William Lane Craig and the Kalam argument

[Carrikature]

well discussing logic with you lately has become an exercise in futility. And yeah it does reflect what we know of "physocs" - ask big Red. all physics breaks down at the singularity. There is no time, no space, nothing. Time=0, space=0, density=infinite. Time and space were created during the expansion. Not before. Science can't tell you where the singularity came from, why it expanded, or anything about it at all. That is why is it called a singularity. All science can tell you is that it expanded into this universe.

I think this is where we run into trouble discussing origins and what 'must' be. The KCA tries to establish a 'must', but it relies on information we simply don't have.

Let's say that we can't discuss time before the Big Bang (which afaik matches our current scientific understanding). We can talk about logically prior, maybe, but that doesn't helps us with 'before'.

Can we say that something changed between pre- and post- BB? We'd have to...but change requires time.

Step back further. Before BB, there was still something, even if we can't begin to describe what properties that something had. So we're left with...what? Something that might be God or could be anything and might have always existed except 'always' and 'existence' don't mean anything in that context.

Make any claim about what it is, and you'll have overstepped. Which is cool for me. I don't need to make a claim. The theist is the one that feels the need.

[Sparko]

I think this is where we run into trouble discussing origins and what 'must' be. The KCA tries to establish a 'must', but it relies on information we simply don't have.

Let's say that we can't discuss time before the Big Bang (which afaik matches our current scientific understanding). We can talk about logically prior, maybe, but that doesn't helps us with 'before'.

Can we say that something changed between pre- and post- BB? We'd have to...but change requires time.

Step back further. Before BB, there was still something, even if we can't begin to describe what properties that something had. So we're left with...what? Something that might be God or could be anything and might have always existed except 'always' and 'existence' don't mean anything in that context.

Make any claim about what it is, and you'll have overstepped. Which is cool for me. I don't need to make a claim. The theist is the one that feels the need.

I think WLC handles it well. You are right, something caused the singularity and expansion. I know Shuny would argue that the singularity started from a previous metaverse, maybe the singularity is a "white hole" from a metaverse's black holes? We have no idea what happens in a black hole, perhaps it gets turned into a new universe. But that only pushes the problem back one more step. And even theorizing such a metaverse is still just imagination, no better than saying "God did it"

WLC says that an event like the BB takes an eternal actor to cause it. It could be a previous universe, or it could be God. God could cause an event to happen without time or space to happen in.

[Carrikature]

I think WLC handles it well. You are right, something caused the singularity and expansion. I know Shuny would argue that the singularity started from a previous metaverse, maybe the singularity is a "white hole" from a metaverse's black holes? We have no idea what happens in a black hole, perhaps it gets turned into a new universe. But that only pushes the problem back one more step. And even theorizing such a metaverse is still just imagination, no better than saying "God did it"

WLC says that an event like the BB takes an eternal actor to cause it. It could be a previous universe, or it could be God. God could cause an event to happen without time or space to happen in.

This is pretty much why I find the KCA irrelevant. Agree that an eternal actor caused it if you like, but you can't prove that your idea of that actor is correct. Net gain: zero.

[Sparko]

This is pretty much why I find the KCA irrelevant. Agree that an eternal actor caused it if you like, but you can't prove that your idea of that actor is correct. Net gain: zero.

taken with the other points, it makes a very good argument for God.

The argument against an actual infinite regression, destroys the idea of a previous universe having created this one, and a universe prior to that one having created our prior universe, and so on. What we are left with is a beginning, one that has a cause, an eternal cause. And if it is eternal it has to be able to act without time, and start something that created our universe.

[Carrikature]

taken with the other points, it makes a very good argument for God.

The argument against an actual infinite regression, destroys the idea of a previous universe having created this one, and a universe prior to that one having created our prior universe, and so on. What we are left with is a beginning, one that has a cause, an eternal cause. And if it is eternal it has to be able to act without time, and start something that created our universe.

I don't accept the argument against an actual infinite regression. Regardless, if there's an eternally existing universe which regularly generates micro-universes (of which ours is one), you have the exact same thing. It doesn't even have to be a regular thing.

Nothing you've said here has to be God.

[seer]

I don't accept the argument against an actual infinite regression.

Why not? How does one move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present event (the universe)?

[Carrikature]

Why not? How does one move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present event (the universe)?

We've been through this ad nauseam in the past. I'm not interested in discussing it with you again.

I don't mean this to be offensive, though I understand if you take it that way.

[Adrift]

taken with the other points, it makes a very good argument for God.

The argument against an actual infinite regression, destroys the idea of a previous universe having created this one, and a universe prior to that one having created our prior universe, and so on. What we are left with is a beginning, one that has a cause, an eternal cause. And if it is eternal it has to be able to act without time, and start something that created our universe.

He actually goes into it more as well. He makes the point that whatever caused the universe must have been tremendously powerful, immaterial, eternal, and then offers up an argument for why it must have also been a personal agent. So, it's not like he says "something must have caused the universe, therefore...God." Whether folks agree with his conclusion or not, there are connective elements in his arguments between the Kalam Cosmological Argument and God verses some other non-personal agent. I'm not sure why folks are denying that element of his approach to the subject unless they simply aren't that familiar with his arguments.

[Adrift]

well discussing logic with you lately has become an exercise in futility.

Lately?

