The Kalam Cosmological Argument Discussion

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Coloradomtnman, Mar 25, 2009.

  1. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

    Here is the summary that Kalam posted a link to so that everyone who wishes to can read it.

    Shortened to comply with board copyright rules
     
  2. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    Alright, Kalam, in regards to what you posted in my other thread:

    Why is time and spacetime not important when speaking cosmologically? I don't understand what you mean so could you clarify?
     
  3. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    The idea that space and time exist as parts of a single, continuous aggregate doesn't eliminate the need for a cosmological prime mover. I think I understand what you're suggesting, though: because the concept of stimulus and response is dependent on the passage of time, stimuli and responses can't precede time (spacetime) itself. The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing, or that the universe has existed perpetually. Both of these ideas are demonstrably impossible.

    Anybody familiar with physics feel free to tell me if I'm making a fool of myself...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    You cannot fool me, young man.

    It's TURTLES...turtles all the way down!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    Well, I would argue that one can't demonstrate the impossibility of two ways in which the Universe didn't come into existence, but I get your point.

    I would say that because human beings don't understand the laws of physics in a singularity, from which it seems the Universe expanded, perhaps in that situation the Newtonian law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or, in other words, cause and effect, isn't the Prime Mover. Perhaps what "caused" the "Big Bang" is something outside of human experience and understanding. Those things which are outside of human experience and understanding, historically, tend to be labeled or attributed to God.

    I think the human psychological need to have a cause may blind us to what may have really happened.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I agree, but in the opposite direction. "God" could indeed just be a force of some kind beyond the limitation of human intellect. That does not however dismiss "God", or a creator, but IMO only reaffirms it.

    The expansion of the universe is a man-made theory. It is not fact and does not contain the two key ingredients -- an established center and established boundaries.

    The Big Bang, a scientific theory, defies its own laws by creating something from nothing, a scientific impossibility.
     
  7. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    You're right in that it doesn't preclude that there is a creator, but I would say that is also doesn't dismiss that there isn't a creator for just the very same reason. I think that since we don't or can't know what created the Universe, to assume its a creator is just as much an assumption as any other assumption. Its just assumption with just as much credibility as any argument.

    However, there is significant evidence to support the theory of expansion: #1 the red shifted light of stars moving away from us which is a result of the Doppler effect on light waves and was discovered by Edwin Hubble, and #2 microwave radiation coming from everypoint in the observable Universe.

    I don't what an established center or boundaries has to do with supporting or not supporting the Big Bang. Clarify what you mean, Gunny?

    Its not that the Big Bang defies its own laws, because that would be like saying the black holes defy the laws of physics. Its just the the laws of physics aren't and probably can't be understood in a singularity. The Big Bang doesn't defy the laws of physics, the laws of physics changed, maybe numerous times, during and immediately after the Big Bang.

    That isn't to say that the Big Bang is fact. And no scientist would put it that way; it is, after all, a theory. Its just that its a theory with a lot of supporting evidence and a theory that has helped to explain and assisted physicists to better understand some of the observed astronomical phenomena.
     
  8. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    I guess you're right. :tongue:

    Something coming from nothing is axiomatically impossible, and a universe with a period of existence stretching into negative infinity would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. That would have been a better way to put it.

    The stimulus would have existed distinctly from the response (the response being the singularity and its expansion) and presumably would not have been bound by any laws of physics. Still, this assumes that the Big bang occurred when the universe expanded from a singularity. I think that at least a few hypotheses concerning the Big Bang don't include singularities in their descriptions of the universe's formation.

    Incidentally, you've raised an interesting point and made me wonder about the nature of singularities. What laws of physics, if any, govern singularities? Can anything even occur within an entity with zero volume? :eusa_think:

    Maybe our natural understanding of existence has limits. As a subscriber to the cosmological argument, I'm convinced that a supernatural explanation is absolutely necessary in this case, in spite of the fact that ridiculous supernatural explanations have been to explain natural phenomena in the past. I maintain that the formation of the universe is the singular event for which a natural explanation cannot conceivably exist.

    Unfortunately, our examination of the universe can only take place within the psychological framework of Homo sapiens... unless we're able to make contact with another species capable of communication and abstract thought.
     
  9. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    Now from a physics point of view that is certainly a great point, and I can only agree. So, we can agree, with some certainty, that spacetime, the Universe, reality as we know it has a definite beginning.

    What I mean to say is, maybe there wasn't anything before the Big Bang. I know, I know, its impossible to get something from nothing. In this Universe, but before the Big Bang, maybe it was possible. In fact, I would say that to make that assumption is just as credible as saying God did it.

    Is it zero volume? If you think of those computer generated models a black holes is sphere where spacetime is warped almost like a three deminsional (or technically four deminsional) whirlpool. So its not zero volume, its just extremely dense. Almost infnitely so. Because, if you remember Einstein's famous equation E=mC2 (how do you do a superscript?) for anything that has mass to reach the speed of light would increase in mass to infinity which is why nothing can go the speed of light except massless particles or waves or both like light. And if light can't escape the gravitational tug of a black hole... Maybe that's not true, maybe its that light can't escape from the warped spacetime? I don't know but its fun to speculate!

    Okay. Now why do you think that? Why can't there be a natural explanation. Actually, if we were able to come up with an equation that explained the beginning of the Universe, and it was God, wouldn't that be a natural explanation?

    Its kinda like factories. Most people would assume they aren't natural. But I, even as a stodgy environmentalist, would say that factories are natural. Otherwise it would the same as saying bee hives aren't natural. So if God is the creator of the Universe, then there could be nothing more natural than God?

    Yep, but sometimes there are human beings who attain to new level of thinking (like Einstein and Newton and Galileo) that expands all human psychological capacity. Maybe someday we'll get to where we can explain the Universe in an equation that somehow includes the inherent flaw of human perception and understanding, but not any time soon, and, in my opinion, probably not. Cause then, wouldn't we be gods?
     
  10. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    The idea of a universe before the Big Bang contradicts the Big Bang theory itself, doesn't it? What you're suggesting is an impossibility, and I don't think that we can simply ignore that fact because of our own limited understanding. I disagree that believing that the universe spontaneously created itself out of absolute nothingness is a more credible and logical theory than the idea of a cosmological unmoved mover.

    For the most part, the subject of advanced theoretical physics is beyond my limit of comprehension. It's difficult for me to fully understand something that, so far, is unobservable and only exists theoretically, like singularities, the masslessness of light quantums, etc. But, you're right; it's fun to speculate. :cool:

    Because the natural universe could not have been created by something natural - something within its own self.

    Since the creator is distinct from creation, an explanation including God would be supernatural.

    God would transcend all of the laws of nature, so I think it would be inaccurate to describe God as natural, because that would suggest that God was bound by those laws.

    We'd simply be more knowledgeable. If knowledge was all that was required to attain god-status, there would be quite a few among us already. :eusa_think:
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2009

Share This Page