Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why the Kalam cosmological argument fails.

Page 2 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

12 Feb 2011, 12:27 am

If we accept Big Bang, and accept that as the origin - both of which could be debated within scientific materialism, but we will not - we can most assuredly qualify that as an extreme condition.

But "ultimate exteme condition", while acceptable in informal talk amongst friends as here, is something I would not want to assert in a professional context - that physics cannot postulate MORE extreme conditions. The speed of light used to be absolutely the ultimate; no we are wondering about the possibility of tachyons.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Feb 2011, 3:50 am

MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
I've always viewed god as outside time, aka god being at the beginning end or anywhere in between makes no sense to me because then he would be part of his creation.

EDIT: That is too say him being before the big bang makes no sense to me.


I've always wondered what it's like to be outside of time.

How can one make any act when time had not yet been created?


Well if a god is omnipotent and omniscient and is outside of time then that omniscient would apply to all times/places from origin to ending and that god could then perform actions to bring about specific results, I'm not even certain this would require complete omniscient or omnipotents, just enough knowledge about this world to shape it in a meaningful way as well as the power to do so. Could even be done by multiple people(entities) working in synchrony.

Think of it as seeing a blue ball, and then seeing endless blue balls occupying the same place, then imagine changing one of those balls has an effect on the other balls occupying the same place. Its like that.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Feb 2011, 3:53 am

simon_says wrote:
The problem with the argument is that it presumes that the universe is like an everyday object. We already know that under extreme conditions, our concepts of normal no longer function. Given that the origin of the unvierse is the ultimate extreme condition, it's difficult to apply concepts that relate to the world of apples and wagons with any degree of confidence that the comparison is appropriate.


My argument? Yes I suppose so but thats not really a concern of mine, how can you guarantee accuracy about something like this when your universe as far as you know has only been explored to a point of one planet physically. The knowledge of that one planet is immense and while we will likely adapt to more information as a whole(as a species) I can't imagine making any scientific cosmological theories of this magnitude in our current state. This doesn't bother me because I'm not a scientist and this isn't really an academic or professional discussion.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 Feb 2011, 4:03 am

ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
I've always viewed god as outside time, aka god being at the beginning end or anywhere in between makes no sense to me because then he would be part of his creation.

EDIT: That is too say him being before the big bang makes no sense to me.


I've always wondered what it's like to be outside of time.

How can one make any act when time had not yet been created?


Well if a god is omnipotent and omniscient and is outside of time then that omniscient would apply to all times/places from origin to ending and that god could then perform actions to bring about specific results, I'm not even certain this would require complete omniscient or omnipotents, just enough knowledge about this world to shape it in a meaningful way as well as the power to do so. Could even be done by multiple people(entities) working in synchrony.

Think of it as seeing a blue ball, and then seeing endless blue balls occupying the same place, then imagine changing one of those balls has an effect on the other balls occupying the same place. Its like that.


But when exactly did God start thinking the world into existence? As soon as time began? But how? There had to be some act that led to the creation of time but that would mean that time had already existed even before it was created. An act outside of time is logically impossible.

It makes better sense to believe that time has always existed and, thus, God cannot be outside of it.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Feb 2011, 4:27 am

MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
I've always viewed god as outside time, aka god being at the beginning end or anywhere in between makes no sense to me because then he would be part of his creation.

EDIT: That is too say him being before the big bang makes no sense to me.


I've always wondered what it's like to be outside of time.

How can one make any act when time had not yet been created?


Well if a god is omnipotent and omniscient and is outside of time then that omniscient would apply to all times/places from origin to ending and that god could then perform actions to bring about specific results, I'm not even certain this would require complete omniscient or omnipotents, just enough knowledge about this world to shape it in a meaningful way as well as the power to do so. Could even be done by multiple people(entities) working in synchrony.

Think of it as seeing a blue ball, and then seeing endless blue balls occupying the same place, then imagine changing one of those balls has an effect on the other balls occupying the same place. Its like that.


But when exactly did God start thinking the world into existence? As soon as time began? But how? There had to be some act that led to the creation of time but that would mean that time had already existed even before it was created. An act outside of time is logically impossible.

It makes better sense to believe that time has always existed and, thus, God cannot be outside of it.


Why does it make more sense? How can something influence this world and not be affected by it if it is bound by this worlds laws? How would a god make a world from inside that world?

Our definition of when wouldn't apply to him, in this scenario if time did apply to him it would be a separate operation on the same level as him ascending our own world in a similar manner.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 Feb 2011, 9:46 am

ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
I've always viewed god as outside time, aka god being at the beginning end or anywhere in between makes no sense to me because then he would be part of his creation.

EDIT: That is too say him being before the big bang makes no sense to me.


I've always wondered what it's like to be outside of time.

How can one make any act when time had not yet been created?


Well if a god is omnipotent and omniscient and is outside of time then that omniscient would apply to all times/places from origin to ending and that god could then perform actions to bring about specific results, I'm not even certain this would require complete omniscient or omnipotents, just enough knowledge about this world to shape it in a meaningful way as well as the power to do so. Could even be done by multiple people(entities) working in synchrony.

Think of it as seeing a blue ball, and then seeing endless blue balls occupying the same place, then imagine changing one of those balls has an effect on the other balls occupying the same place. Its like that.


But when exactly did God start thinking the world into existence? As soon as time began? But how? There had to be some act that led to the creation of time but that would mean that time had already existed even before it was created. An act outside of time is logically impossible.

It makes better sense to believe that time has always existed and, thus, God cannot be outside of it.


Why does it make more sense? How can something influence this world and not be affected by it if it is bound by this worlds laws? How would a god make a world from inside that world?

Our definition of when wouldn't apply to him, in this scenario if time did apply to him it would be a separate operation on the same level as him ascending our own world in a similar manner.


Well, I don't necessarily mean the subset of time that began with the Big Bang. I'm talking about the ultimate time in which an acting God must logically be bound by.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Feb 2011, 9:51 am

MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
I've always viewed god as outside time, aka god being at the beginning end or anywhere in between makes no sense to me because then he would be part of his creation.

EDIT: That is too say him being before the big bang makes no sense to me.


I've always wondered what it's like to be outside of time.

How can one make any act when time had not yet been created?


Well if a god is omnipotent and omniscient and is outside of time then that omniscient would apply to all times/places from origin to ending and that god could then perform actions to bring about specific results, I'm not even certain this would require complete omniscient or omnipotents, just enough knowledge about this world to shape it in a meaningful way as well as the power to do so. Could even be done by multiple people(entities) working in synchrony.

Think of it as seeing a blue ball, and then seeing endless blue balls occupying the same place, then imagine changing one of those balls has an effect on the other balls occupying the same place. Its like that.


But when exactly did God start thinking the world into existence? As soon as time began? But how? There had to be some act that led to the creation of time but that would mean that time had already existed even before it was created. An act outside of time is logically impossible.

It makes better sense to believe that time has always existed and, thus, God cannot be outside of it.


Why does it make more sense? How can something influence this world and not be affected by it if it is bound by this worlds laws? How would a god make a world from inside that world?

Our definition of when wouldn't apply to him, in this scenario if time did apply to him it would be a separate operation on the same level as him ascending our own world in a similar manner.


Well, I don't necessarily mean the subset of time that began with the Big Bang. I'm talking about the ultimate time in which an acting God must logically be bound by.


Are you asking me when a god would have made this world during a time I can't possibly have knowledge of? Or are you asking for clarification of whether or not his time-line would count as before us chronologically?

EDIT: Also I have not made any comment on his timeline being 'ultimate' whatever that would mean.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 Feb 2011, 10:01 am

ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
I've always viewed god as outside time, aka god being at the beginning end or anywhere in between makes no sense to me because then he would be part of his creation.

EDIT: That is too say him being before the big bang makes no sense to me.


I've always wondered what it's like to be outside of time.

How can one make any act when time had not yet been created?


Well if a god is omnipotent and omniscient and is outside of time then that omniscient would apply to all times/places from origin to ending and that god could then perform actions to bring about specific results, I'm not even certain this would require complete omniscient or omnipotents, just enough knowledge about this world to shape it in a meaningful way as well as the power to do so. Could even be done by multiple people(entities) working in synchrony.

