Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

William Lane Craig and the Kalam argument

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • William Lane Craig and the Kalam argument

    My main problem with William Lane Craig's argument for the existence God using Kalam Cosmological arguments are basically two overlapping categories.

    (1) Assumptions that lead directly to the conclusion that God exists.

    (2) The misuse of science where the knowledge of science does not lead to nor is comparable the conclusion of science. The use of science is selective and biased toward the desired conclusions of Craig's arguments.

    For example: As with many apologists the beginning of our physical existence and our universe is equated with the supposed 'Big Bang' as the beginning of our universe. This conclusion is somewhat deceptive and misleading described as follows

    Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#5.4



    5.4 The Big Bang Is Not An Event
    The response to this argument from the Big Bang is that, given the Grand Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang is not an event at all. An event takes place within a space-time context. But the Big Bang has no space-time context; there is neither time prior to the Big Bang nor a space in which the Big Bang occurs. Hence, the Big Bang cannot be considered as a physical event occurring at a moment of time. As Hawking notes, the finite universe has no space-time boundaries and hence lacks singularity and a beginning (Hawking 116, 136). Time might be multi-dimensional or imaginary, in which case one asymptotically approaches a beginning singularity but never reaches it. And without a beginning the universe requires no cause. The best one can say is that the universe is finite with respect to the past, not that it was an event with a beginning.

    Given this understanding of event, we could reconceive the kalām argument.

    If something has a finite past, its existence has a cause.
    The universe has a finite past.
    Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
    Since space-time originated with the universe and therefore similarly has a finite past, the cause of the universe's existence must transcend space-time (must have existed aspatially and, when there was no universe, atemporally).
    If the cause of the universe's existence transcends space-time, no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe.
    If no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
    Critics see a problem with this formulation in premise 8. Whereas behind premise 1 lies the ancient Parmenidean contention that out of nothing nothing comes, it is alleged that no principle directly connects finitude with causation. They contend that we have no reason to think that just because something is finite it must have a cause of its coming into existence. But this objection has merit only if the critic denies the PSR or that it applies to events like the Big Bang. But, the critics contend, the Big Bang is not an event at all.

    Grünbaum argues that events can only result from other events. “ Since the Big Bang singularity is technically a non-event, and t=0 is not a bona fide time of its occurrence, the singularity cannot be the effect of any cause in the case of either event-causation or agent causation alike…. The singularity t=0 cannot have a cause” (Grünbaum 1994).

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Experts saying an event is not an event.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Critics see a problem with this formulation in premise 8. Whereas behind premise 1 lies the ancient Parmenidean contention that out of nothing nothing comes, it is alleged that no principle directly connects finitude with causation. They contend that we have no reason to think that just because something is finite it must have a cause of its coming into existence. But this objection has merit only if the critic denies the PSR or that it applies to events like the Big Bang. But, the critics contend, the Big Bang is not an event at all.
      So Shuny, do you believe that the big bang has no cause, that something actually came from nothing?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Experts saying an event is not an event.
        Yes.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          So Shuny, do you believe that the big bang has no cause, that something actually came from nothing?
          The idea that something can come from nothing as an issue of the origins of our universe is meaningless, because there are no practical scientific theories that the philosophical view of absolutely nothing ever existed.
          Reread the article, the philosophical 'something coming from absolutely nothing' is not a realistic consideration.

          Regardless of whether one believes in God or not there are adequate scientific explanations of the origins of our universe. The evidence is overwhelming that all the objective evidence indicates that Natural Laws and the simply physical nature of our physical existence as observed in the Quantum world provide an adequate explanation.

          The article is clear and specific there is no known definable beginning of our universe in the Big Bang theory.

