A Paraphrase of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
What do you think of "Ed's paraphrase of the Kalam Cosmological Argument":
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe may have begun to exist, but the verdict is still out on that.
(3) Therefore, no conclusion about whether the universe has a cause can be advanced at this time. ;-) Link.
98 comments:
Meh. It's still false. In quantum mechanics, the classic rules of causality don't apply. Not everything that begins to exist has a cause. The first premise is bogus.
And there's still the fallacy of using observed, material, physical causality within the universe to make unfalsifiable metaphysical assertions about the universe itself being created ex nihilo.
Mike,
Thanks for the feedback- I left out from challenging P1 in the new version because I had not addressed it in my rebuttal to Eric.
BTW, I think the KCA is faulty, and doesn't lead to a realization of god either.
Ed, I'll revise this post if you'd like to revise your paraphrase.
John,
Maybe later. Eric said himself earlier that if the argument is to be refuted, it is sufficient to successfully attack only one of the premises, so I chose the easier of the two.
Eric and I have been going round and round on this stuff for a couple of years. I think he's getting peeved with me.
:o)
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. Finite existence such as matter and energy within the infinite 3 dimensional existence began to exist.
3. Finite existence has a cause.
Clearly poorly worded on my part. (what's new).
It all comes down to how you define the universe and how you differentiate the various concepts of "space." (quantum space, free space if it exists, absolute space, etc)
Robb's paraphrase:
1. Nothing begins to exist. Energy is only converted from one form to another.
Therefore:
2. The universe did not begin to exist.
See, it all depends on what particular regularities you choose to try to extend beyond reasonable limits....
I'm with Mike - I loathe the first premise. Not only is it unsubstantiated by evidence but in the few cases where we know that something genuinely begins to exist, it does so without a cause. Attacking the second premise is fine but our knowledge of QM is far better than of the BB where we know that our knowledge breaks down (what Ed is relying on) so it seems perverse to uncritically parrot an untruth in the first premise only to hang your hat on ignorance in the second.
Anyone who tries to use the Kalam should have to provide three examples of things which begin to exist. Be precise! When does a tree 'begin to exist', exactly? When does a human? If it's when the sperm meets the egg, we can see that this hardly requires a God, nor does this 'beginning' come close to resembling the BB as it is where two pre-existing cells come together and merge. The burning of hydrogen & oxygen to create water at least results in a new molecule, yet even here we can see that no matter begins to exist.
This premise was debunked when we disproved spontaneous generation of organisms but QM properly put the nail in any possible reformulation. To the best of our knowledge, (1)Everything that begins to exist does not have a cause
I think that's why we should give more focus on (1). When we state it with current knowledge, the conclusion flips around totally and hints that the universe probably/possibly does NOT have a cause. Yes, (2) is still a point of ignorance but we have shifted the gist 180 using no trickery, just good old-fashioned science.
Just a point...
I wasn't so much attempting to rely on ignorance as I was attempting to show that there are alternatives to P(2)that the KCA brushes past without evem so much as a how-do-ya-do.
But point taken. I'm not up as much on QM as I'd like, so I left P(1) alone.
I agree with everything, except (1). I honestly believe that we haven't the foggiest idea about what comes out of nothing, because all our experience is about different configurations of matter and energy, and NEVER about NOTHINGNESS per se. So, since nothingness is completely outside the scope of our experience, any conclusions reached about what happens out of nothingess is pure speculation and should be disregarded as fantasy until it can be empirically confirmed in some way.
@dguller - that does raise the interesting question of what "something" is. Is a "thing" matter? Is God a "thing"?
If we take the KCA at face value, we're left with a few strange conclusions. First, that if God is not a thing but God created the universe which is a thing, then (1) is false and something can come from nothing. But if God is a thing, then what does this say about God - are theologians sure they want God to be of such mundane matter? (I know, if we're learning about reality then their opinions and preferences shouldn't matter but since we're talking theology, opinions and preferences are all that matter.)
"First, that if God is not a thing but God created the universe which is a thing, then (1) is false and something can come from nothing."
But God doesn't "come from" anywhere if He is Infinite/Omnipresent. He exists...and His Existence is everywhere always. He is the Uncaused Cause of all "things" and He is NOT a created existence or an existence which has a beginning. He did NOT begin to exist therefore He needs no cause.
That doesn't answer the question of whether God is a thing, nor, if God is not a thing, does it address the question of whether things (the universe) come from nothing (God). Would you like to have a go at answering either of those two questions?
And please, next time can you make your clarification simpler and easier to understand? I thought I understood KCA (with a couple points in doubt) but I didn't understand a single thing in your answer. Maybe I'm too stupid, but can you rephrase in your own words? What does any of that mean?
"The universe may have begun to exist,"
It is important to define the universe. Is the universe simply 3 dimensional spatial existence? Then I would say this is infinite and has always existed as part of God's Infinite Domain and did not need to be "created." It is the nature of 3 dimensional space to be infinite just as it is factual that conceptual inner space is infinite (ly small).
Is the universe all matter that is contained within 3 dimensional spatial existence? Is the universe dependent upon quantum space and the substance of what Einstein referred to as the ether?
What do we mean when we say "the universe?" If we say "matter and energy" within infinite 3 dimensional existence then this is different from 3 dimensional existence itself.
I don't believe that freespace has to exist or that infinite free space surrounds quantum space or our galaxies. I do however believe that God's domain is infinitely spatial and we enter into His Infinite Domain when we come into existence (and finite experience).
It is completely ridiculous, however, to say that God is "complex" or that God contains "information" or that God is tantamount to these concepts when we say these two need a Source or a Cause. God is not information, and His Infinite Existence can not be compared to mechanical complexity like the ridiculous Dawkins argument.
