AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

As mentioned in previous posts, the Kalam Cosmological argument is the second step in the discussion since it is intending to explain why there is something rather than nothing. I am not sure what the Atheist reply to this is. - The argument has three premises which lead to a personal, transcendent Creator. The argument is as follows. - Premise 1: The universe had a beginning
1.1) The Universe has not reached maximum Entropy (scientific)
1.2) The Big Bang (scientific)
1.3) Cannot cross an infinite set of events (logical)
1.4) Cannot form an infinite collection by successive addition (logical) - Premise 2: The beginning event of the universe was caused
2.1) Each event needs a cause (logical)
2.2) Experience shows that an event needs a cause (scientific) - Premise 3: The cause for the beginning event was personal
3.1) Evidence that the Universe was designed so there is a Designer (scientific)
3.2) The cause willed to initiate the creation event (logical) - For a presentation that lays this out in more detail, please use this link 
http://www.sincereanswer.com/eternity/files/doc/Cosmological.ppt - Comments?

6333 views

The "Kalam Cosmological" argument is just a fancy name for the "first cause" argument. - Most modern atheists accept that the universe had a beginning. The scientific evidence is from tracing back the expansion of the universe to the "big bang" and the need for a simple origin to account for the direction of time, as shown by increasing entropy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. - The second premise, that every effect has a cause, is the questionable one. According to quantum theory an event does not need a cause. It can just happen. The universe can appear as a "fluctuation in the void". This does not violate the law of conservation of energy, since the positive energy tied up in matter is balanced by the negative potential energy of the expanding universe, the total remains zero. - If you argue that everything has a cause, and that a god caused the creation of the universe, there is then the question of what caused the creation of the god in the first place, you get an endless regression. It is simpler to suppose that the universe just appeared, out of nothing, because nothing is an unstable state; it only takes a small change and you have something. - What I'm not sure of with this argument is whether the "nothing" from which the universe came is the same as philosophical "nothingness" or is some sort of physical "void". Can they be identified as the same? Victor J. Stenger in his books, such as "God the failed hypothesis" seems to do this. - An alternative view is that the universe is everything that exists, including space and time, so there is no sense in talking about anything outside or before or after the universe. One can trace back time to a beginning, but there is nothing before that, just as there is nothing north of the north pole.

6262 views


> The second premise, that every effect has a cause, is the questionable one. According to quantum theory an event does not need a cause. It can just happen. The universe can appear as a "fluctuation in the void". This does not violate the law of conservation of energy, since the positive energy tied up in matter is balanced by the negative potential energy of the expanding universe, the total remains zero.
> 
 It is simpler to suppose that the universe just appeared, out of nothing, because nothing is an unstable state; it only takes a small change and you have something.
> 
> What I'm not sure of with this argument is whether the "nothing" from which the universe came is the same as philosophical "nothingness" or is some sort of physical "void". Can they be identified as the same? Victor J. Stenger in his books, such as "God the failed hypothesis" seems to do this. 
> 
> An alternative view is that the universe is everything that exists, - By definition Stenger is wrong. Our space is a froth of quantum potential particles. We only know our space and can only describe our space. Our space can trigger quantum events. What if the universe is all there is and appeared out of nothing. What is the universe expanded into? That would be an absolute void in which there is by definition nothing, no quanta to be potential, and that would certainly be true if our universe 'is everything that exists'. - It is not as simple as Stenger and George make it seem.

6219 views

David: It is simpler to suppose that the universe just appeared, out of nothing, because nothing is an unstable state; it only takes a small change and you have something. - I just don't follow this at all. You can only speak of stability in relation to a property which can be varied continuously. A pin balanced on its end is unstable because an infinitesimal change of angle from the vertical will lead to an increase in that angle. You are here trying to make something-ness a property which can be continuously varied. A "small" amount of "something-ness" is nonsense. There either is something or there isn't. - It is rather like you saying that a light switch is unstable because a small change in its on-ness means that it is off.

6346 views

David was quoting me quoting Stenger. Here is an article by Stenger that explains his case more fully: - http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html - He provides this "physical" (as opposed to merely philosophical or logical) definition of nothing: - Stenger: This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing. - Then why is there something rather than nothing? Because something is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing-more than twice as likely according to one calculation. - My own interpretation of what I read was along simpler lines: "nothing" is expressed as zero: 0, but this is short for 0.000000... where the zeros express the accuracy with which 0 is determined. Thus it only takes a change in one distant 0 in this decimal fraction for 0 to become greater than 0, i.e. "something". But clearly Stenger's view is somewhat more sophisticated!

6287 views

Mark: The quote is from George Jellis. Read his entry. I'm as confused as you are. George can't have it both ways: either the universe is all there is and came from a void and is expanding into a void, or it is part of a multiverse, unproveable, and our space always existed with its potential quanta.

6244 views

Personally, I don't buy the "multiverse" theory since it violates Ockham's razor by miles. But of course I can't prove this, and there are many respectable scientists (e.g. the Fantasist Royal, oops sorry, the Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, and the quantum computerist, David Deutsch) who support it. - I prefer the arguments of Wilczek and Stenger, which favour the view that the universe is the way it is because it could be no other way. But of course this preference is partly for aesthetic reasons. I'm prepared to change my opinion if evidence becomes available that points some other way. - Incidentally according to relativity the "expansion" of the universe is not supposed to be "within" or "into" anything, it creates its own space and time as it expands.