[Sparko]

He actually goes into it more as well. He makes the point that whatever caused the universe must have been tremendously powerful, immaterial, eternal, and then offers up an argument for why it must have also been a personal agent. So, it's not like he says "something must have caused the universe, therefore...God." Whether folks agree with his conclusion or not, there are connective elements in his arguments between the Kalam Cosmological Argument and God verses some other non-personal agent. I'm not sure why folks are denying that element of his approach to the subject unless they simply aren't that familiar with his arguments.

exactly. Most people just see the outline of the argument and not the details. This is obvious in this thread, especially by why shuny is asking what does proving an actual infinity can't exist have to do with the argument. If he doesn't get that, then he doesn't understand the argument at all in the first place.

For those interested in the KCA, here is a link to it:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-e...f-the-universe

[Carrikature]

He actually goes into it more as well. He makes the point that whatever caused the universe must have been tremendously powerful, immaterial, eternal, and then offers up an argument for why it must have also been a personal agent. So, it's not like he says "something must have caused the universe, therefore...God." Whether folks agree with his conclusion or not, there are connective elements in his arguments between the Kalam Cosmological Argument and God verses some other non-personal agent. I'm not sure why folks are denying that element of his approach to the subject unless they simply aren't that familiar with his arguments.

Let's look at it, then:

Source: ReasonableFaith

Conclusion

Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

© Copyright Original Source

Who says the necessary and sufficient conditions exist from eternity? He as much as admits this by pointing out that a creator could choose to create the necessary conditions. He gives zero support for why this is only possible with something making a choice.

He sees the obvious question about an eternal God being unchanging, but his answer is still applicable to anything else that exists.

None of this establishes personal, even if we granted a creator.


We disregard this conclusion because it's not worth the time. The KCA is the meat, and that's what most people bother with.

[Leonhard]

Why is mv²/2 = GMm/r OK? Reference (1 - 2GM/(rc²))^1/2 for black holes.

But mc²(1/(1 - v²/c²)^1/2 - 1) = GMm/r not OK?

Reference 1/(1 + GM/(rc²)) no black holes.

How should GMm/r be rewritten?

You assume that both are correct. You're relating potential energy to kinetic energy classically in the newtonian sense, and mixing and matching the two in the other. However both are the wrong way to calculate the Schwarzchild Radius if you wanna do it according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The odd thing is that the Newtonian approach (the first one you outlined) accidentally gives the right result. Which is kinda neat.

[Adrift]

Let's look at it, then:

Source: ReasonableFaith

Conclusion

Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

© Copyright Original Source

Who says the necessary and sufficient conditions exist from eternity? He as much as admits this by pointing out that a creator could choose to create the necessary conditions. He gives zero support for why this is only possible with something making a choice.

He sees the obvious question about an eternal God being unchanging, but his answer is still applicable to anything else that exists.

None of this establishes personal, even if we granted a creator.


We disregard this conclusion because it's not worth the time. The KCA is the meat, and that's what most people bother with.

I'm sorry to say, but I'm not following your train of thought here. Also, you're picking apart a very brief summary on Craig's argument for a personal cause. The case for a personal cause is gone into in quite a bit more detail here,

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-s...gical-argument



I'll have to stop here to prevent going over TheologyWeb's copyright limitations, but you can read the rest of the article for yourself at the link provided where he goes into the need for a personal creator.

[Sea of red]

well discussing logic with you lately has become an exercise in futility. And yeah it does reflect what we know of "physocs" - ask big Red. all physics breaks down at the singularity. There is no time, no space, nothing. Time=0, space=0, density=infinite. Time and space were created during the expansion. Not before. Science can't tell you where the singularity came from, why it expanded, or anything about it at all. That is why is it called a singularity. All science can tell you is that it expanded into this universe.

well discussing logic with you lately has become an exercise in futility. And yeah it does reflect what we know of "physocs" - ask big Red. all physics breaks down at the singularity. There is no time, no space, nothing. Time=0, space=0, density=infinite. Time and space were created during the expansion. Not before. Science can't tell you where the singularity came from, why it expanded, or anything about it at all. That is why is it called a singularity. All science can tell you is that it expanded into this universe.

No.

It is called a singularity because it is a mathematical point on the coordinate map - where it doesn't matter which system of coordinates you use. Singularities occur in both mathematics and physics. It is also dimensionless, meaning it's value is constant regardless of the units one chooses.

As for not knowing what caused the expansion, you're completely off base. The current expansion of the universe is driven by the dark energy, while earlier expansion was is conjectured to have been the work of inflation - which is responsible for isotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background. Inflation also predicted the quantum fluctuations in CMB, and was confirmed by the WMAP satellite.



Anyways, most physics including GR (which is the framework for cosmology) breaks down at the Planck epoch. This is where quantum effects become very important, and we need a theory of Quantum Gravity. The best candidates for that are string theory and loop quantum gravity; string theory being the leader. It's hard to make sense of the results. Inflation is popular conjecture to the point that it's almost standard but there are other more 'exotic' frameworks, that are a little bit less intuitive.

[shunyadragon]

well discussing logic with you lately has become an exercise in futility.

. . . an ah . . . yeah, there are good reasons your misuse of logic is very obvious when you attempt to use logic only, and no science, to draw the conclusion; It should never have expanded or come to be in the first place.

And yeah it does reflect what we know of "physocs" - ask big Red. all physics breaks down at the singularity. There is no time, no space, nothing. Time=0, space=0, density=infinite. Time and space were created during the expansion. Not before. Science can't tell you where the singularity came from, why it expanded, or anything about it at all. That is why is it called a singularity. All science can tell you is that it expanded into this universe.

Even if this science 'sound bite' above contains a kernel of misleading truth, how does this lead to this foolish logic; It should never have expanded or come to be in the first place.


Your foolishness and misuse of science has been corrected by Sea of Red.