At some point we need to employ philosophical common sense.
Breckmin said,
"It all comes down to how you define the universe and how you differentiate the various concepts of "space." (quantum space, free space if it exists, absolute space, etc)"
The 3-D space you keep referring to cannot exist separate from the fourth dimension of time.
Just FYI...
Brecky said.."But God doesn't "come from" anywhere if He is Infinite/Omnipresent. He exists...and His Existence is everywhere always. He is the Uncaused Cause of all "things" and He is NOT a created existence or an existence which has a beginning. He did NOT begin to exist therefore He needs no cause."
Which points out, maybe a cause is not always needed for certain things to first exist ..No?
So its still no proof that suggests god need exist either.After all like you suggest,something yet out of our understanding could maybe come into existence uncaused.
Brecky said.."At some point we need to employ philosophical common sense."
And so you simply feel asserting need for a god, is employing philosophical common sense?
It is completely ridiculous, however, to say that God is "complex" or that God contains "information" or that God is tantamount to these concepts when we say these two need a Source or a Cause. God is not information, and His Infinite Existence can not be compared to mechanical complexity like the ridiculous Dawkins argument.
Why is it ridiculous? The argument Dawkins made seems sound and you've offered nothing but a blanket dismissal. "God is not information" - it's only obscurantist theologians that say "God is X", Dawkins said instead that anything which could have planned out the universe and done what God is said to have done must have had access to a lot of information and been capable of manipulating and reasoning based on it which, yes, requires a high degree of order and complexity. Again, just saying this is ridiculous doesn't make it so.
Can anyone name anything that began to exist uncaused?
Who is it that denies the Universe began to exist? Which Physicist or Cosmologist think that the Universe is eternal - meaning always has and always exists?
It's a category error. "The Universe" is in a different category than everything "in" the universe. What can be said about everything in the universe may or may not be said about the universe itself. An example:
1. All novels have an author.
2. Literature is composed of all novels.
3. Therefore, literature has an author.
Three is obviously false because what can be said about all individual novels can't necessarily be said about the category of literature. All humans have navels, but humanity does not.
Marcus,
I certainly didn't state that the universe had no beginning, and I'm the one being quoted in the original post.
What I objected to is premise (2) of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) which states unequivocally that the universe HAS (or had) a beginning.
As Tyro said above,
"...Attacking the second premise is fine but our knowledge of QM is far better than of the BB where we know that our knowledge breaks down (what Ed is relying on) so it seems perverse to uncritically parrot an untruth in the first premise only to hang your hat on ignorance in the second."
And the "ignorance in the second (premise)" that he's referring to relates to the current state of science knowledge (here's where you'll attempt to attack if you're on the other side of this debate) is such that an unequivocal statement that
(2) the universe began to exist.
is NOT VALID because no one KNOWS if it "began" or is a fresh iteration of some previous remnant.
As I said above, to successfully refute the conclusion of the original KCA
"(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause"
is unsupported and erroneous at this time.
Oops.
That last part should read,
"As I said above, to successfully refute the conclusion of the original KCA
"(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause"
one need only successfully attack one of the premises to show that the conclusion is unsupported and erroneous at this time."
Marcus,
Can anyone name anything that began to exist uncaused?
To the best of our knowledge, all matter arose without a cause.
But since it's the KCA making the claim that a cause is required, why don't you tell us which 'things' began to exist, what their cause was and how that applies to the universe?
Who is it that denies the Universe began to exist? Which Physicist or Cosmologist think that the Universe is eternal - meaning always has and always exists?
Almost everything you say raises problems. There are theories which has the universe go through cycles, some which has a meta-verse or cosmos which spawns baby Universes like ours and they are consistent with observation. Even in the mildest formulations of the BB a discussion of "beginning" is deeply problematic as time itself breaks down (to say nothing of what you think of as causality).
Then there is the whole problem of what a "thing" is, something I raised earlier and you blithely ignored. Are "things" only matter? Energy? Is the universe itself a "thing", and in what sense? If energy is a thing, does the fact that the universe has zero net energy mean that the universe as a whole is not a thing even though it contains things?
Not trivial issues and this desire to distill everything into sound-bites isn't helping understanding.
@James A. Brown:
Exactly. That's technically called the fallacy of composition.
@Tyro:
Nice points.
Ultimately, it's seriously misguided to pretend to have such certainty about matters that are mere speculation, and to be sceptical about matters that we have firm knowledge (e.g. theory of evolution).
It just goes to show that their inquiry is NOT done in good faith, but rather the grasping at straws, excluding of contradictory evidence, and so on, done with a preordained conclusion in mind.
Sad, just sad.
I saw in a debate online that Craig cited a pair of scientists who argued that it is impossible to have an infinite universe, but I forgot who he cited. If anyone knows I'd greatly appreciate it. And also if anyone knows of any rebuttals to those men as well. Thanks!
Without knowing who said it or what they said, it's hard to find a rebuttal (or a confirmation for that matter).
What is perhaps most relevant to us are the profusion of different theories/hypotheses which deal with the origins of the universe. I won't provide links or I'll look like a spammer, but search for 'Cosmology' on Wikipedia and you'll see a list of some of them. Even just looking at The cyclic models shows a big list. The Ekpyrotic model is cyclical and ties in with the popular String theory.
I hesitate to promote any one of these ideas as we really don't have enough information to decide between them and in some cases it isn't appropriate to even call them a 'theory' yet. The point is that there many competing models which are consistent with all current observations and theories yet some have a "beginning" to the universe (whatever that means) and some do not. As Ed said, we don't yet know whether the universe "began to exist", and under many models the very notion of the universe having a "beginning" doesn't make sense.