6179 views


> Incidentally according to relativity the "expansion" of the universe is not supposed to be "within" or "into" anything, it creates its own space and time as it expands. - If this is true, accepting the relativity theory as absolute fact, then there was an explicit beginning in the Big Bang, and that fits the math fact there is no 'before' before the Big Bang as shown mathematically by Guth et al. Logically we think of a space as something that has an inside and an outside. If the universe is expanding like a loaf of raisin bread with all the raisins (Galaxies) spreading apart it is very difficult to imagine the universe does not have an edge. Is it a torus? We know that space is generally 'flat', and therefore most likely to expand forever. Imagining the relativity theory statement is like imagining quanta weirdness. - I also can never buy the multiverse theory, which is unprovable and certainly un-Occam. The philosopher of science, John Leslie, concluded in his book, "Universes", 'much evidence suggests....tht God is real and/or there exist vastly many, very varied universes.' We really are left with 'either/or' and 'and/or'. And mutiverses are out of sight. - George, you and I are left with a universe that appeared suddenly, and perhaps out of nothing, unless we assume there was pre-existing space with potential quanta dancing around. Now we consider that it is expanding into nothing. How do we know there was pre-existing space? Just to fit Stenger? To accept Stenger one is forced to accept multiverse theory. Creation becomes a possibility.

6141 views

Some responses to david's last message: - David: "Logically we think of a space as something that has an inside and an outside." But the outside is not necessarily real. It is just a way we have of modelling things within our universe. - David: "If the universe is expanding like a loaf of raisin bread with all the raisins (Galaxies) spreading apart it is very difficult to imagine the universe does not have an edge." I think you have to distinguish the observable universe (out as far as our event horizon) from the actual whole universe. - David: "Is it a torus? We know that space is generally 'flat', and therefore most likely to expand forever. Imagining the relativity theory statement is like imagining quanta weirdness." I agree, it's difficult. I'm still trying to get my mind round it. - David: "I also can never buy the multiverse theory, which is unprovable and certainly un-Occam." There are in fact several different multiverse theories, the most objectionable to my mind is Deutsche's (or Everett's) that a whole new parallel universe branches off with every quantum action, to account for all possibilities. The type implied by Stenger requires only that universes can appear from nothing by chance, so presumably there can be any number like our own, but whether they can ever interact is not clear. I'm content to suppose that it happened just the once. - I've never been impressed by John Leslie's arguments. 
 
David: [We] "are left with a universe that appeared suddenly, and perhaps out of nothing, /// Now we consider that it is expanding into nothing. How do we know there was pre-existing space?" No it is not necessary to postulate anything pre-existing, except "nothing", which doesn't "exist" in the material sense. That's another paradox we find it difficult to get our minds round. - I shall have to put my ideas onto my website somewhere, to save making too many long posts here trying to explain what I mean!

6233 views

If I may summarize George's position: There must be something before the Big Bang. There cannot be a quantum fluctuation to start our universe without quanta. Therefore, in a sense, Einstein's original assumption that the universe is eternal is in a way correct. Something is eternal. A multiverse is an eternal possibility. An undescribed quantum state is an eternal possibility. The theist position is that there is an eternal God. Reasonably we come back to Pascal's 50/50 wager. The natural materialists want an eternal something and so do the theists. Interpretation of the evidence is then based on personal preference, which is why the decision for belief or un-belief must be based on more evidence than cosmologic origins. The design of the universe and the design of life strongly suggest a designer. Once again personal preference comes to play, but I think the odds are no longer 50/50. The design we see, if by chance, is mathematically impossible, using Borel's 10 to the minus 50, or Dembski's 10 to the minus 150. For example Roger Penrose concluates the odds against the initial conditions to start the universe at 10 to the minus 123.

6199 views

David: "If I may summarize George's position: There must be something before the Big Bang." - Wrong! My position is that there must be NOTHING before the big bang.
Not even a "before". I thought I'd made that clear, but obviously not!

6181 views


> Wrong! My position is that there must be NOTHING before the big bang.
> Not even a "before". I thought I'd made that clear, but obviously not! - Now I'm totally confused. How does Stenger get something from nothing? Please explain.

6191 views

See the article by Stenger linked to in my post of 9th June above.

6215 views

Thank you for reminding me of the earlier entry. I know why I forgot it. Mathematicians can do anything with numbers and believe it is reality. Hawkings tried to find out what was before the Big Bang using imaginary numbers. It didn't work. I will never agree to believe that nothing can be capable of something. To say that something is more natural than nothing is anthropomorphic thinking and it is a declarative statement that has no basis in experimentation. To reach almost nothingness and then have that state react is no true nothingness reacting, it is almost nothingness reacting. We live in something, but absolute nothingness is certainly possible. I need to search for some clear-thinking physicist who has reviewed and refuted this. I don't have the tools to do it. I know the unvierse adds up to zero, but it is not nothingness. Positive and negative particles are both something.

6181 views

I finally found time to do some research on my point of view regarding something for nothing. Just Google 'Cosmology something from nothing' and all sorts of articles and commentaries pop up on both sides of the question. In summary, atheistic physicists imagine and have 'faith' in a 'something state' with quanta, but not the space-time of our universe, In their version a quantum fluctuation causes the universe. They base this on the experimental finding that in a created vacuum potential quanta can pop up. But note that is a created vacuum within our space-time. I am imagining, to study this issue, a complete void where there are no quanta and nothing else. Nothing should happen. But something did happen. That leaves us with two possibilities in that before the universe situation, as I stated before. That gives us a 50/50 proposition before the universe's Big Bang, either an atheistic 'something quanta state' or theistically a God force. There can be only those two possibilities, except for the multiverse, which is a theoretical offshoot on the 'something' quantum state. We can never know who is correct. You pays your money and takes your choice. Stenger has proven nothing.