          Again, this has nothing to do with what I personally believe. The question in discussion here is the validity of the Kalam Cosmological argument, in particular how WLC argues this.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-30-2016, 06:41 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            so if time was created in the big bang, and it takes time for events to happen in, how did the singularity explode into the big bang in the first place? assuming the singularity was eternal and uncaused, it should have eternally remained a singularity and not expanded into the universe, since there was no time to act in.

            not to mention there was no space to even exist in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Everything we know of that begins to exist comes from pre-existing matter. It's just rearranged matter from a prior state. Cars, chairs, babies, you name it. Craig tries to claim that only an "efficient" cause is necessary for the universe to come into existence, however that goes against every instance we know of that requires both an "efficient" and a "material" cause. This is always confirmed in our experience and never once disconfirmed. Since we have no observed instances of something literally "popping out of nothing," (as Craig thinks God did it), ironically, the Kalam can actually be turned around into an argument for an eternal universe in some form or another.
              Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-30-2016, 01:23 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                There does not appear to be much agreement between the physicists, mathematicians or astronomers. Most have differing ideas and there is polite, professional contention between them. Some leading scientists who research the beginnings are:-
                Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton University of North Carolina
                Dr Param Singh Louisiana State University
                Prof Andrei Linde Stanford University
                Prof LeeSmolin Perimeter Inst
                Prof Neil Turok Perimeter Inst

                Here are some of their theories, so far.............
                1. Some believe that the 'Big Bang' should be the 'Big Bounce' where a contracting universe bounced back out. In this scenario there was no 'beginning' at the advent of this particular cycle....... one would need to go back further than the recent expansion.
                2. Some believe that two giant (mem)Branes create universes wherever and whenever they touch together. In this scenario there is no beginning of time as described in the OP.
                3. Others believe in the probability of a multiverse, based on observations of galaxy-clusters moving strangely. This is a very exciting possibility, because if a multiverse is ever proven then the immediate question to follow would be 'how many multiversi are there?
                4. Yet others still believe that at the final end of our universe, when only photons are left, that this condition will automatically trigger a new universe. In this scenario there is no beginning of time.
                5. One is strongly in favour of a complete universe being created within singularities already within universes. In which case time was borrowed from an outside multiverse....?
                6. Finally, there is the string-theory camp of genesis. If anybody knows about this, then please expand.

                ...and more recently scientists are proposing some event called the Big-Whoooosh!

                But however the whole mass got started, howver far back and however vast ........... there had to have been a reason for the incident. I like to think of that as the reason for our existence, and I then think of God.

                Big Bang?......... Big G!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  so if time was created in the big bang, and it takes time for events to happen in, how did the singularity explode into the big bang in the first place? assuming the singularity was eternal and uncaused, it should have eternally remained a singularity and not expanded into the universe, since there was no time to act in.

                  not to mention there was no space to even exist in.
                  You don't understand what a singularity is.

                  A singularity in General Relativity (GR) is simply were measurements of the gravitational field become infinite/undefined. No matter which frame of reference you use, or coordinate system you choose, the singularity remains a point on the map. The main reason for this is because the physical parameters and mathematics that define GR, are so different from those that define Quantum Mechanics (QM).

                  There are singularities predicted for both the universe and massive black-holes; the latter are easier to illustrate.



                  They don't explode, they are not eternal, and some theories of Quantum Gravity radically change what they actually are - which is a different can of worms.

                  But what happens to the gravitational field at those high measurements? Is there some other physics behind the singularity? Can QM by reconciled with GR, and if-so what does that mean for the picture of the early universe?

                  All good questions.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just to add to the discussion.

                    I think any speculation on the physics of Quantum Gravity is unwarranted. That's my problem with WLC - he's too damn speculative without he chops to back it up. In order to really understand the controversies within theoretical physics you have to first master all of it's parameters. That means learning all of the introductory classical mechanics, QM, astronomy courses, and advanced mathematics. Then mastering both GR and Quantum Field Theory. That takes a long time, and only a few can truly do it well - of which I am not one of them.

                    Craig simply skims the literature looking for what he can cherry-pick, without properly understanding the backbone of the theories themselves. It's why he looked so shaken when Sean Carroll took him apart apart statement by statement. It showed that when he goes off-script he's not very good at debating. The best part of that debate was when Craig repeated his tired use of the BGV theorem, and Carrol produced a person video tape of Alan Guth disagreeing with Craigs arguments, where after Criag decided to dismiss Guth as "opinion". Gee, five minutes ago he was authoritative.