So if a couple people said that an infinite universe was impossible, we'd have to ask what they meant by "infinite universe" (spacially? temporally? One direction or both? Is a multiverse/cosmos being considered?).
This string is why I love the world of agnosticism and atheism because unlike the theists here who argue for absolute knowledge of a thing atheists and agnostics can comfortably have a free exchange of potential theories where ideas are applied. Breck and Marcus, it is your certainty (Breck) and your insolence (Marcus) that make you intellectually feeble.
Chuck...so my disagreeing with you is "insolence"? Who died and made you god? Dr Lawrence Krausss agrees with me that the universe had a beginning and all evidence points to the fact if things continue as they are it will have an ending. He disagree with me that God created everything and he hates Intelligent design. Richard Dawkins is his friend. Is he crackpot too? Listen to his lecture - he believes everything came from nothing.
YouTube - Lawrence Krauss and Michael Behe debate
YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
Marcus prove to me that you aren't insolent.
What just because you disagree with me that you aren't insolent makes you not insolent?
Who died and made you the sherrif of who is or isn't insolent?
Marcus,
I wouldn't call it insolent, but it is borderline arrogance to claim a particular position is the "right one" in the face of multiple theoretical explanations that lack evidence to distinguish one from the other.
It's like walking into a crime scene with 6 or 7 suspects and arbitrarily deciding that the 5th suspect is the guilty party without any compelling evidence that makes the fifth suspect stand out from the others.
Krauss is no crackpot, but that doesn't mean that his speculations are any better than the speculations of any other theoretical physicist that puts forth a speculative idea that doesn't have enough evidence to validate it. You're backing Krauss because he says what you want to hear, and not because evidence warrants it.
The fact is, specific scientists often champion certain theories, and they often do so for selfish reasons (it is part of their research), but that doesn't mean that the theory they are promoting is the best supported one.
In your case, you're hanging your hat on what a given authority says, even though that authority will readily admit that the jury is still out on his own pet theory. That is not a sound basis for concluding that this theory proves one of the premises of the Kalaam argument correct.
It's amazing to me that you guys seem to think I'm wrong or arrogant. said the universe has a beginning. Lawrence Krauss says the same thing. so do many scientist. Why does that make me arrogant and them not arrogant? Sounds like a double standard. Oh and Chuck, keep up the personal attacks. They only serve to underscore how feeble your arguments are. Thank you for making it easy.
Marcus,
You are arrogant because you're trying to use (currently) unprovable speculations in theoretical physics as a basis for concluding that such speculations can prove a cosmological argument.
The really amazing thing is how you accuse Krauss of bias and making assumptions while not recognizing your own bias and assumptions. Krauss' "assumptions" are actually principles that keep getting born out and replacing our own self-centered biases. In short, your criticism is yet another case of a religious person projecting their own biases on someone else they disagree with.
Marcus,
You chastise us for not accepting what Krauss says in a short speech to a general audience. Fair enough. Does this mean that you too will accept everything he says in that same debate?
If not, why not?
"it is your certainty (Breck) "
Maybe I have a legitimate reason to be "certain" that you should remain agnostic about...
Marcus said,
"...Listen to his lecture - he believes everything came from nothing."
The key word there is BELIEF. Come back and instruct us when Krauss has PROOF.
Steven, where did I write that the cosmological argument is true - or that it was a convincing argument? All I said was that the the universe had a beginning. And all I said was the Krauss agreed that the universe had a beginning! I never said that I agreed with him on all points. This was to the people here that argue the universe had no beginning and/or is eternal! How is that being arrogant? In the Lecture, Krauss did not say...this is my view but I could be wrong. If he did not think his conclusion and analysis are correct he would never have said these things in public.
It all depends on the meaning of the words. Loosely put, the BB could be a "beginning" of sorts. If that's all Krauss was saying, then so be it.
Also remember that when discussing subjects to a very general audience, nuance gets lost which is why we're asking for reason & evidence and all you're giving us is an argument from authority. An authority you happily dismiss a few minutes later, I have no doubt, when Krauss talks about God.
GearHedEd, my point was that I'm not the only one thinks that the Universe had a beginning. You can't prove it didn't. Krauss did a great job establishing why he has come this conclusion and I agree with him. What's wrong with that?
Do you really honestly think that there is more evidence for an eternal universe, multiple universes, or an expanding/contracting universe rather than a finite universe with a beginning and an end? Really? Honestly?
Tyro,
I did some digging and found the scientists Craig cites. It is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
Marcus said,
"...GearHedEd, my point was that I'm not the only one thinks that the Universe had a beginning. You can't prove it didn't."
I never said it didn't. All I asserted was that the matter remains UNKNOWN. When you say the universe HAD a beginning and appeal to your favorite authority to back you up, you are claiming knowledge that no one possesses at this time.
Which goes to my previous statement about Krauss "believing" (but having no PROOF).
If you're going to tak a position of CERTAINTY, then you need to provide proof.
That's all.
@Arizona - I did a search and found a summary of some of the different theories of the universe's origin (including Borde-Guth-Vilekin): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
It is fascinating stuff. One of the few things we do understand is that we don't understand it. Our best theories break down and while there are things to fill the gap, no single one has stood out. With this level of ignorance and doubt, only fools claim certainty.
Here's a link to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkinpaper.
I got into this argument with Eric on another blog, and this is the result:
"
From Eric:
(Me, quoted): "I read the paper you linked. All of it. And the last couple of paragraphs didn't sound conclusive to me."
Eric's response: "What about Vilenkin's quote about the paper's conclusions?
Vilenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)"."
I went back and read the paper AGAIN, and here is what they said in the PAPER:
"...Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper."