6198 views

I googled "Cosmology something from nothing" and got only one article! However putting the quote marks round "something for nothing" rather than the whole phrase produced more results. One of them was a Wikipedia entry, to which I took the liberty of adding an introductory paragraph. Whether it will stay there for long remains to be seen. - David wrote: I am imagining, to study this issue, a complete void where there are no quanta and nothing else. Nothing should happen. But something did happen. - What does it mean here to say that something "happens"? If there is no time then "happening" has no meaning. - David concludes: That leaves us with two possibilities in that before the universe situation, as I stated before. That gives us a 50/50 proposition before the universe's Big Bang, either an atheistic 'something quanta state' or theistically a God force. - At the risk of being repetitive, my view is a third possibility, namely that there was no "creation" or "coming into being" there was simply a "beginning". This may be a splitting of hairs, but the situation is not easily covered by everyday language. To talk about there being "something before the beginning" makes no sense, as I have said (citing Hawking I think) it is like "something north of the north pole". - If we try to talk, paradoxically, about the "nothing" that "existed" before the universe, it possessed neither time nor space. It was truly a philosophical logical and metaphysical nothing. The universe has existed since the beginning of time, or in other words the universe has "always" existed. It has a beginning, but nothing existed "before" it.

6187 views

George stated: 
> At the risk of being repetitive, my view is a third possibility, namely that there was no "creation" or "coming into being" there was simply a "beginning". This may be a splitting of hairs, but the situation is not easily covered by everyday language. To talk about there being "something before the beginning" makes no sense, as I have said (citing Hawking I think) it is like "something north of the north pole".
 
> If we try to talk, paradoxically, about the "nothing" that "existed" before the universe, it possessed neither time nor space. It was truly a philosophical logical and metaphysical nothing. The universe has existed since the beginning of time, or in other words the universe has "always" existed. It has a beginning, but nothing existed "before" it. - It is true there was no time or space before the universe. My issue is Stenger's declaration that supposes a quantum fluctuation was the cause and we are here as something from nothing. My issue also is George citing Stenger. We cannot exclude a 'truly philosopical logical and metaphysical nothing' from which this universe arose.

6157 views

I want to make it known that no one has shown any of the premises of the Kalam is false. - Here is my summary of the other positions being discussed - 1) "That there was no "creation" or "coming into being" there was simply a "beginning". The first premises of the Kalam address this and show that the Universe had a beginning." What is wrong with the premises?
2) A quantum fluctuation happened. This is logically absurd because a quantum fluctuation requires a vacuum which requires something (i.e., spatial dimensions and time) to exist. This view is just wrong.
3) There is an infinite number of multi-verses. This is speculation and bad science and bad philosophy. First, the scientists are confusing an actual infinite with a potential infinite -- actual infinites don't physically exist. Secondly, if these multi-verses existed for an infinite amount of time (i.e., no beginning) then they should have run into each other. I think of it as a desperate act to get away from a conclusion that is distasteful. Antony Flew addressed this in his recent book about his conversion to theism. My memory is bad about this but he asks the question "Why should our Universe arrive?" 
4) "The arguments of Wilczek and Stenger, which favour the view that the universe is the way it is because it could be no other way." But how does this get around a beginning to the Universe or a cause? Is this intended to address the design argument because it doesn't seem to address anything but be a mere opinion.
5) The universe is eternal. But the Kalam shows it is not eternal so this is not a possibility. - So, what is it that is illogical about the Kalam? - On another note, the Kalam provides more than a 50/50 proposition of either an atheistic 'something quanta state' or theistically a God force. Please back up this opinion. - 
I also feel the need to address the notion that "universes can appear uncaused from nothing by chance." People who say these sorts of things are being illogical and inconsistent. They do not live this way. For example, if you see a car in your driveway that you didn't put there, would you believe that it appeared from nothing, uncaused, by chance? If police were to find a bank manager had $100,000 in his briefcase, would we believe it appeared from nothing, uncaused, by chance? Absolutely not!!! So why is it that people can say this sort of thing about the Universe without a shred of evidence? Are they trying to get away from the real answer? Why?

6480 views

I will respond to some of Curtis's points. - 1) "That there was no "creation" or "coming into being" there was simply a "beginning". The first premises of the Kalam address this and show that the Universe had a beginning." What is wrong with the premises? - You have not defined what you mean by "a beginning". Do you mean a zero point of time, or first instant of time? Or do you mean a creation event? The existence of a zero point of time does not imply a preceding creation event out of some pre-existing state. - 2) A quantum fluctuation happened. This is logically absurd because a quantum fluctuation requires a vacuum which requires something (i.e., spatial dimensions and time) to exist. This view is just wrong. - Why couldn't the space-time dimensions have been zero? I see no logical contradiction here. - 5) The universe is eternal. But the Kalam shows it is not eternal so this is not a possibility. So, what is it that is illogical about the Kalam?
 - For me to say that something is "eternal" means that it exists for all of time, from time zero to the end-time whenever that might be. By this definitin, the universe IS eternal. - In your slides you define eternal as "beginningless", which is something different. The universe has a "beginning" (in the sense of a zero of time) so it is not eternal in this new sense. - However in another of your slides you describe "eternal" as meaning having "an infinite number of past seconds". This is yet a third meaning. You say that the first cause "existed for eternity", and yet "time did not exist". This is all self-contradictory paradox-making, and quite illogical. - Curtis concludes: I also feel the need to address the notion that "universes can appear uncaused from nothing by chance." People who say these sorts of things are being illogical and inconsistent. They do not live this way. For example, if you see a car in your driveway that you didn't put there, would you believe that it appeared from nothing, uncaused, by chance? If police were to find a bank manager had $100,000 in his briefcase, would we believe it appeared from nothing, uncaused, by chance? Absolutely not!!! So why is it that people can say this sort of thing about the Universe without a shred of evidence? Are they trying to get away from the real answer? Why? - The case of the universe, which is "all that exists" is different from the case of something that exists within the universe. Since the universe is all that exists there is nothing outside the universe. So in imagining the universe as being within, or coming into existence within, some larger universe we are attributing to it features that it does not have. It is a habit of mind difficult to escape from.

