The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[NotBlinded]

Again I ask... What sense does it make to say that time began?

 

Time began.

 

Think about that.

 

I am not convinced that the physicists are correct about the Big Bang.

Agree.

 

And is it even correct to say that time exists? When does time exist? And how does time exist? Can we describe time? And if absolute time exists, then what about Einstein's theory of relativity?

It has the same existence as a inch.

[Legion]

And is it even correct to say that time exists? When does time exist? And how does time exist? Can we describe time? And if absolute time exists, then what about Einstein's theory of relativity?

These are good questions in my opinion Hans. I guess I should have taken issue with the statement “time began to exist” rather than “time began.”

 

I do believe time exists because we can, after a fashion, measure it. But we can also measure temperature, for instance. But I think about sticking a thermometer in a glass of water and I am amazed that such a complex thing which is a glass of water is reduced down to a single number. I think measurements are abstractions. And I wonder what it is that we are measuring when we measure time.

[NotBlinded]

And is it even correct to say that time exists? When does time exist? And how does time exist? Can we describe time? And if absolute time exists, then what about Einstein's theory of relativity?

These are good questions in my opinion Hans. I guess I should have taken issue with the statement “time began to exist” rather than “time began.”

 

I do believe time exists because we can, after a fashion, measure it.

So, we are using a measurement device to measure a measurment.

[Legion]

I do believe time exists because we can, after a fashion, measure it.

So, we are using a measurement device to measure a measurment.

I don't know. I do believe that we do not really understand time very well.

 

But when I figure out how time, gravity and electromagnetism are related I am going to make an anti-gravity drive and float to Mars.

[Shyone]

 

But when I figure out how time, gravity and electromagnetism are related I am going to make an anti-gravity drive and float to Mars.

Been there, done that.

 

Oh, wait, that was a dream.

 

Nevermind.

[NotBlinded]

Again I ask... What sense does it make to say that time began?

 

Time began.

 

Think about that.

 

Whoa.

 

P

 

But, you did forget the "dude". You know like, "Whoa dude!"

 

[Legion]

[NotBlinded]

But when I figure out how time, gravity and electromagnetism are related I am going to make an anti-gravity drive and float to Mars.

I'd ask to come along, but I'm afraid of heights...hey wait a minute. Anit-gravity means we can't fall right? Cool, I wanna come!!

[Ouroboros]

It has the same existence as a inch.

In an inch of time.

 

These are good questions in my opinion Hans. I guess I should have taken issue with the statement “time began to exist” rather than “time began.”

Not necessarily. I think your statement or question is valid too.

 

I do believe time exists because we can, after a fashion, measure it. But we can also measure temperature, for instance. But I think about sticking a thermometer in a glass of water and I am amazed that such a complex thing which is a glass of water is reduced down to a single number. I think measurements are abstractions. And I wonder what it is that we are measuring when we measure time.

We're measuring length of processes by using other processes as baseline. The only thing constant with time is that it seems to flow only in one direction. But perhaps we'll change the view in the future as well.

 

So, we are using a measurement device to measure a measurment.

Yup. Time and space is really just "a in relation to b, using baseline c." The whole 3-dimensions thing is a bit misleading as well, since space is most likely a non-euclidean space, and if it's elliptic, then two parallel lines actually do meet. And if space is folded into itself, then perhaps time is too? How would we represent time then?

[NotBlinded]

Yup. Time and space is really just "a in relation to b, using baseline c." The whole 3-dimensions thing is a bit misleading as well, since space is most likely a non-euclidean space, and if it's elliptic, then two parallel lines actually do meet. And if space is folded into itself, then perhaps time is too? How would we represent time then?

Oh my god! I hope those are rhetorical questions and not directed at me!

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh my god! I hope those are rhetorical questions and not directed at me!

I was expecting you to answer that. Absolutely. (Because, I have no clue.)

[Deva]

Again I ask... What sense does it make to say that time began?

 

Time began.

 

Think about that.

 

I am not convinced that the physicists are correct about the Big Bang.

 

Legion you rascal, you had me thinking about this all afternoon!

 

I can't wrap my mind around time having a beginning. I prefer to think it did not. Just for the sake of my sanity.

 

Time is relative, most definitely, at least from my perception.

[Shyone]

Again I ask... What sense does it make to say that time began?

 

Time began.

 

Think about that.

 

I am not convinced that the physicists are correct about the Big Bang.

 

Legion you rascal, you had me thinking about this all afternoon!

 

I can't wrap my mind around time having a beginning. I prefer to think it did not. Just for the sake of my sanity.

 

Time is relative, most definitely, at least from my perception.

I have a weird theory about this that also relates to the expanding universe.