Tentative. Says that "some new physics is necessary".
and
"...The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic."
Tentative: "...result depends on just one assumption...", but it's still an assumption.
then,
"...The class of cosmologies satisfying this assumption is not limited to inflating universes. Of particular interest is the recycling scenario, in which each comoving region goes through a succession of inflationary and thermalized epochs...One must look carefully, however, at the possibility of discontinuities where the inflationary and thermalized regions meet. This issue requires further analysis."
This includes the possibility of cyclical recurrences of universal manifestation, and he says himself, that
"This issue requires further analysis."
Tentative!
Is the quote you posted even referring to this paper? Or are you just counting on the hope that I wouldn't continue to pursue your obfuscations?
Hmmm?
"
You didn't answer my question: Based on current knowledge do we have a better explanation and data than the conclusion that the universe has a beginning? Krauss presented all the evidence you should need to come up with a conclusion. I'm not asking about certainty. Right now there is zero evidence for a multiverse or an oscillating universe that expands and contracts. I gave the evidence for anyone who wants to see it. If you disagree that the universe - Time and Space - had a beginning where is your evidence that it doesn't?
Marcus:
I think that what everyone here is trying to tell you is that there is agreement that the universe had a beginning, but it is unclear whether that beginning was preceded by NOTHING or by SOMETHING. There are some theories that speculate that the former is true and others that speculate that the latter is true. The key word is "speculation". There just isn't enough information right now to decide which hypothesis is true, and so the honest position to take is that we just don't know the answer.
Now, some scientists may prefer one hypothesis over another, and they have their reasons for doing so, but the point is that there is no compelling evidence to decide one way or the other. So, there is good evidence that the universe began 14 billion years ago, and there are few scientists who doubt that conclusion, mainly because of the compelling evidence. However, there is insufficient evidence to decide on what happened before that beginning.
Seriously, do you not understand the principle that one should withhold one’s assent to a hypothesis that has insufficient evidence to support it? Why is it so important to take sides in an issue when it is one of speculation? I mean, sometimes it IS important to decide upon an issue where there is little evidence to go on. For example, deciding whether an army will go into battle on the basis of poor intelligence. However, this is NOTHING like that. This is a matter of speculative physics, cosmology and metaphysics. No-one’s life is on the line, and so there is no pressing need to take sides on which pre-Big Bang hypothesis is true. So, why press the matter so?
My response is too long for a comment, but I responded to a choice selection of the best comments (and the original post) here.
@dguller
I'm amazed. I never said anything about trying to tell anyone that they were wrong. I was saying that there have been comments on this blog post saying that there is no compelling evidence that the universe has a beginning or that it came from nothing with certainty. All I have done was point out that there are lots of Scientists who say both. Why aren't they being rebuked for their certainty? Why aren't they insolent or arrogant? I haven't made a single strong statement in my comments on this post other than that there is good evidence that the Universe came from nothing and had a beginning and provided evidence that there are intelligent and credible scientists that would agree with that statement without putting down another theory or anyone that holds it. There have been some comments that I should not be certain or say that I'm certain. I agree that I am certain, but where did I write that? I did nothing but just state what I think is the best theory based on the evidence that I have looked at. Again what is wrong about that?
All I have done was point out that there are lots of Scientists who say both. Why aren't they being rebuked for their certainty?
Marcus, it is because you are reading far more into this supposed "certainty" than is really warranted. GearHedEd's summary of the BVG theorem is a case in point. The findings that are actually published and peer reviewed by these very same authors are far more tentative than your interpretations of their more popular statements (although, I admit that these folks often make it sound as though their findings are a lot more solid than they actually are, and that is a problem).
I'll admit that I was wrong in my previous post about you claiming to use these statements to prove Kalaam, but I stand by my comment about your projection of bias on Krauss.
Steven, I understand that you think I'm wrong to think Krauss is biased, but I'm sure you think he's biased towards everything is coming from nothing. So when it comes to who is biased and to what that is subjective and opinion. I'm just as welcome to my opinion as you are. Again my point is that people come down on the issues in multiple ways and they have evidence for those and again some folks on the post have commented that there is no evidence worthy of considering that everything came from nothing and the universe having a beginning.
I'm still waiting for someone to say that there is more evidence for many-universes and cyclical eternal universe than for a finite universe with a beginning from nothing. Are Krauss and Hawkings wrong abotu that? In my opinion, no.
Fellahs,
It occurred to me today at work that there's a huge vacuum in the whole "certainty issue.
IF:
P(1) If the BGV theorem was considered PROOF by those that wrote it, and
P(2) If having proved what the BGV theorem states is positive confirmation of the KCA such that NO ONE could deny the existence of a creative agent as the KCA purports to conclude, then
C(1) The story would be fron page news the world over!
News Flash!!
Science Proves God!
Atheists have no recourse but to accept the demise of their posiition.
As I said above,
"Marcus said,
"...GearHedEd, my point was that I'm not the only one thinks that the Universe had a beginning. You can't prove it didn't."
"
Conversely, neither you nor the BGV theorem can prove it DID, or they would be trumpeting the news all across the world.
@GearHedEd
I didn't say science proves God. I said that there is good scientific evidence that the Universe had a beginning and will have an end; and that it came out of nothing. That's it. That is all I have said.
Hi Ed,
Kalam is not a proof. When it comes to synthesizing faith with reason, I'm perfectly happy with "the probability of theism is high; the probability of atheism is low." I do not think atheists can easily accept that.
BGV is only a proof in regards to certain inflationary cosmologies. It proves that eternal inflation (and then later, Ekpyrotic) had a beginning. As they point out, and as you quote, it is possible that some new cosmology will turn out to be correct, and that this predicts an eternal universe. But once again, we are left with the overwhelming weight of the empirical evidence in favor of premise #2.