6365 views

Curtis has summarized the Kalam Cosmological Argument for us as follows:
Premise 1: The universe had a beginning
Premise 2: The beginning event of the universe was caused
Premise 3: The cause for the beginning event was personal - My reservations are the same as those outlined in my posting of 21 May at 10.50, when you originally raised this subject. I'll leave the scientific discussion to the scientists, but go back over the rest. - No problem with Premise 1. I can happily accept the Big Bang as the beginning of our universe. We have no way of knowing if anything did or did not precede it. - No problem for me with Premise 2 (despite George's objection, 8 June at 13.06). - Definite problems with Premise 3, but let me stress that I accept all its implications as a possibility. The reservations: 1) We can't know if there is a prime cause. Evidence of design (agreed) could be the result of accident plus natural laws. Difficult to believe, but no more difficult than a supreme, conscious intelligence that sprang from nowhere or, alternatively, has always been there and we shouldn't ask how it got there. 2) If there is/was a designer that "willed the creation event", what is its nature? By this I mean two things: its form (material, what we call "spirit", some kind of life totally unknown to us?) and its character (does it have feelings, does it care etc.?). There is a huge gap between the concept of intelligent design and that of a "personal" God, though it might be helpful to know exactly what the term means to you. If I may quote Matt's illuminating posting under Code, Information, and Design (8 June at 20.43), we can only "guess (or use other fancy scientific words for guessing) at causes". - You guess that there is a personal God, George guesses that there is nothing but the natural laws, David Turell guesses that there is some kind of intelligence but we cannot ascribe any qualities to it. Matt again: "each of us will choose to believe whatever we want, according to our understanding." He tells us that over 50% of the world's population believe in a God figure, and only 2% are atheist (10% agnostic). I don't know who went round with the clipboard, but hats off to him. When Georgiopolous Galluponides (only kidding) conducted an opinion poll 2500 years ago asking if the world was flat, he got a 100% positive response. "Guesses" change as new observations are made, and who knows what observations will be made in 50, 500, or 5000 years' time? Matt says "I don't want to bash anyone because I want to spend my time pursuing truth." I certainly don't want to bash the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it might be dead right. But it might be dead wrong, and I'm not guessing either way.

6509 views

Review Part 1 - I have been asked to review this thread, so for what it's worth, here goes. - A lot of the discussion is around Stenger's idea that something can come from nothing. I have read the article referenced by George. It may be a fair account of the science, but it is philosophical nonsense. His nothing is not nothing. It is a quantum mechanical void with quantum fields at zero energy states which obey the laws of physics of our universe. That simply is not nothing. It may be the nearest to nothing that is describable with our physics, but it still leaves us asking where the physics and the fields came from. I think this is fairly obvious, but it's worth noting that John Polkinghorne is in agreement with me. - Like dhw, I can accept premises 1 and 2 of the original post of Curtis, but do not accept that premise 3 ("the cause for the beginning event was personal") can be demonstrated by either logic or science. - Even though I am a Christian, I am not a fan of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The fact that their validity is disputed is not, I believe, due to wilfulness on the part of atheists not to think rationally. It is because they genuinely are not entirely convincing logically. I don't think they are as easily dismissed as someone like Richard Dawkins would suggest, but at the same time I think they are a shaky ladder to use to climb to faith. Even if you accept them you are certainly not left anywhere near the Christian God.

6122 views

Thank you Mark. I'm not the only one wondering why Stenger abuses science the way he does. I'm sure George wants to accept Stenger without truly thinking it through, because such nonsense supports his atheism completely. Stenger's extrapolation from the science of our space-time to tunneling from nothing is pure fantasy.

6219 views

Review Part 2 - So we've not got very far with the big question at the head of the thread: "Why is there anything at all?" It is a big question. For atheists it is the one which won't go away. - It may be interpreted as two questions:
1) What is the cause by which anything exists?
2) What is the purpose for which anything exists? - So far the discussion has only addressed the first of these. I cannot see how science can ever answer the first question. To do so it would have to explain how from a proper nothing (not a Stenger nothing) you can get something. Given that by definition there is no science of a proper nothing, science can say nothing about a nothing. Richard Dawkins, incidentally, doesn't appreciate this. All he says, optimistically, is "We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics". Equivalent, that is, to natural selection for the evolution of species. But the crane he is looking for is just what he says ... a crane for physics ... and to find that you have to step outside of science itself, by definition. - Christian doctrine holds that God is the creator of everything that is not God and that God himself is uncreated. God has aseity, i.e. he is "of himself". Now it may be objected that God is no more acceptable as a terminus than the universe itself. Why is it easier to believe in God as an uncaused origin than, say, an uncaused Stenger nothing? My answer would be that a Stenger nothing (or equivalent) has nothing within it that explains itself. It is understood, or at least ultimately capable of being understood, by science. On the other hand, while God is to us an impenetrable mystery as far as his aseity is concerned, to allow the mystery is to allow that there really is an answer to the question. The fact that we do not know the answer, and that finite human creatures may never have the capacity to comprehend it, doesn't matter. I find it far more satisfactory to believe that there is an answer. To my mind, materialistic atheists rule out the possibility. - It's worth noting that Richard Dawkins misses the point again when he likens belief in God to belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden. The reason I do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden is that there is no pressing question to which fairies may be the answer. "Why is there anything at all?" is, for most people in the world, a very pressing question, whether Dawkins likes it or not. - The second form of the question, "What is the purpose for which anything exists?", is even more inaccessible to science. Again, the atheist has to say that there can be found no purpose outside of ourselves. It is for us to create a purpose for the fleeting period we are around. Beyond that, life has no meaning. I rather believe that such things as love, joy, peace, truth and beauty are lasting goals, not ephemeral creations of the human brain which disappear when you study them. And I believe that they are real because they are grounded in God.

