality.

 

From http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

There is no centre of the expansion, the universe is simply expanding at all points. Observers in any galaxy see most of the other galaxies in the universe moving away from them.

The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occurred everywhere in the Universe.

 

From: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

Our universe has no edge or boundary - there is no outside of our universe (see question 1). It is possible that our universe is part of an infinity of universes.

 

From: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Even in the COBE map, it was observed that the quadrupoleQuadrupole (l = 2 spherical harmonic) has a low amplitude compared to the predictions of the big bang. Some observers have pointed out that the anisotropies in the WMAP data did not appear to be consistent with the big bang picture.

[skepticalme]

Given the fact that Mackie himself used the term, causally prior, I will assume that I have satisfied your question about it legitimacy.

 

LNC

Does this have to come down to semantics?

 

This speaks of causally prior but I can't find where it is also not temporally prior.

 

You were using causally prior with respect to an event outside of time. That I can't find. Any event b caused by event a means that event a is causally prior to event b. Duh.

 

That implies that event a is also temporally prior to event b.

 

Google books doesn't allow for searching, and one reference was only partial, so I can't find any reference to an event that is causally prior but not temporally prior.

 

Are you perhaps referring to events in time that are quantum events?

 

Doesn't the occurrence of quantum events without causation mean there is no god? Or any need for god?

 

I'm really beyond caring at this point.

 

Excellent point Shyone. If something could by 'causally prior' without being temporally prior then you have to throw out the very causality principles Kalam is contingent upon, because if the two were seperate then effect could precede cause temporally but still be 'causally prior'. Furthmore, what if "A" is causally, but not temporally, prior to "B" and "B" is temporally causal to "A". You would have a paradox where "A" and "B" are mutually causal in an infinite self causing loop. No, the very principles of causality are contengent upon causally prior and temporally prior being the very same thing.

 

LNC, the very logic you are using to defend Kalam nulifies it.

[Ouroboros]

This speaks of causally prior but I can't find where it is also not temporally prior.

 

You were using causally prior with respect to an event outside of time. That I can't find. Any event b caused by event a means that event a is causally prior to event b. Duh.

 

That implies that event a is also temporally prior to event b.

That's right.

 

We can't understand or envision something that is causal prior but not temporal prior, so how can it be used as an assumption for the Kalam argument? There's no backing for that warrant, simple as that. In other words, the argument is begging the question.

 

Another thing, when we measure time, we measure events, events that happens before and after each other. If something happens prior to another thing, and we observe it, we observe time. Time is an effect of chains of events. So to say that events can happen in a chain, but without being time, is just... fantasy. Non-temporality can't be observed or experienced.

 

So we're talking about a God who doesn't experience and is a fantasy!?

 

Besides that, how would anyone communicate with a non-temporal being? Is prayer some kind of meta-temporal bridge translator? And how does a non-temporal being make a decision? How can God reason his way from point A to point B? Does everything God knows and thinks just exist but never happens? No process?

 

I just can't see how this invented thing can exist. But I know. We're supposed to take that on faith. In other words, when science fails to give an exact answer, and when scientists tell us to take their hypothetical ideas with a grain of salt, the apologists invent their own ideas and demand that we accept them without further examination.

 

Google books doesn't allow for searching, and one reference was only partial, so I can't find any reference to an event that is causally prior but not temporally prior.

When you find any information about non-temporal causal chains, let me know, it sounds interesting.

 

Are you perhaps referring to events in time that are quantum events?

Perhaps they are. Perhaps that's exactly what quantum events are. Non-temporal first causes. But hey, we can't accept that, it's not mystical enough... Only boooga-booooga answers are accepted.

 

Doesn't the occurrence of quantum events without causation mean there is no god? Or any need for god?

Since they're physical, they can't exist. Because physical must follow the law of temporal cause-and-effect. And why is that? Because if they didn't, then the arguments for God wouldn't apply. And since God must exist, according to the apologists, any explanation that would disprove their argument must be false, prima facia. In other words, they're implementing the card stacking fallacy. They approve science that supports their belief, but they deny science that contradicts their belief.

 

I'm really beyond caring at this point.

I know. I don't care for arguing with LNC anymore, it's just an exercise in futility. But I enjoy sharing ideas with people like you.

[Shyone]

I know. I don't care for arguing with LNC anymore, it's just an exercise in futility. But I enjoy sharing ideas with people like you.

I should remember that when I respond to LNC, other people can read what I write, and leaving unsubstantiated and illogical statements unopposed gives them psuedocredibility.

 

If his god has retreated into the tiniest spark leaving the entirety of nature to act on physical principles, then this is no god. It is an event.

 

A quantum event. How small can he get?

 

Worse still, inadequate understanding will never persuade a scientist that there is nothing to be seen. If it were to do so, then that would be a loss for humanity.

[Legion]

The thing that chaps me is that science is process of discovery as well as a body of knowledge. I have far more trust in the process of discovery than I do in the findings of science to date. I hold all scientific findings to be tentative and subject to change.

 

I think apologists exploit this. They would substitute false certainties for tentative understandings. And those who value a feeling of security in an uncertain world cling to these falsehoods rather than admit that our understanding is constantly changing.

[Ouroboros]

The thing that chaps me is that science is process of discovery as well as a body of knowledge. I have far more trust in the process of discovery than I do in the findings of science to date. I hold all scientific findings to be tentative and subject to change.

Agree.

 

I think the problem is something like this:

 

First, science can't explain everything... yet. There are areas where there are unanswered questions. One of them is the question about Big Bang, what kind of event, what existed before, how and why, etc.

 

Secondly, the current explanations aren't perfect and still leave a lot to be answered. When it comes the paradoxes about time, space, energy, causation, and so on, it doesn't mean we take these answers in faith and forget that we're still searching for better answers.

 

Thirdly, the religious mindset is that when a question isn't fully answered in science, then some imaginary religious explanation is proposed, and instead of accepting this proposed answer as tentative, you are forced to accept it through faith and as the final and ultimate answer (until science finds the real answer and completely puts the religious dogma on its head).

 

In other words, the apologist says, "Because scientific theories about the beginning of our Universe results in paradoxes, God did it. And even if God's character is leading to paradoxes, we should accept them as 'mysteries' and not question them." It's a form of "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. Just because science presents paradoxical answers, then religious answer must be the real answer, even if that one too is full of paradoxes.

 

 

I find it easier to accept that we don't know, can't know currently, and that it's more likely a natural explanation than a imaginary or magical explanation.

 

 

I think apologists exploit this. They would substitute false certainties for tentative understandings. And those who value a feeling of security in an uncertain world cling to these falsehoods rather than admit that our understanding is constantly changing.

Agree again.

 

It's all about the feeling of having an answer. It might not be the right answer, or the best answer, but having an answer that fills all gaps of ignorance, makes it easier to live. It takes a certain kind of mental ability to accept uncertainty. Religion is all about feeling certain, even when no answers exist.

[Shyone]

The thing that chaps me is that science is process of discovery as well as a body of knowledge. I have far more trust in the process of discovery than I do in the findings of science to date. I hold all scientific findings to be tentative and subject to change.

 

I think apologists exploit this. They would substitute false certainties for tentative understandings. And those who value a feeling of security in an uncertain world cling to these falsehoods rather than admit that our understanding is constantly changing.

That is profound, absolutely correct, and deeply insightful.

 

Wow. That was perfect.

[agnosticator]

SHYONE:

I should remember that when I respond to LNC, other people can read what I write, and leaving unsubstantiated and illogical statements unopposed gives them psuedocredibility.

 

LEGION:

The thing that chaps me is that science is process of discovery as well as a body of knowledge...I hold all scientific findings to be tentative and subject to change.

 

I think apologists exploit this. They would substitute false certainties for tentative understandings. And those who value a feeling of security in an uncertain world cling to these falsehoods rather than admit that our understanding is constantly changing.

 

 

OUROBOROS:

I find it easier to accept that we don't know, can't know currently, and that it's more likely a natural explanation than a imaginary or magical explanation.

 

If you fellows continue to counter theistic explanations with naturalistic explanations, people like myself-who don't have years of intense study under their belt-can gain an understanding of the subject. So keep exposing those fallacious arguments gentlemen!

 

I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Cohen that went something like this:

"It is best to have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and a low tolerance for certainty."

[Shyone]

I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Cohen that went something like this:

"It is best to have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and a low tolerance for certainty."

That right there about sums it up.

[Ouroboros]

I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Cohen that went something like this:

"It is best to have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and a low tolerance for certainty."

That's an awesome quote.

[Deva]

I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Cohen that went something like this:

"It is best to have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and a low tolerance for certainty."

 

Very wise. I like that a lot.

[LNC]

 

 

When I speak of God existing prior to the universe

 

 

 

what god?

 

There is only one.

 

Where?

 

That question is a category error. God is an immaterial being and thus has no physical location. It is like asking how much does the number 1 weigh (the actual number one, not a representation of the number 1).

 

LNC

[LNC]

 

 

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.

 

That wasn't the question or the objection that was raised. However, Kalam is an argument for the existence of God and that is what we are here to discuss. So far, I see no evidence to show that Kalam is invalid as an argument. If the premises are valid and the conclusion follows from them, which I believe the evidence shows, then it is a valid argument for the existence of God. There are also other arguments for the existence of God that I believe are also valid, but we are here to discuss this argument.

 

LNC

[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.

 

OK, so sound waves don't travel through vacuums and information does not come out of a vacuum. That simply reinforces my point.

 

Ideas don't originate by themselves, they are always the product of a creative agent. Information doesn't originate by itself, it is always ultimately the product of an originating agent.

 

You are question-begging by assuming that information requires a substrate, since there was no substrate causally prior to the existence of the universe, so you have not explained the origination of information, you have simply posited it as a brute fact. Also, organization of matter and energy requires intelligence, which comes as a result of information, so you are in a vicious circle here.

 

So, you are in the same position that you claim that I am in. In fact, you are in a worse position as you have absolutely no explanation for the existence of information, whereas, I do.

 

To say that the universe is information is not an explanation of information, it is simply a blind assertion with no basis of origin of that information. If the universe began with information, then it is still required to explain how and why that information is there, which you have not done.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

OK, so sound waves don't travel through vacuums and information does not come out of a vacuum. That simply reinforces my point.

Agree.

 

And it leads to the question regarding the phrase "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Is this verse metaphorical in the sense that God "spoke" inside his non-temporal mind, or is it literal in the sense that God spoke while being in some form of air/gas?

[Shyone]

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.

 

OK, so sound waves don't travel through vacuums and information does not come out of a vacuum. That simply reinforces my point.

 

Ideas don't originate by themselves, they are always the product of a creative agent. Information doesn't originate by itself, it is always ultimately the product of an originating agent.

 

You are question-begging by assuming that information requires a substrate, since there was no substrate causally prior to the existence of the universe, so you have not explained the origination of information, you have simply posited it as a brute fact. Also, organization of matter and energy requires intelligence, which comes as a result of information, so you are in a vicious circle here.

 

So, you are in the same position that you claim that I am in. In fact, you are in a worse position as you have absolutely no explanation for the existence of information, whereas, I do.

 

To say that the universe is information is not an explanation of information, it is simply a blind assertion with no basis of origin of that information. If the universe began with information, then it is still required to explain how and why that information is there, which you have not done.

 

LNC

The universe is not an "idea". Humans create ideas. Humans are the "creative agents" that we know about.

 

That there was nothing before the universe, or even a "before" means that the universe created the substrate for the ideas we humans have.

 

You wrote: "Also, organization of matter and energy requires intelligence." This is so clearly false that even you should recognise it. Spontaneous organization of matter and energy based on physical principles is exactly what causes complexity in organic and inorganic systems.

 

A brief summary might look like this:

 

All matter tends toward more disorganized states. Living systems require a continuous input of energy. * The energy for life primarily comes from the sun. * The chemical bonds of food molecules contain energy. * The distribution and abundance of organisms in ecosystems are limited by the availability of matter and energy. * As matter and energy flows through the levels of life, matter and energy are conserved.

 

This is basic science. Elementary.

 

The concept of "self organization" is fundamental to an understanding of everything from the formation of mollecules to the structure of the universe.

 

In biological systems self-organization is a process in which pattern at the global level of a system emerges solely from numerous interactions among the lower-level components of the system. Moreover, the rules specifying interactions among the system's components are executed using only local information, without reference to the global pattern.[8]

[skepticalme]

 

You are question-begging by assuming that information requires a substrate,

 

No, he is not. You are begging the question by assuming that information is independant of its substrate.

 

since there was no substrate causally prior to the existence of the universe,

 

This is a nonsensical statement. This term 'causally prior' exist only to patch a gaping hole in your argument. It is special pleading in its purest form. A special type of prior that is only destinguishable from temporally prior in this one instance. You may as well call it the invisible dragon that only you can see.

 

so you have not explained the origination of information, you have simply posited it as a brute fact.

 

You haven't either. Magic is not an answer.

 

Also, organization of matter and energy requires intelligence, which comes as a result of information, so you are in a vicious circle here.

 

So what intelligence organizes water molecules into snowflakes? It doesn't take intelligence. The water molecules self organize because they can only crystalize into certain patterns due to properties intrinsic to water molecules. DNA has some similar properties. Nitrogen bases can only bind in certain patterns. 'A' can only bind to 'T' and 'C can only bind to 'G'. This process is used all the time in genetics labs to amplify DNA segments and is called a polymerase chain reaction. It is based on the principle that DNA can auto-assemble when all the components and energy are present.

 

Lets go up in scale. Many organisms, like spiders and insects, can build structures and habitats that greatly exceed their intellectual capacity. Again intelligence is not required. All they do when they build these structures is apply a few basic instinctual rules over and over again and complex organized structures emerge from that.

 

Lets go up in scale again. Many more complex animals, like birds, fish and mammals, live in flocks or schools or herds and can move around together in complex, seemingly coordinated manners. Almost like a single organisms, but there is no leader and little if any comunication. Again no higher intelligence is needed to guide this complex organized behavior.

 

We can even go up in scale again to systems built by humans. Nobody designs things like the internet or the power grid. There is no architect or overall plan to these systems. Whenever more capacity is needed more is tacked on to what already exist. Like the examples I described above, a few basic rules are followed based on neccesity like you need a power station/servers for 'x' number of users, wires can only be placed in certain areas, etc but no overarching blueprint for the system as a whole. These are emergent networks.

 

You can even apply the same principles to the economy. Nobody designs or controls that. No architect commanded Microsoft to make software or GM to make cars. Our economy self organized based upon economy forces that nobody controls.

 

I could go on forever. I didn't even touch upon evolution, geology or cosmology. My point is that organization DOES NOT REQUIRE intelligence. In fact, oranization based upon intelligence seems to be the exception not the rule, limited to only certain human endeavours. To assert that organization can come only from intelligence is a false premise.

 

So, you are in the same position that you claim that I am in. In fact, you are in a worse position as you have absolutely no explanation for the existence of information, whereas, I do.

 

See above.

 

To say that the universe is information is not an explanation of information, it is simply a blind assertion with no basis of origin of that information. If the universe began with information, then it is still required to explain how and why that information is there, which you have not done.

 

Where did God get his information? Oh wait, I know he is the special exception pleading.

[agnosticator]

God is an immaterial being and thus has no physical location. It is like asking how much does the number 1 weigh (the actual number one, not a representation of the number 1).

 

Therefore, God is an immaterial idea-NOT a being.

[Shyone]

God is an immaterial being and thus has no physical location. It is like asking how much does the number 1 weigh (the actual number one, not a representation of the number 1).

 

Therefore, God is an immaterial idea-NOT a being.

Well put. LNC is only inches away from seeing that gods are ideas of men.

 

Nah, he'll never see that.

 

Strange how the concept of god parallels the concept of immaterial ideas deriving from nervous systems: ideas, thoughts, concepts; all timeless, invisible and immaterial.

[Ouroboros]

God is the perfect circle. It exists as a concept, but not as a actual reality.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Ummm sorry I haven't followed this debate so, if this has already been touched on, forgive me, but I have a question for LNC

 

If god exists, and is outside of time, needed to be a first cause, how can it get into TIME. Wouldn't be stuck in its own existence. And if it is outside of time how can we know anything about it.

 

Would this only be a deist god then?

[agnosticator]

Shyone:

Strange how the concept of god parallels the concept of immaterial ideas deriving from nervous systems: ideas, thoughts, concepts; all timeless, invisible and immaterial.

 

It took me years to realize that God was presented by most religions as an "idea, thought, concept" masquerading as a personality.

 

Ouroboros:

God is the perfect circle. It exists as a concept, but not as a actual reality.

 

I think we should start a new religion. Call it the Church of The Perfect Circle. Antlerman can be the High Priest of The Circle. All the circular symbols would point to the Circle of Perfection, but never attain its' Perfect Circularity. We could sacrifice the Perfect Circle made flesh and born from the virgin Crispy Creme Doughnut Hole, to save all our imperfectly shaped assholinesses. He would recreate us from His Perfect AssHoliness. And when we all die, we could become a part of the immaterial, timeless, and invisible Perfect Circle!

[Ouroboros]

I like strawberry flavored Pi, that's how I feel. Even though it's unnatural, even irrational, it is still something real.