@Justin,
As I (and others) have said, Kalam's first point isn't merely in doubt but totally backwards and all of the theories of the universe's origin involve fundamental forces and primitive elements, NOT anything resembling a God. It absolutely does not give any support to theism. On the contrary, point (1) shows that a God is as necessary to explain "things" (matter, energy) as lightning or earthquakes (and in a couple centuries, theists who hung their hat on this gap will look as primitive & ignorant) and (2) are giving us the hints as to the ultimate explanation.
I can't imagine how you can take so much contrary evidence & reason and not just ignore it but flip it around to convince yourself that it supports your pre-selected beliefs.
Hi Tyro,
As I (and others) have said, Kalam's first point isn't merely in doubt but totally backwards and all of the theories of the universe's origin involve fundamental forces and primitive elements, NOT anything resembling a God.
The first premise of Kalam is very strong. Atheists sometimes argue that quantum mechanics falsifies it, but that is untrue. Quantum mechanics has uncaused events which refutes the premise "everything has a cause" but that is not the first peremise of Kalam. It merely holds that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Quantum mechanics does not touch that. Even virtual particles, which pop into existence, have a cause. They are caused by quantum vacuum fluctuations.
as lightning or earthquakes (and in a couple centuries, theists who hung their hat on this gap will look as primitive & ignorant) and
This is a tangent, but atheists constantly, and wrongly, conflate theism with paganism. Pagans have a lightning god and a rain god, and a weather god. By contrast, theism has a strict and careful separation of Creator from creation. The creation is an autonomously functioning machine. God intervenes to work miracles, but He does not intervene for its orderly functioning.
Moving back on topic, you have not succeeded in undermining premise #1 of Kalam.
And you've conceded P(2) to me, Justin, so kalam fails.
What undermines premise #1 of KCA is that nothing has ever been obverved "beginning to exist".
That's been covered already though.
@Justin,
Quantum mechanics does not touch that. Even virtual particles, which pop into existence, have a cause. They are caused by quantum vacuum fluctuations.
I don't think you understand the difference between a cause and an explanation. Quantum Field Theory explains why VPs exist, but it certainly doesn't cause them, not in any conventional meaning of the word. Worse. vacuum fluctuations are virtual particle, so it's nonsense to say that one causes the other.
This is a tangent, but atheists constantly, and wrongly, conflate theism with paganism. Pagans have a lightning god and a rain god, and a weather god.
No, pagans had immediate and present gaps in their knowledge which they happily filled with immediate and present gods. We have distant and remote gaps in our knowledge which we fill with distant and remote gods. You've found a gap in our knowledge - a poor understanding of the origin of the universe - and have gleefully plugged it with a god. Of course there's a quantitative difference between the early tribal gods and yours but the essence remains the same.
Marcus,
I didn't say you said that science proves god. Read what I said, and try not to look like you're being obtuse.
But I wiil venture that your statement,
"...there is good scientific evidence that the Universe had a beginning and will have an end; and that it came out of nothing."
IS good evidence that you're committed to using the KCA/BGV argument to plead for the existence of God.
Please cite some EVIDENCE that the universe emerged from literally nothing.
@GearHedEd...You said the following
P(2) If having proved what the BGV theorem states is positive confirmation of the KCA such that NO ONE could deny the existence of a creative agent as the KCA purports to conclude, then
C(1) The story would be front page news the world over!
News Flash!!
Science Proves God!
Atheists have no recourse but to accept the demise of their posiition.
You wrote that to say that If the Universe conclusively had a beginning and came from nothing it would be trumped that "Science proves God". All I was saying was that I am not trying to prove the existence of God by arguing that the Universe came into existence from nothing. You seem to have watched Krauss' lecture, you don't call that evidence? If you don't like my theory then why not state your own and give evidence for it. I've given you the evidence via that lecture by Krauss. Just because I don't agree with his conclusions about God or Christianity does not mean I can't agree with him about the Universe having a beginning coming from nothing. No one get published or noted for having a feeling about a theory possibly being correct without committing to it publicly. If you want to say you don't know is fine because the evidence doesn't convince you, but then you can't go and say a particular theory is wrong if you don't know if its wrong.
Marcus:
I am sorry if I caused offence. I simply get frustrated when people passionately adhere to certain propositions as if they were firmly supported by the evidence when they are nothing of the sort.
To clarify matters:
Do you admit that the proposition that the universe had a beginning that was preceded by nothingness is a hypothesis entertained by many prominent scientists, but for which there is no conclusive proof, and thus remains in the realm of speculation?
This is the key issue, because despite its adherents, there is no experimental or empirical evidence to support it. Without such evidence, ANY scientific hypothesis remains speculative. Even dark matter and string theory exist in this category of speculation, and so the absolute beginning of the universe shares good company! However, the prestige of its fellow travellers and its supporters does not change the fact that it is pure speculation at this point of scientific knowledge, and thus should not be the basis upon which any metaphysical or religious knowledge is based, because it would be like building upon sand, which is certainly real, but insufficient to support anything firm.
And this is what many here are trying to tell you, namely that you are attempting to erect a theological structure upon flimsy foundations.
Marcus:
Also, I am no physicist, and so I cannot evaluate whether one theory of the birth of the universe is better than another. So, perhaps there are currently better theoretical reasons to support your version over the others, but the fact remains that without experimental verification, it is still speculation.
The best example that I can come up with is the proposition that there is alien life in the galaxy neighbouring ours. This proposition is either true or false. Sure, people can come up with all kinds of theoretical reasons in support of either its truth or falsity, such as probability calculations and so on. However, would you REALLY start to believe in the existence of life in a neighbouring galaxy on the basis of such theoretical speculation? Of course not! You would rightly say that this is all just fancy guesswork, and until we have empirical evidence of life, then we should just remain agnostic about the proposition, even if the evidence was better for its truth, for example.
Same thing here. There are lots of reasons that one can cite in support of whether the universe began from nothingness or from some pre-existing substance, but these are akin to the fancy guesswork in the alien life form example above. In other words, even if there are better theoretical reasons for an ex nihilo scenatio, the fact remains that THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL OR EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, and until there is, it is just PURE SPECULATION. Why make such a fuss about speculation?
We may as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Theologians argued extensively about this proposition without any resolution, because it was all theoretical and there was no empirical way to falsify one theory or the other. It is far better not to waste one’s time on such matters, no?
@dguller
When was I "attempting to erect a theological structure upon flimsy foundations."? I'm trying to understand where I said anything like that because it was never my point. I have not tried to use the theory that the universe began from nothing and had a beginning to show that God exists or that the Bible is true in this thread. I have a Bachelor's degree in Engineering Physics from UC Berkeley and it is my opinion as well as others that there is good evidence for the universe having a beginning and emerging from nothing.
Marcus:
What does it matter to you whether there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning and was preceded by nothingness?
@dguller
If the Universe has a beginning and came from nothing it's an amazing scientific truth. IT's debatable about what it means and that is not the point I've been discussing.
@dguller I want to see what comes up with more knowledge. I know you are asking me if its true that the universe has a beginning and came from nothing so that I can say it proves God, but that is not my point. It would prove that the Universe came from nothing and had a beginning. The fact that God created the universe and exists does not depend on that. It's a matter of figuring out what God did.
Marcus:
Okay, fine. However, the fact remains that there is no confirmatory evidence that the universe's beginning was preceded by nothingness or some other pre-existing substance. There are just speculative justifications without empirical or experimental proof, which means that, at the current time, we just don't know what happened "before" the universe began to exist.
So, this is an issue that does not support the believer or the atheist, and we should just drop it until more evidence comes in to decide the matter.
What do you think?
@ dguller,
Thanks for trying to explain it to Marcus.
@ Marcus,
I didn't watch the Krauss lecture. What I said was that you stated that he 'BELIEVES' it to be the case that the universe emerged from literally nothing, and I said in reply to your statement that when Krauss has proof (as opposed to BELIEF), then he can instruct us.
Belief is an opinion.
As for things emerging "ex nihilo", the only things that say that concept points to a creator God is a bunch of Christian apologetics and speculation.
Marcus said,
"...No one get published or noted for having a feeling about a theory possibly being correct without committing to it publicly."
We both know that peer review doesn't consider implications when deciding if a paper has enough merit to be published, only whether the mathematical arguments are found to be sound.
Furthermore, if a scientist spends a great deal of time and effort working up a new theory, he is often irrationally committed to its propositions even in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary. Look up Fred Hoyle if you think I'm pulling your chain on this.
Ed,
Yeah, any theory that has the universe arising out of nothing (or nearly nothing) rely on theories similar to the Uncertainty Principle, and theories where the universe is 'caused' by anything, the cause is something like the interaction between two fundamental particles ('branes, which aren't really particles but fundamental M-dimensional sheets, but you get the idea). In comparison to these causes, your pet rock is literally billions of times more powerful, intelligent and god-like.
I have a pet rock?
Sweet.
@dguller
I agree there isn't enough information to say who is wrong. My point has always been that there is evidence.
@GearHedEd, If you didn't watch the lecture how can you determine or evaluate the evidence. You can't. Krauss gives the evidence and then gives his opinion what it all means. If you think other scientist have evidence better than his and supports alternate theories please point them out and i will be happy to take a look. And the universe having a beginning aND coming from nothing has been peer-reviewed and is in many publications. It's a viable scientific position at least as sound as any other regarding the origins of the universe. I think that people who dismiss it outright do so for the implications they fear rather than lack of scientific evidence.
YOU said "he believes", Marcus.
I trusted your assessment. Was your assessment wrong?
Second, Marcus, I'm not the one making claims here. I said "We don't KNOW." You replied that "Krauss gives the evidence and then gives his opinion what it all means".
Agan with the opinion.
And you said, " It's a viable scientific position at least as sound as any other regarding the origins of the universe."
So you're admitting that there's competing theories with at least as much chance of being the "right" one.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Finally, I didn't dismiss Krauss. I only asserted that there are other schools of thought out there, any of which may ultimately prove to be correct, or there may be some variation we haven't articulated yet that turns out to be correct.
You want Krauss to be correct. Was he your academic advisor? Seems there's an emotional attachment to his position...
GearHedEd, all i have been saying is that Krauss's position has evidence while some other people in this thread said that there was no good evidence. Finally, I never said that there was no other positions scientist take. only that I think that this is the best one given what we know now. If you think there are better ones, give them.
Marcus,
I seriously doubt you are agnostic on Cosmic origins as you claim. Are you seeking out theories to better understand what is currently not known or, to confirm what you "know" to be the reality of the universe?
Nothing you posted here has ever indicated the former and the latter is simply a Christian apologetic game to coerce people to your belief. It also misappropriates science to elevate the christian religion beyond superstition.
Basically, are you committed to intellectual inquiry or, are you what you seem; a polemical christian apologist who desires (demands) worldview hegemony?
@chuck, Believe whatever you want. You speak to demons after all.
Marcus,
I said earlier that despite your insistence that we accept Krauss's claims on this point, you would quickly find reasons to disagree with him elsewhere and you would give even weaker reasons. And so you have. For instance, you say:
Do you really honestly think that there is more evidence for an eternal universe, multiple universes, or an expanding/contracting universe rather than a finite universe with a beginning and an end? Really? Honestly?