6429 views

Mark says: ""Why is there anything at all?" It is a big question. For atheists it is the one which won't go away." - As far as I am concerned it has indeed gone away. Mark thinks that a Stenger nothing is not a "proper" nothing! He is wrong. - The "crane" for physics, or part of it, is "symmetry breaking". Here is another Stenger article. See the section "In the Beginning" about half-way down. - http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html - Mark: "On the other hand, while God is to us an impenetrable mystery as far as his aseity is concerned, to allow the mystery is to allow that there really is an answer to the question. The fact that we do not know the answer, and that finite human creatures may never have the capacity to comprehend it, doesn't matter." - This is just self-contradictory mysticism. The answer is an impenetrable mystery? That is not an answer at all. - Mark: ""Why is there anything at all?" is, for most people in the world, a very pressing question," - No it isn't. Survival from day to day is the pressing question. This is just a party game for metaphysicians. - Mark answers the second question "What is the purpose for which anything exists?" himself, and as an atheist I agree with him that "such things as love, joy, peace, truth and beauty are lasting goals, not ephemeral creations of the human brain which disappear when you study them" and I see no harm in science studying them.

6268 views

George: "Mark thinks that a Stenger nothing is not a "proper" nothing! He is wrong... Here is another Stenger article... " - I have read that as well. Again, for Stenger, the quantum science and quantum fields are givens. They are there at his origin for the universe. Therefore his origin is not a nothing. If you can clearly see that I'm missing something here you'll have to work harder at explaining it.
 
Mark: "On the other hand, while God is to us an impenetrable mystery as far as his aseity is concerned, to allow the mystery is to allow that there really is an answer to the question. The fact that we do not know the answer, and that finite human creatures may never have the capacity to comprehend it, doesn't matter."
George: "This is just self-contradictory mysticism. The answer is an impenetrable mystery? That is not an answer at all."

George, please point out the self-contradiction which you claim to see.
 
George: "Mark answers the second question "What is the purpose for which anything exists?" himself, and as an atheist I agree with him that "such things as love, joy, peace, truth and beauty are lasting goals, not ephemeral creations of the human brain which disappear when you study them" and I see no harm in science studying them." - I see no harm in using science to study them. I just don't believe that science could ever explain them. A materialist must say that they disappear when studied and understood (I should have said 'understood') since in this view matter is all there is. Perhaps you are an atheist but not a materialist?

6337 views

Sorry for being away so long. Work caught up to me. - You are correct in your summary of the Kalam Cosmological Argument as:
Premise 1: The universe had a beginning
Premise 2: The beginning event of the universe was caused
Premise 3: The cause for the beginning event was personal - I see that premise 1 and 2 seem acceptable. Note that there are many legs supporting each of these. - I would like to address premise 3 since that is where some uncertainty is. I have recently uploaded a more refined presentation of premise 3 which seems much clearer (see http://www.sincereanswer.com/eternity/files/doc/Cosmological.ppt). It uses the impossibility of crossing an actual infinite as its basis which is established earlier in the presentation. - Dlw you have the following reservations which you may need to clarify for me. Let me identify and address them with my numbering. - 1.1) "We can't know if there is a prime cause." I think this is the point of the Kalam. The conclusion of the Kalam is the prime cause is personal, eternal (outside time), all powerful and all knowing (It created everything), is a spirit being (exists outside of our Universe, non-spatial and immaterial), supremely intelligent, and immutable. I will presume that this is closed. - 1.2) "Evidence of design (agreed) could be the result of accident plus natural laws." This is a separate topic by itself and should be covered elsewhere. - 1.3) "Difficult to believe, but no more difficult than a supreme, conscious intelligence that sprang from nowhere or, alternatively, has always been there and we shouldn't ask how it got there." The first part of this ("sprang from nowhere") is illogical and not part of my position. The latter part ("has always been there and we shouldn't ask how it got there") is a straw man argument. An actual infinite regress of first causes is an impossibility (see slide 52). It is not that we cannot ask "how it got there": the question is itself illogical. This is one of the reasons I like the Kalam is that it uses logic to see what really is: according to the Kalam, we can ask "how it got there" but the answer is that "logic says your question is invalid and so there is no answer." - 2.1) "If there is/was a designer that "willed the creation event", what is its nature?" See the answer to 1.1. - 2.2) "By this I mean two things: its form (material, what we call "spirit", some kind of life totally unknown to us?) and its character (does it have feelings, does it care etc.?)." See 1.1. It has a will so it has a personality (i.e., a character). Its form outside our Universe is not material but that is not to say that it could not intrude in our space/time continuum and take a physical form. Surely if a being can create all that is, it can step into what it has created. - 2.3) "There is a huge gap between the concept of intelligent design and that of a "personal" God" If we agree that premise 3 is valid, then we can move on to the next thread of evidence. - Now, here is my challenge. Where is the logic of the Kalam wrong? Do you grant the three premises?