 

I think that time is curved, and slowing down. Travelling uniformly back through time, it would never begin, and travelling uniformly in the future, we would not see it end.

 

Even now, time is slower than when we were born (although imperceptibly perhaps). The thing is that as time slows, so does everything associated with it - speed of light, atomic decay, etc. To the observer, it's all the same because our bodily functions, sense of time, rotation around the sun etc. is also slowing at the same rate.

 

The only way to see this is to relate it to the size of the universe, rate of expansion, and extrapolate. We may be able to calculate it, but we will never experience it.

 

Ok, stupid theory. And tonight I'm not smarter than a 5th grader.

[Ouroboros]

Nothing dumb about your idea Shyone. Not at all.

[NotBlinded]

Would that look something like a Klein Bottle?

[Legion]

Legion you rascal, you had me thinking about this all afternoon!

Hey Deva let me tell you, all of ex-C has me thinking.

 

I can't wrap my mind around time having a beginning. I prefer to think it did not. Just for the sake of my sanity.

Yeah, I just don’t see how someone can reasonably say that time (which is apparently interwoven with the universe) began to exist. It makes no sense to me.

 

I don't claim to understand the nature of time. I mean a duration seems deceptively simple. But maybe time is complex.

[NotBlinded]

Legion you rascal, you had me thinking about this all afternoon!

Hey Deva let me tell you, all of ex-C has me thinking.

 

I can't wrap my mind around time having a beginning. I prefer to think it did not. Just for the sake of my sanity.

Yeah, I just don’t see how someone can reasonably say that time (which is apparently interwoven with the universe) began to exist. It makes no sense to me.

 

I don't claim to understand the nature of time. I mean a duration seems deceptively simple. But maybe time is complex.

This is why I wonder if time is real at all. I have a hard time taking a measuring device and classifying it as reality itself. I have a ruler, but I have yet to see any rulers being a property of reality itself.

[LNC]

What I don't understand is why Christian apologist had to dig into Islamic theology to bolster a rather poor argument. Why are they allowed to do that? Why couldn't they sit down and come up with something much stronger philosophically.

 

I also find it funny that we need to learn about God's existence FIRST, accept his reality SECOND and learn the deep philosophy THIRD. If God was already an entity that could be seen and understood, why is he hiding and letting us run around trying to find ways to prove and disprove his existence.

 

This ideas alone render the God of the Bible as an irrational precept, further 96% of the known universe is made of dark matter and dark energy, which shows that the universe really is uninhabitable for human life. I can cite other examples, too.

 

I have to wonder, how can a Christian honestly look at all the evidence in the universe and say this is a hospitable place to live. It is not and it proves to me that we are designed to be part of the universe, not seperate from it.

 

Furthermore, how can an apologist really use science to defend their case if their religion is DIRECTLY REVEALED to some, but not others. Hmmmmmm...seems to me you all have a PR problem.

 

I don't know why Islam owns this argument. Sure, it was improved upon by Al-Ghazali in the 12th century, but it has been around long before that and was originally conceived of by Christian theologians as early as the 6th century. Do you know of any way to make the argument stronger or of a stronger argument? It seems to me that philosophers often try to strengthen the arguments of their predecessors.

 

I dispute your second paragraph as well. Some people come to know about God through direct intervention by God into their lives, so it is not necessary that a person follows the steps that you outlined. However, some people need to go through those steps for personal reasons.I don't see why this would necessarily render God to be an irrational concept, even if you were correct on your second paragraph, this conclusion simply does not follow.

 

I have heard that it is as much as 98% dark energy/matter, but even so, I don't see how that makes the universe uninhabitable, since we exist in that universe and experience that same dark matter/energy. We have neutrinos flowing through us all the time and it seems to have no adverse effect. I would agree with you that we are designed to be a part of the universe, and design implies that there is a designer.

 

I don't see why the fact that God (not religion) is revealed directly to some would negate the use of science to understand the universe that he has created. Could you tell me why you think that to be the case?

[NotBlinded]

I don't see why the fact that God (not religion) is revealed directly to some would negate the use of science to understand the universe that he has created. Could you tell me why you think that to be the case?

You forgot to capitalize "he".

[LNC]

I said something similar to LNC months ago, of course he ignored it because that is what good apologists do (ignore facts that are inconvenient to them) , but that is neither here nor there.

 

Kalam's cosmological argument is faulty from the get go because it attempts to use bare deductive logic to prove somethings existence.

 

It is silly, if something exists it should manifest itself in reality in some way. I do not need a deductive argument to prove my house exists, or my cat exists. My cat will assert its existence by climbing all over my keyboard when ever I am trying to type something.

 

If god's existence is so certain It should be obvious to everyone though his interactions with the universe. What exactly is the difference between something that does not exist and something that exists but does not manifest in any way?