Krauss believes in a multiverse and the expanding universe is accepted by all cosmologists including Krauss, and he says so in the links you gave. Yet you practically sneer at people who accept this. Why? Who is following the evidence here?
You didn't answer my question: Based on current knowledge do we have a better explanation and data than the conclusion that the universe has a beginning?
As has been explained to you many times, the term "beginning" when applied to the universe and time itself is a very, very imprecise term. Krauss was simplifying a complex situation. Yes, there was a Big Bang which is as far back as we can currently learn but was there anything before this and does "before" even have any meaning? These are still unanswered questions, and topics which Krauss did not address. But this is exactly what we're talking about, don't you understand that? You keep repeating this point and I think we all agree that there was a BB, but the story doesn't end there. You need to look deeper as this isn't a simple subject and the answer is far from decided.
Tyro, i haven't sneered at anyone who disagrees with me. i am disagreeing with those who deny that the universe had a beginning and there was very vocal people at the beginning of this thread doing exactly that. I'm saying that the idea that the universe has a beginning and came from nothing has viable scientific evidence behind it and I have met resistance. Yet no one has given any evidence for the alternate view points. And notice I'm not outright denying the other viewpoints only that the evidence points to my own.
Marcus,
I'm saying that the idea that the universe has a beginning and came from nothing has viable scientific evidence behind it and I have met resistance.
What do you mean by "beginning"? What do you think Krauss means? What do you think we mean?
I've tried explaining how this term is imprecise and the different ways that it can be used. In the face of such confusion, we have become more precise but you keep using the imprecise terms and complain that we are resisting. Well yeah, because it's complex and you are oversimplifying to the point that you're ignoring decades of work.
We've all admitted that there's a big bang and I think this is what Krauss is referring to when he talks of a 'beginning', but there's far, far more to the story than just this. Is that a beginning like a tree has a beginning, where pre-existing matter is merely transformed, or is it an ex nihilo beginning, out of nothing? Krauss definitely did not say the latter but this is how I interpret your claims. I don't think you're understanding Krauss and the state of the science but I can't tell because you won't clarify.
So please, if you're serious, can you explain what exactly you mean?
Tyro, I don't think I'm being imprecise at all. I'm not ignoring any work in the field. I don't remember you saying that there was no big bang. What Krauss was saying is simple: the universe began to exist at its beginning. At some point - time and space came into existence and prior to that point nothing that exists now existed. That is what I mean. I'm not complaining that there are people in this thread who disagrees with me. My problem is that some on this thread want to throw out the evidence for this view and instead embrace that multi-universe as being more likely yet I have seen no evidence at all for multiple universes. IK have heard many atheistic scientists even admit that they have no evidence for holding the view that there are multiple universes where all other possible realities are manifested. I also realize that there are so many different ways to look at all this.
What Krauss was saying is simple: the universe began to exist at its beginning. At some point - time and space came into existence and prior to that point nothing that exists now existed.
Where do you think Krauss says this? I watched the lecture twice and I can't see him say anthing like that, in fact he argues against you a few times. Krauss is a supporter of the multiverse which exists prior to our universe which is even pointed out in the show notes of the lecture you linked to. You even acknowledge that you disagree with Krauss on the multiverse which implies you know very well that he's a supporter. In particular that means he does NOT believe there was nothing before the universe; there was the multiverse. In fact, at 50:44, he describes people that claim certainty about our origins as "pompous assholes", hardly the words of someone who thinks an ex nihilo origin is plausible.
IK have heard many atheistic scientists even admit that they have no evidence for holding the view that there are multiple universes where all other possible realities are manifested.
Painfully ironic since there is no evidence for "nothing" prior to the BB and in fact there are many many good reasons why there was no "nothing", yet you accept it in spite of the consensus.
As to the multiverse, there is no direct evidence yet there are good arguments for their existence. As we've said over and over and over, in the face of so much uncertainty and change, the best position is to say "we don't know yet" and to acknowledge that mutually exclusive models agree with the evidence we've collected to date.
Tyro
I did not say that Krauss denied the multiverse. I said I did. Krauss at one point says people say that we can't explain how we get everything from nothing and then he goes on and gives the way he thinks it happened - quantum fluctuations When I said he says the universe came out of nothing that is what he was saying. I never said that I agreed with him completely on everything. And I also never said that there weren't other ideas under considerations. But the point i was making was that the position that the universe began to exist and is not eternal is just as viable, if not more (and I think it is) as any other theory. Pick the one you like best until we get more information. My point is that discounting a non-eternal universe, as some have done in this thread, denies scientific evidence.
Krauss at one point says people say that we can't explain how we get everything from nothing and then he goes on and gives the way he thinks it happened - quantum fluctuationsf
Where does he talk about this, in particular where does he talk about "nothing"?
And considering that quantum fluctuations occur in a medium, that seems like a pretty clear illustration that he's not talking about "nothing". This is what I meant when I said you are missing the meaning and intent of these discussions, perhaps because you're reading far more into words like "begin" than the speakers intend to convey. As far as I can see, Krauss does not agree with you and does not support your claims. If you think that we should follow the evidence, the consensus of scientists and respect authorities (as you admonished us repeatedly), are you willing to do that yourself?
My point is that discounting a non-eternal universe, as some have done in this thread, denies scientific evidence.
What evidence do you think points so clearly to a universe which came from nothing? You can use bullet points but please use your words and don't link to more hour-long YouTube lectures, especially if they don't corroborate your points.