6378 views

Welcome back, Curtis. Work has a nasty habit of interfering with more important things, and many of us feel it should be abolished. - Unfortunately, I couldn't log onto the website you recommended. It said "page not found" but also seemed to want a password, which presumably requires registration, and I find that off-putting. The fact that I couldn't read the website may explain why I also failed to follow your own logic, although this could simply be due to my ignorance and stupidity. The areas I can't follow, incidentally, include the learned discussion that has been going on in your absence over the subject of nothing. I'm tempted, like King Lear, to cry out, "Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again." - Premises 1 & 2: I prefer to say "our" universe, which we are gradually getting to know, and am happy to go along with the theory that the beginning was caused by the Big Bang. But in my naivete, I cannot see how nothing can go bang. Whatever preceded and caused it must surely remain unknown to us ... we have no means of going back before it. For all we know, our big bang may have been a blip in a vast laboratory. - What we do know is that our universe works, and its elements are so "finely tuned" (David Turell) that it appears to be designed (ditto the origin of life). There are two possible explanations for this: a) the universe was designed, or b) the elements fell into place by a combination of chance and natural laws. You say that b) "is a separate topic by itself and should be covered elsewhere." In relation to the origin of life, it has already been covered at great length, but so long as we keep it in mind as an ever-present alternative, by all means let's confine this discussion to the scenario of a designed universe. - My problem, of course, is with your 1.1): "The conclusion of the Kalam is the prime cause is personal, eternal (outside time), all powerful and all knowing (It created everything), is a spirit being (exists outside of our Universe, non-spatial and immaterial), supremely intelligent, and immutable. I will presume that this is closed." - Absolutely not. This is the whole crux of the discussion. You have drawn a conventional picture of God as worshipped by the main religions, and you go on to say that any question about how it got there is "illogical". It's only illogical if one accepts that God is eternal, but that is one of the premises you are trying to prove. Also if I ask about its nature, you say you've already told me in 1.1), but that is precisely what I'm questioning. - My objections are twofold: a) as above, we can't go back before the beginning of our universe, so we have no way of knowing what preceded it (if there is/was a prime cause); b) if the force that caused the Big Bang and created life is indeed a conscious being, why should that logically mean that it has any of the qualities you have attributed to it? Why should it be "personal" (see, for instance, the thread on deism)? Why eternal (it could be a form of life superior to our own but nevertheless subject to ending, like everything else we know)? Why all powerful and all knowing (same argument, plus deism ... the great experiment: let's start it all up and see what happens)? Why non-spatial and immaterial (some people believe that God is the universe)? Supremely intelligent: agreed, in the sense that it is vastly more intelligent than us. Immutable ... why? Same argument as under 'eternal'. In any case, if it has a mind, why shouldn't it change it ... e.g. "Maybe I'll wipe out the dinosaurs and create something a bit more like myself. I'll call it Adam"? - Just saying that there is a prime cause which is God as you describe him doesn't constitute evidence. I could say the prime cause is chance and the natural laws; or there was once a being called Yahweh, Allah, Brahma or Fred, which was incredibly clever, made our world, and then went pop; alternatively, he made our world, sat back and is now watching us make a complete hash of it, but couldn't care less because as far as he's concerned, it's all a show. Don't misunderstand me. I could also say that he cares deeply about us, and one day he'll answer all our questions and treat us to a glorious afterlife in his spirit world. One of these theories must be close to the truth, but I cannot find any logic in the argument that there has to have been a beginning and therefore the beginning was a personal God.

6347 views

DHW: Go to Curtis' website, click on presentations, then go to cosmologic argument and you will find his power point slide show. Even reading it I feel like you do. Is God a person? A special sort of person as Mortimer J. Adler presents? God is purposely concealed, "I am who I am", He told Abraham. That part of Curtis' argument is based on a desire for faith, but doesn't hold water.

6214 views

Thanks for the tip, David. I've tried to log on several times, yesterday and today, but the moment I click on "cosmological argument" my computer jams and I have to close it down. Supernatural forces at work, perhaps? - Since you've read the site, though, and feel as I do, I'll wait now for Curtis's response.

6202 views

David,patience. Let's finish with this leg of the evidence and then we'll move onto what the First Cause is like. - First, do you agree with the three premises of the Kalam and their supporting points. If not, why?

6348 views

Dhw, thanks for responding. - I see what happened to the link in the prior post: the ')' was included as part the http request which the web site could not handle. My apology. - Try this - http://www.sincereanswer.com/eternity/files/doc/Cosmological.ppt - You did say "Whatever preceded and caused it [the Big Bang] must surely remain unknown to us ... we have no means of going back before it." Here is where the presentation would have helped. You will see in the presentation that there are three premises, and each premise has several supporting, independent points. There are two categories for the supporting points: scientific or logic (i.e. philosophical). The first premise of the argument is attested to very strongly by scientific thought. Logic is the defender of the other two premises. I say this because we must include logic as a way of knowing, as well as scientific activities. So, we can know or understand what happened before the Big Bang by using logic; we can know what preceded it with a high degree of certainty. - I want, at this point, to lay out what the Kalam provides at the end, in the hope that you will see how the argument moves forward. The end of the Kalam provides a causal agent that is: - 1.1) Personal because the creating force has the ability to choose, which is to say a 'will' of its own. Only a personality can choose. - 1.2) Eternal because it has no beginning, it is beginning less. That is the definition of eternal. - 1.3) All powerful and knowing since It created everything. There is nothing known about the Universe that it does not know since it is the source of the rather fine-tuned explosion. - 1.4) A spirit. It is obviously not material since it created matter. It may choose to enter into a material state but that would not be all it is. - 1.5) Supremely intelligent because of the fine tuning of the cosmos and genetic code for life. - 1.6) Immutable since it is not matter. - I don't mean to be arrogant by saying that asking 'any question about how it [personal cause] got there is "illogical".' I think an actual infinite regress of first causes is a logical impossibility (see slide 52) so such a question would be illogical. Let me try to elaborate a little. - Let's say there are two types of beings: contingent things which depend on other things for their existence and necessary things that don't depend on other things. The First Cause would be a necessary thing that would always exist. The Universe is a contingent thing. Asking what caused a necessary thing is like asking "Why are all bachelors unmarried?" or "Why are all orange things uncolored?". - Now, you are correct that an eternal First Cause is what the Kalam is trying to show. So, please ask any questions you may have about the Kalam. - You said "Just saying that there is a prime cause which is God as you describe him doesn't constitute evidence." I agree. My intention was to refer to the presentation which you weren't able to download. Sigh. I would like to refresh this discussion. - Now, what the Kalam doesn't give us is the God of Christianity. That requires the next leg of evidence but first we have to finish this leg.
So, back to the beginning ...