Think of it as seeing a blue ball, and then seeing endless blue balls occupying the same place, then imagine changing one of those balls has an effect on the other balls occupying the same place. Its like that.


But when exactly did God start thinking the world into existence? As soon as time began? But how? There had to be some act that led to the creation of time but that would mean that time had already existed even before it was created. An act outside of time is logically impossible.

It makes better sense to believe that time has always existed and, thus, God cannot be outside of it.


Why does it make more sense? How can something influence this world and not be affected by it if it is bound by this worlds laws? How would a god make a world from inside that world?

Our definition of when wouldn't apply to him, in this scenario if time did apply to him it would be a separate operation on the same level as him ascending our own world in a similar manner.


Well, I don't necessarily mean the subset of time that began with the Big Bang. I'm talking about the ultimate time in which an acting God must logically be bound by.


Are you asking me when a god would have made this world during a time I can't possibly have knowledge of? Or are you asking for clarification of whether or not his time-line would count as before us chronologically?

EDIT: Also I have not made any comment on his timeline being 'ultimate' whatever that would mean.


The thing is that in order for God to act there has to be time already (whatever kind of time it is).

That's why if God is eternal then time must also be eternal ... and God must be bound by this eternal time in order to do any act.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Feb 2011, 10:05 am

MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
I've always viewed god as outside time, aka god being at the beginning end or anywhere in between makes no sense to me because then he would be part of his creation.

EDIT: That is too say him being before the big bang makes no sense to me.


I've always wondered what it's like to be outside of time.

How can one make any act when time had not yet been created?


Well if a god is omnipotent and omniscient and is outside of time then that omniscient would apply to all times/places from origin to ending and that god could then perform actions to bring about specific results, I'm not even certain this would require complete omniscient or omnipotents, just enough knowledge about this world to shape it in a meaningful way as well as the power to do so. Could even be done by multiple people(entities) working in synchrony.

Think of it as seeing a blue ball, and then seeing endless blue balls occupying the same place, then imagine changing one of those balls has an effect on the other balls occupying the same place. Its like that.


But when exactly did God start thinking the world into existence? As soon as time began? But how? There had to be some act that led to the creation of time but that would mean that time had already existed even before it was created. An act outside of time is logically impossible.

It makes better sense to believe that time has always existed and, thus, God cannot be outside of it.


Why does it make more sense? How can something influence this world and not be affected by it if it is bound by this worlds laws? How would a god make a world from inside that world?

Our definition of when wouldn't apply to him, in this scenario if time did apply to him it would be a separate operation on the same level as him ascending our own world in a similar manner.


Well, I don't necessarily mean the subset of time that began with the Big Bang. I'm talking about the ultimate time in which an acting God must logically be bound by.


Are you asking me when a god would have made this world during a time I can't possibly have knowledge of? Or are you asking for clarification of whether or not his time-line would count as before us chronologically?

EDIT: Also I have not made any comment on his timeline being 'ultimate' whatever that would mean.


The thing is that in order for God to act there has to be time already (whatever kind of time it is).

That's why if God is eternal then time must also be eternal ... and God must be bound by this eternal time in order to do any act.


In the context of his time-line he would be mortal in the context of our time-line he would be eternal, If he was inside our time-line I don't see how he could be described as eternal unless he placed himself there at the beginning from somewhere else.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

12 Feb 2011, 10:27 am

ikorack wrote:
simon_says wrote:
The problem with the argument is that it presumes that the universe is like an everyday object. We already know that under extreme conditions, our concepts of normal no longer function. Given that the origin of the unvierse is the ultimate extreme condition, it's difficult to apply concepts that relate to the world of apples and wagons with any degree of confidence that the comparison is appropriate.


My argument? Yes I suppose so but thats not really a concern of mine, how can you guarantee accuracy about something like this when your universe as far as you know has only been explored to a point of one planet physically. The knowledge of that one planet is immense and while we will likely adapt to more information as a whole(as a species) I can't imagine making any scientific cosmological theories of this magnitude in our current state. This doesn't bother me because I'm not a scientist and this isn't really an academic or professional discussion.



Not your argument, the premise of the OP.


Quote:
If we accept Big Bang, and accept that as the origin - both of which could be debated within scientific materialism, but we will not - we can most assuredly qualify that as an extreme condition.

But "ultimate exteme condition", while acceptable in informal talk amongst friends as here, is something I would not want to assert in a professional context - that physics cannot postulate MORE extreme conditions. The speed of light used to be absolutely the ultimate; no we are wondering about the possibility of tachyons.


Right, the words can be refined and there are no assurances that the universe in this form is the root of the issue.

But what we can note is that this universe is a very complex system that often defies what we see as common sense derived from our everyday experience. Kalam is a medieval argument put forward by those without a detailed appreciation for the strangeness of the universe.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

12 Feb 2011, 10:39 am

91 wrote:
Thanks for the claification. I just wanted to know exactly what you were asking before I responded.

There are two halves to this question, in my view. The first is the issue is state/state causation and the other Simaltaneous Causation.

Cause and Effect

State/State causation
...
Simaltaneous Causation
...

From this it can be concluded that cause and effect can occur simultaneously.

Dr. Craig has answered a similar question on this here
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=7935


Are you using causation in the sense of logical causation? Then why everything have a nontrivial cause?

I think at some point, even WLC thinks that the universe is not a state or an event. How are these definitions relevant to our discussion?



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

12 Feb 2011, 10:42 am

JetLag wrote:
I think the phrase "that has a beginning" may be the key to the argument. God is self-existent by definition, which is to say that God has neither beginning nor ending; and that He has always existed in Himself and in the present since before time was made: "even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God" (Psalm 90:2).

Many of those good people who believe in atheistic evolution believe that the universe came into being from a big bang, which came from a little thing called "singularity," which came from nothing and occupied space that did not exist. But if a big bang came from singularity, which came from nothing, then where did nothing come from in the first place?


Define self-existent, always exist and come from. Or do you just quote the bible and not knowing what you are talking about?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 Feb 2011, 6:29 pm

ikorack wrote:
In the context of his time-line he would be mortal in the context of our time-line he would be eternal, If he was inside our time-line I don't see how he could be described as eternal unless he placed himself there at the beginning from somewhere else.


Is it just me? Or do you realize how brain-hurting it is to think about God and time in one go? :o

It's a very difficult subject.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Feb 2011, 7:11 pm

MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
In the context of his time-line he would be mortal in the context of our time-line he would be eternal, If he was inside our time-line I don't see how he could be described as eternal unless he placed himself there at the beginning from somewhere else.


Is it just me? Or do you realize how brain-hurting it is to think about God and time in one go? :o

It's a very difficult subject.


Well its likely not just you but it doesn't trouble me much, unless of course I'm doing it wrong and nobody has bothered to correct me which is always a possibility.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 Feb 2011, 9:54 pm

ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
In the context of his time-line he would be mortal in the context of our time-line he would be eternal, If he was inside our time-line I don't see how he could be described as eternal unless he placed himself there at the beginning from somewhere else.


Is it just me? Or do you realize how brain-hurting it is to think about God and time in one go? :o

It's a very difficult subject.


Well its likely not just you but it doesn't trouble me much, unless of course I'm doing it wrong and nobody has bothered to correct me which is always a possibility.


Maybe you're just one of a kind. I just can't imagine how an act can be done outside of any kind of time.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Feb 2011, 9:56 pm

MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
ikorack wrote:
In the context of his time-line he would be mortal in the context of our time-line he would be eternal, If he was inside our time-line I don't see how he could be described as eternal unless he placed himself there at the beginning from somewhere else.


Is it just me? Or do you realize how brain-hurting it is to think about God and time in one go? :o

It's a very difficult subject.


Well its likely not just you but it doesn't trouble me much, unless of course I'm doing it wrong and nobody has bothered to correct me which is always a possibility.


Maybe you're just one of a kind. I just can't imagine how an act can be done outside of any kind of time.


doubt it.