                    If he could be honest about his opinion being an opinion, I'd be able to respect him. Instead he plays on the fact that his audience doesn't know the difference between good ideas and snake-oil, then smugly declares his opinion as more valid than an actual expert he's debating, and that just shows he is not interested in a true exchange of ideas.
                    Last edited by Sea of red; 05-30-2016, 05:23 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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?
                      Last edited by 37818; 05-30-2016, 06:59 PM.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The conclusion here of using science of the Big Bang as argument for a necessary beginning is flawed, because science does not consider the Big Bang and the associated singularity cannot be assumed as the beginning of anything.

                        An associated issue the belief in the assumption that 'something cannot come from nothing.' Science agrees 'something does not comes from nothing,' because there is no evidence that the 'philosophical absolutely nothing ever existed.

                        Sea of red's post summarized the problem very well.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Next the problem . . .

                          Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#5.4


                          5.2 Is an Actual Infinite Possible?
                          In defense of premise 2, Craig develops both a priori and a posteriori arguments. His primary a priori argument is

                          An actual infinite cannot exist.
                          A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite.
                          Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist.
                          Since (7) follows validly, if (5) and (6) are true, the argument is sound. In defense of premise (5), Craig argues that if actual infinites that neither increase nor decrease in the number of members they contain were to exist, we would have rather absurd consequences. For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Suppose that the library also contains an infinite number of red and an infinite number of black books, so that for every red book there is a black book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many red books as the total books in its collection, and as many red books as black books, and as many red books as red and black books combined. But this is absurd; in reality the subset cannot be equivalent to the entire set. Hence, actual infinites cannot exist in reality.

                          Craig's point is this. Two sets A and B are the same size just in case they can be put into one-to-one correspondence, that is, if and only if every member of A can be correlated with exactly one member of B in such a way that no member of B is left out. It is well known that in the case of infinite sets, this notion of ‘same size’ yields results like the following: the set of all natural numbers (let this be ‘A’) is the same size as the set of squares of natural numbers (‘B’), since every member of A can be correlated with exactly one member of B in a way that leaves out no member of B (correlate 0↔0, 1↔1, 2↔4, 3↔9, 4↔16,…). So this is a case — recognized in fact as early as Galileo (Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences )— where two infinite sets have the same size but, intuitively, one of them appears to be smaller than the other; one set consists of only some of the members of another, but you nonetheless never run out of either when you pair off their members.

                          Craig uses a similar, intuitive notion of “smaller than” in his argument concerning the library. It appears that the set B of red books in the library is smaller than the set A of all the books in the library, even though both have the same (infinite) size. Craig concludes that it is absurd to suppose that such a library is possible in actuality, since the set of red books would simultaneously have to be smaller than the set of all books and yet equal in size.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          What's wrong with this?
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            My main problem with William Lane Craig's argument for the existence God using Kalam Cosmological arguments are basically two overlapping categories.

                            (1) Assumptions that lead directly to the conclusion that God exists.
                            You seem to have this problem with every argument that reaches a conclusion you aren't comfortable with. What you need to do to make this a worthwhile objection is identify the specific assumptions, and show that they are unjustified.
                            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              You seem to have this problem with every argument that reaches a conclusion you aren't comfortable with. What you need to do to make this a worthwhile objection is identify the specific assumptions, and show that they are unjustified.
                              Not a problem at all that I am uncomfortable with, because I believe in God. It is not the conclusion that is the problem, it is the bad argument that leads to the conclusion. The thread is young, and I will deal with issues one at a time.

                              I already discussed the assumption by WLC that the 'evidence supports that the universe had a beginning,' and showed from the scientific evidence that this assumption cannot be made based on the evidence from science. It is, of course, possible that our physical existence had a beginning, but it is unsound to consider a possibility the basis of an argument.In fact ultimately it is unknown whether our universe or all possible universes of a multiverse had a beginning.

                              In the debate with Lawrence Krauss this became apparent that he used biased selective citation from one scientist, Vilenkin, that did not even reflect the over all view of physics and cosmology scientists to justify his claim.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              25 responses
                              85 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              415 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X