6425 views

Curtis has referred me to a website explaining the Kalam. - I tried it from your posting, and it jammed the computer. I tried David Turell's technique, got the website, but the moment I clicked onto 'Cosmological Argument' it jammed again. I tried the thread above it ... the critique of Darwinian Evolution ... same thing. Every time I try, I have to shut the computer down and start all over again. There are strange forces at work! - Obviously David and George have no such problems, and I'm following the various discussions with great interest. I don't want to go over the Kalam conclusions again, because clearly they depend on the argument I haven't been able to log onto, but you've kindly invited me to ask questions, so perhaps I could go back to "the beginning". However, it may well be that in answering George's objections you will cover this ground too, so please don't feel obliged to duplicate your response to him. - If the Big Bang was the origin of the universe as we know it, what went bang? Why should the universe as we know it not have been preceded by the universe as we don't know it? The First Cause proposed by the Kalam might be an eternal, constantly changing mass of matter and energy contained in space (not a "contingent thing"), so why bring conscious spirit into the equation? Even though we can't explain the provenance of the universe, at least we know that matter, energy and space exist, so why complicate things with an additional inexplicable mystery that we don't know exists (see Ockham's razor)? - The argument for Intelligent Design is totally different, but as far as I can tell, that is not the science or the logic behind the Kalam. I don't want to be misunderstood on this. I find it impossible to dismiss the argument for design, both in relation to the universe and to the origin of life, but I still can't follow the Kalam leap from a finite beginning and cause to eternal consciousness. - Once again, I'm sorry my computer problem is compounding the difficulties!

6280 views

Has anyone considered the possibility that the universe is like a movie that runs over and over, and it always ends and begins with a black hole in the Large Hadron Collider which becomes the next Big Bang whilst sucking in the old universe?
"If the LHC were to make microscopic black holes, it would be tremendously exciting â and no danger," quote from on scientist on an NBC report on the LHC.

6075 views

"If the LHC were to make microscopic black holes, it would be tremendously exciting â and no danger," quote from on scientist on an NBC report on the LHC. - The first thing they'll be looking for is the Higgs boson, the theoretical very large particle, for the proposed Higgs field. I wish the larger Texas collider had been finished, with a 27 mile diameter. It would have found a lot more particle beasties that the LHC will, but this is a great advance, and the results will take years to sort out.

6113 views

My previous post was just a little flight of fancy. I understand that the gravitational effect of the earth's mass would be the same whether it was a black hole or a giant marshmallow, so that it would have no effect on the universe at large.
I too wish the Texas collider had been built. We would have been much further along than we are now. The possible result from the LHC that puzzles me the most is the possibility of more dimensions. I cannot conceive how that would be manifest, or what type of calculations would be involved.

6093 views


> I too wish the Texas collider had been built. We would have been much further along than we are now. The possible result from the LHC that puzzles me the most is the possibility of more dimensions. I cannot conceive how that would be manifest, or what type of calculations would be involved. - String theory has become such a dead end that the scientists who have a vested interest in it (grants!) are bringing up any possibility of reviving it. Two books: "The Trouble With Physics", by Lee Smolin, 2006 and "Not Even Wrong", by Peter Woit, 2006 make it quite clear that 25 years of advanced math research, looking for a unified theory by string/membrane theory with 10-11 dimensions, is a dead end. It allows for multiple solutions or universes, and is currently untestable, in part because there is nothing to test. It is all higher math theorizing without any physical evidence. It has been attractive becasue it 'seems' to bring together classical and quantum physics.

6095 views

Personally I rather hope that the Higgs boson is not found, since this will mean that the current "standard model" of particle physics, and associated big bangery, are all wrong and everyone will have to get back to the drawing board. - What has always seemed wrong to me in modern physics, since I first studied the subject fifty years ago, is its continued dependence on ancient Greek continuum geometry and real-number arithmetic. Instead what needs to be developed is some new basis for describing phenomena which initially makes no use of these concepts, but which derives them as a limiting result when dealing with the human and larger scales. To some extent quantum theory does this, but it is still formulated using the methods of continuum mathematics (e.g. Schrodinger's equation). - The work of Lee Smolin and his friends on quantum gravity seems to me to point in the right sort of direction, but I suspect there is a long way yet to go. When the right approach is eventually found it will be a radical paradigm shift and a lot of misapprehensions will fall away. These are of course just my personal intuitions based on what I've read and thought about the subject over the years. I'm not a prophet, I could be quite wrong. (Back in the fifties I thought Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory had a lot going for it.)

6115 views

Personally I rather hope that the Higgs boson is not found, since this will mean that the current "standard model" of particle physics, and associated big bangery, are all wrong and everyone will have to get back to the drawing board. 
> - George: I'm confused. I though the Higgs boson was an offshoot of the 'standard model' and is an expected finding. Penrose appears to agree, but I don't know enough math to follow all his reasoning. And science does advance when everything 'is all wrong', for at least we get rid of a bad side road to the understanding of our reality.