 

I get accused of ignoring posts when it is usually the case that the thread was closed down before I could get to answer that specific post. I answer posts in order and only ignore posts if they are comprised merely of rants rather than arguments or questions. So, if I didn't answer your post, it was most likely that I simply didn't get to it before the thread was closed.

 

I don't understand why you think that deductive logic is faulty, maybe you could explain.

 

There is plenty of evidence that God has manifested himself in reality, the fact that you reject those pieces of evidence is another issue. Do you believe that neutrinos exist, or quarks? They cannot be directly observed, we only know that they exist via indirect evidence.

 

You see, the Kalam argument is a method of showing that it is most reasonable to infer that God directly interacted with the universe, in fact that he is responsible for the existence of the universe. So, you have asked and answered your own question.

[Guest Davka]

I think measurements are abstractions.

After a fashion, they are.

 

And I wonder what it is that we are measuring when we measure time.

 

We are measuring change. Or, rather, the rate of change.

 

Time and space and matter are all interdependent. You could not have one without the others. That's why it's not just time that began with the Big Bang, but space as well. In order to have time, you need to have change, and distance. But if everything is packed into a singularity - which means there is no depth, or height, or width - then nothing can change, because there's no "there" there.

 

Kind of like Jersey City.

[LNC]

Funny you should mention that. This is precisely what undermines your claim that the Universe must have been created: you are multiplying entities.

 

But of course you are afraid to deal with that fact, aren't you? Which is why you refuse to respond to this thread:

 

Occam's razor v. goddidit

holding LNC's feet to the fire.

 

Go ahead, LNC, school us on Occam's Razor some more.

 

Unless, of course, you have no answer - in which case you'll continue to ignore that thread.

 

And I'll continue to poke you with it, because it such a great way of exposing your dishonesty.

 

I don't believe that I am multiplying entities since there is no other entity that existed prior to the universe. If you think that there was, could you tell me what that entity was?

 

I have since replied to that thread, so I will ignore that comment. My answers are posted there.

[LNC]

The above is an admission that there is no scientific basis for the claim that any objects ever were truly at rest. It is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, therefore attempts to establish the veracity of the claim using scientific tools are foolish at best, and clearly futile.

 

This seems to be immaterial to the argument since Kalam argues that the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) not out of something at rest.

[LNC]

Hey there LNC, for me the claim, “time began to exist” makes little sense. The word “began” already implies some sort of time, right? In other words, the claim seems to assume what it purports to explain.

 

I confess that I don’t know much about current cosmological models. But from what I’ve gathered time itself is understood to be aspect of the universe. And I thought it had been shown that there is some sort of relation between space/time and gravity. In my estimation this gives credence to the idea that time is a part of the fabric of the universe. So I’m thinking that ‘no universe’ implies ‘no time’.

 

You’re right. I do strongly suspect that we are mostly ignorant in these matters. But I don’t believe this is a self defeating notion. I think ignorance can be remedied. I believe someday we will understand things better than we do now given the appropriate questions and the work necessary to answer them.

 

I do have some philosophical reservations about cosmology though. To my mind, science is the study of natural systems. And all natural systems have their attendant environments. So I don’t see how cosmology fits well within this scheme because I don’t see what sense it would make to say that the entire universe has an environment. But if the universe is like a hologram, where each part of it images the whole, then I think there may be some hope of understanding the universe by studying the natural systems within it.

 

Those are just some of my thoughts LNC, and I suggest taking most of it with a grain of salt.

 

To say that time began to exist is used strictly metaphorically to indicate that there was no time causally prior (rather than temporally prior) to the existence of the universe. So, no it does not indicate that there was time before time, that would be logically untenable. There is an imprecise usage of terms simply because we need to use them that way to understand, but it doesn't necessitate that there was time before time.

 

You are right in that space and time are related as are matter and energy and again you are right in that no universe equals no time.

 

I too believe that we will understand better not necessarily given more time as more time does not necessarily equal more knowledge or understanding. However, we are improving our technology by which we can investigate these subjects. For example, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) outside of Geneva will produce more findings to give us more understanding. However, we will never reach full understanding as we are finite human beings with limited, albeit quite advanced capabilities.

 

Your last thoughts are quite insightful. I agree to some extent that we will not understand everything about our universe since we are bound within the universe. We cannot see the universe from outside it and that alone will limit our perspective and understanding; however, I think it is a fascinating subject and one that will lead to many lifetimes of research.

[NotBlinded]

You see, the Kalam argument is a method of showing that it is most reasonable to infer that God directly interacted with the universe, in fact that he is responsible for the existence of the universe.

You forgot to capitalize "he" again. Uhhoohhh...