Tyro..if science proves there are multiple universes I'll accept it. Just like I believe the earth is 4.5 Billion years old. I've done calculations myself in college showing that given the information we have. That's not counter to anything in the Bible. Besides that, the Bible does not say there are no multiple universes. As for Krauss, I'm surprised you missed the part where he talked about "nothing" and quauntum fluctuations. I'll post the time stamp later. I was only saying that that Krauss agrees that the universe had a beginning and you can get something out of nothing. I never said I agreed with his conclusions otherwise. The title of is lecture is "A Universe Out of Nothing" - his title not mine.
The "Universe out of Nothing" is not referring to what happened before the universe, but to how we get a universe richly populated with matter while requiring no net energy (matter == "thing", just like "money for nothing" isn't talking about divine creation). That's why he spends so much time talking about the curvature of space and weighing the universe, all leading up to the major point that the universe has zero net energy. That means no energy is required, a universe out of no-things.
Tyro...I'm not arguing about the religious implications. I'm saying that I agree with that. My point is that people are trying to avoid the religious implications by saying the universe is eternal. What are "no-things"? Nothing. We are not just talking about matter, but space, time,and energy included.
What are "no-things"? Nothing. We are not just talking about matter, but space, time,and energy included.
Yes, we are but Krauss was not, that's the point. You have to listen to the context or you have to look at the equations. You're not doing the latter and not doing the former, so of course you'll reach incorrect conclusions.
In KCA, what is a "thing"? What do you think a "thing" is? Is that what other people would say a "thing" is? I know people talk about the empty space in the atoms, between electrons and the nucleus but it isn't empty, there are all sorts of particles like photons and neutrinos but people don't consider them a "thing". Even the term "matter" excludes huge categories of particles. It's fine talking to a general audience but at some point you need the precision. That's a big reason why KCA is such a joke - the terms are puffy and vapid.
In Krauss's talk, a "thing" is matter and energy and he explains how we can get all the stars and galaxies without breaking energy conservation and without requiring any matter or energy to start it off. The net energy of the universe is zero, that's the whole point of the talk, not what might have come before. I should think that was pretty clear as it was the entire focus of the talk.
Precious few physicists will talk about the "nothing" you're referring to since it's so ill-defined. Besides, if God existed, it wasn't "nothing", was it?
Tyro, that may have been what you have been talking about but a few folks in this thread have tried to argue for an eternal universe that did not come into existence. Are saying that they are right to be sure? I don't think so. Also, while I agree that "nothing" should be precisely define I think I defined what I mean by "nothing" precise enough for the points I was making. If you disagree that's fine. And God's existence doesn't invalidate ex nihilo because those who would hold that position would not argue that God mad the universe out of himself. To say that is being imprecise.
Are saying that they are right to be sure?
Who said that? Right from the start people have been arguing that we simply don't know enough and that in cases like this the right answer is to say "we don't know" and not to shove a god into this gap.
If anyone claims to be sure about this point, they don't understand the state of our science and knowledge. Another likely possibility is that you two may not be communicating well and that you perceived certainty there it wasn't present. If I noticed someone acting like you described, I would have spoken up and if I missed it, I apologize.
And God's existence doesn't invalidate ex nihilo because those who would hold that position would not argue that God mad the universe out of himself. To say that is being imprecise.
But he existed so there wasn't nothing, surely that's the point.
If god can exist but create without using part of himself, then we're back to (1) where particles are created where no particles previously existed. That's as much out of nothing as God's creation, or so it seems to me. It doesn't seem consistent to undermine one while defend the other.
Marcus said,
"...the Bible does not say there are no multiple universes."
I've heard arguments from Bible-thumpers (not you, Marcus) that claim that because rain is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible before the Noah's Ark story, that it NEVER rained before Noah's Ark.
Using similar arguments, Christian apologists will most probably argue against multiple universes being anywhere near the truth.
Here's an example of the type of language difficulty problems tyro's complaining about:
There's a semantic difference between "multiple universes" and "multiverse". "Multiple universes" can mean several different, but separate universes, while "multiverse" implies a condition where there is a fundamental connection amongst the various '-verses'.
You keep asking for proof of multiple universes,. That's not the same as evidence of a "multiverse".
Get it?
I wonder if Marcus reslizes that Krauss would probably consider Marcus' views those of a "pompous ass"
Chuck it takes one to know one.
Mike D,yes! As per the argument from Existence, as the Metaverse is all, there can be no external cause or matter when it came. And per the infinite regress argument, cause, event and time presuppose previous one.
See Peter A.Angeles's "The Problem of God: a Short Introduction," about these two arguments and so much more!
Mike D said:
"...It's still false. In quantum mechanics, the classic rules of causality don't apply. Not everything that begins to exist has a cause. The first premise is bogus."
Tyro said:
"...I loathe the first premise. Not only is it unsubstantiated by evidence but in the few cases where we know that something genuinely begins to exist, it does so without a cause. Attacking the second premise is fine but our knowledge of QM is far better than of the BB where we know that our knowledge breaks down (what Ed is relying on)..."
dguller said:
"I agree with everything, except (1). I honestly believe that we haven't the foggiest idea about what comes out of nothing, because all our experience is about different configurations of matter and energy, and NEVER about NOTHINGNESS per se. So, since nothingness is completely outside the scope of our experience, any conclusions reached about what happens out of nothingess is pure speculation and should be disregarded as fantasy until it can be empirically confirmed in some way."
-----------------------------------
There's tree quick votes for throwing out P(1), as well. Take your pick.
:o)
i have just made 2 videos deconstructing (Craig's) approach to the KCA. see what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7iAnaYG5rE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxIcYKEHAig
P(1) is definitely the weak one. P(2) is, though, spurious too.
Post a Comment