6078 views

George: "I'm not a prophet, I could be quite wrong. (Back in the fifties I thought Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory had a lot going for it""
The difference between a prophet and a scientist is that scientists are allowed to be wrong occasionally. Of course, if you are wrong too often, you become like the aforementioned assassin.
As for the remainder of the post, that will take some time to think about.

6080 views

This Nature Editorial covers some of the same sort of ideas that I was trying to express: - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/455002a.html - Quote: This is not to imply that physicists hide blindly behind the maths (although some probably do), but that they might not acknowledge or even recognize that the mathematics shields them from genuine conceptual questions. - Edit: just found this: "Hawking bets that LHC won't find Higgs": - http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/09/hawking-bets-that-lhc-wont-find-higgs.... - Quote: I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again.

6241 views

George says the problem with the current particle physics model is "dependence on ancient Greek continuum geometry ."
 For those who, like myself, may not be up on your Greek continuum geometry, here is a page elaborating on the issues George describes.
I am currently reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes published in 1986. It covers the progress of quantum mechanics and development of the nuclear science from Einstein forward with occasional flashbacks. It is fascinating to read about the struggle of these mental giants as they try to comprehend the atomic nucleus. It is also an excellent study in the way science is done. The cast of characters is quite large, and the narrative sometimes disjointed, but it is a good read. What are the chances of getting men such as these and an Einstein with his thought experiments to get the paradigm shift that George is looking for in particle physics. It requires a rare ability to back off and look at such a complex body of knowledge from a completely unique perspective.
Regarding Lee Smolin, I was surprised to find a little of my flight of fancy about the LCH creating a black hole that generates a new universe in his "Fecund Universe" theory. I am not so sure about his evolution of universes idea. How do you falsify that? His loop gravity idea also replaces the big bang with a big bounce. I noticed that big bounce got short shrift in the discussions prior to my arrival on this site, and I wondered why.
As usual, research credit goes to Wikipedia. I agree with David that you can't trust it completely, but you shouldn't trust any source completely. But I find it invaluable for a quick peak about a topic.
In regard to hoping not to find the Higgs bosun, I hope they do. I'm just the sort of guy who prefers solving old mysteries to finding new ones. I want to know the answer.

6099 views

Sorry about that. Here we are talking about infinity and beyond, and I can't even make hyperlink work. The address is
http://books.google.com/books?id=iNUvcniwvg0C&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=continuum+geometry&source=web&ots=oJ5fNhrnyx&sig=nvG1XoPdt6mt0OXW8SicM0pMp7M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Now you see why I tried hyperlink.

6136 views

An article from Scientific American 
 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce 
disagreeing with the Big Bang theory in combination with an article from Livescience 
 http://www.livescience.com/space/080930-st-universe-void.html 
indicating that the universe may not be expanding forever after all illustrates the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. In the previous discussions of the origin of the universe, the Big Bang with and ever expanding universe was treated as a given, as close to an established fact as science can provide. Now it is being called into question. I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of this new information, but it does confirm my skeptical attitude toward any certain knowledge from science. But, again, it's all we have.

6078 views

In the previous discussions of the origin of the universe, the Big Bang with and ever expanding universe was treated as a given, as close to an established fact as science can provide. Now it is being called into question. I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of this new information, but it does confirm my skeptical attitude toward any certain knowledge from science. But, again, it's all we have. - Carl is absolutely correct. Two books point out that cosmologic physics research has gone nowhere for the past 30 years. Read "Not Even Wrong, The Failure of String Theory", by Peter Woit, 2006 or "The Trouble With Physics", by Lee Smollin, also 2006, the latter claiming that string/membrane theory leads nowhere and champions quantum loop gravity as the answer. The best comment I have ever found by a cosmologic physicist is in the book, "Faster than the Speed of Light", by Joao Magueijo, 2003. From page 235 onward: "But what we lack in achievement we make up for in panache. Indeed, we not have not one 'final answer'. but at least two, and although no one has the faintest idea how to test these theories with current technology, everyone is quick to claim that he alone holds the holy grail and that the others are all charlatans. The two leading quantum gravity cults are called string theory and quantum loop gravity. Since they don't connect with experiments or observations at all, they have become fashion accessories at best, at worst a source of feudal warfare. Today they constitute two enemy families...." All of this is based on the "beauty" of higher math equations. If the math is beautiful it must be correct in its predictions!! - Of course the scientists should question everything, but untestable theories have taken over, and to repeat, cosmologic physics has been a complete muddle for over 30 years. Another Einsteinian insight is needed.

6080 views

I think David and Carl are confusing hypotheses and speculative theories with soundly established scientific knowledge. At the very frontiers of particle physics and cosmology there are of course conflicting and competing ideas. That's just how it should be. But the basics of the structure of matter and the expansion of the universe are not in dispute, except among way-out eccentrics, conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists.

6041 views

I think David and Carl are confusing hypotheses and speculative theories with soundly established scientific knowledge. At the very frontiers of particle physics and cosmology there are of course conflicting and competing ideas. That's just how it should be. But the basics of the structure of matter and the expansion of the universe are not in dispute, except among way-out eccentrics, conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists. - I'm not confused George. I think you are not doing enough basic reading. The structure of matter and expansion of the universe are not in dispute, but the rate of advance in cosmologic physics as shown by the books I quoted and the hairbrained suppositions I've been seeing ( note Magueijo's quote) indicate that the theoreticql folks are just milling about in some confusion and have done so for a number of years. As I believe you have stated I hope the LHC finds the Higgs boson so everyting can move on. For example of weird ideas, Steinhardt and Turok who proposed in 2002 that our universe was a giant membrane with a dark companion membrane infinitesimally close to it and every billions of years they bang togeather and we have a new big Bang. I never saw a supporting followup.

6074 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum