Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2013, 07:49 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 07:59 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
The reason why the cosmological argument fails. Matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 10:34 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(05-02-2013 07:59 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The reason why the cosmological argument fails. Matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed

Yes, that opposite premise, if it were true, would be a defeater of the KCA because the first premise is entirely related to things WHICH COME INTO EXISTENCE.

If the universe, multiverse, megaverses have always existed and always will then of course there is nothing to cause into existence.

The Big Bang would then NOT be the beginning of any NEW thing and its occurrence would be inevitable not contingent.

In other words, the Big Bang was always going to happen because, given an infinity of past-eternal time, eventually you are bound to arrive at the necessary, unavoidable point at which the uncaused Big Bang takes place.

...for no reason other than deterministic prior events making it inevitible.

And backward you go into an infinite regression of inevitable events which themselves had no contingent cause.

Like a domino effect without any first ever domino to fall.

[Image: Domino+effect.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:42 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 10:50 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(05-02-2013 10:30 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 07:59 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The reason why the cosmological argument fails. Matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed

Yes, that premise, if it were true, would be a defeater of the KCA because the first premise is entirely related to things WHICH COME INTO EXISTENCE.

If the universe, multiverse, megaverses have always existed and always will then of course there is nothing to cause into existence.

The Big Bang would then NOT be the beginning of any NEW thing and its occurrence would be inevitable not contingent.

In other words, the Big Bang was always going to happen because, given an infinity of past-eternal time, eventually you are bound to arrive at the necessary, unavoidable point at which the uncaused Big Bang takes place.

...for no reason other than deterministic prior events making it inevitible.

And backward you go into an infinite regression of inevitable events which themselves had no contingent cause.

Like a domino effect without any first ever domino to fall.
1) The big bang has nothing to do with anything other than the expansion of the universe.

2) The cause of the big bang according to the standard model is an imbalance of forces.

3) Now you have a real problem. Is the universe eternal? or did the singularity have an origin?

4) We say "We don't know?", but the cosmological argument is really just an elaborate argument from ignorance.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 10:53 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
It needs to be remembered that MOTION is an elementary part of the nature of matter and fstratzero's premise that the universe has always existed necessarily entails the perpetual motion of everything in the universe.

A slowing universe, in which everything eventually came to a stop, would seem to need something NEW to cause stuff to start moving once again.

Now you could posit the metaphysical idea of a cyclic universe which expands and contracts over and over, like a swinging pendulum. But on a cosmic time scale, would we as temporary, fleeting observers even notice that the pendulum was in fact gradually slowing down to a stop?

- not a perpetual motion machine after all?

And if you are allowed to assert unsubstantiated metaphysical claims like...the universe has always existed, how is that any different to an alternate hypothesis that the universe came into existence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:54 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(05-02-2013 10:48 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  It needs to be remembered that MOTION is an elementary part of the nature of matter and fstratzero's premise that the universe has always existed necessarily entails the perpetual motion of everything in the universe.

A slowing universe, in which everything eventually came to a stop, would seem to need something NEW to cause stuff to start moving once again.

Now you could posit the metaphysical idea of a cyclic universe which expands and contracts over and over, like a swinging pendulum. But on a cosmic time scale, would we as temporary, fleeting observers even notice that the pendulum was in fact gradually slowing down to a stop?

- not a perpetual motion machine after all?

And if you are allowed to assert unsubstantiated metaphysical claims like...the universe has always existed, how is that any different to an alternate hypothesis that the universe came into existence?
Nope I didn't assert the the universe was in anyway eternal, but it is a possibility.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:55 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Does a stationary object which begins to move have a cause?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:57 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 11:01 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(05-02-2013 10:55 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Does a stationary object which begins to move have a cause?
An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force.

Does anything begin to exist with out preexisting material from which one can create a new form?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Exhibit A
(05-02-2013 10:54 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  ...Nope I didn't assert the the universe was in anyway eternal, but it is a possibility.


Exhibit B
(05-02-2013 07:59 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The reason why the cosmological argument fails. Matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed

If matter/energy cannot be destroyed does that not make them eternal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 11:07 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 01:20 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(05-02-2013 11:01 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Exhibit A
(05-02-2013 10:54 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  ...Nope I didn't assert the the universe was in anyway eternal, but it is a possibility.


Exhibit B
(05-02-2013 07:59 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The reason why the cosmological argument fails. Matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed

If matter/energy cannot be destroyed does that not make them eternal?
It may turn out that they are. It may turn out there is a mechanism by which you can destroy matter and energy. In which case the law would have to be revised.

What I do know that if the law is valid, that would imply only that matter/energy is eternal. If the universe is an open system then it could've come from else where if the universe is closed then it was always here.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: