William Lane Craig and the Kalam argument

[shunyadragon]

In support of this thread for a proper understanding of physics and cosmology see:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-and-Cosmology

[shunyadragon]

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.

Another side comment on presenting an argument in a thread is that it is terribly weak to use . . .

'It seems to . . .'

In reality the above offers nothing in the context of the thread.

[Sparko]

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.

The universe's singularity isn't a black hole. It is the opposite.

And I do know what a singularity is. If all physical laws 'break down' at that point, it means that there is no space, no time at the singularity. It should never have expanded or come to be in the first place. Now you might want to argue that our universe is the output of the black hole in another metaverse, but that would be just as much speculation as saying "God did it"

[MaxVel]

Another side comment on presenting an argument in a thread is that it is terribly weak to use . . .

'It seems to . . .'

In reality the above offers nothing in the context of the thread.

Please quote me correctly. Where did I say "It seems to..."? Cite me correctly or retract your misrepresentation.

[MaxVel]

Shunya, why did you only quote part of the Stanford article on point 5.4??


Here's the rest of it (emphasis mine):

for the theist this presents no problem provided that God is conceived atemporally and sense can be made of atemporal causation.

Furthermore, suppose that the Big Bang singularity is not an event. Then, by this same reasoning that events only arise from other events, subsequent so-called events cannot be the effect of that singularity. If they were, they would not be events either. This result that there are no events is absurd.

Rundle defends this view of events by arguing that coming into and going out of existence are symmetrical and both are in time. Ontologically applying infinity to future events does not differ from applying it to past events. Beginning from today one can always add another day to the past or future, since an infinity of past days exists in the same way as an infinity of future days. Thus, just as a day in the future is only finitely distant from today, so any day in the past is finitely distant from today. The past, like the future, is only potentially infinite. In the former case, though the universe is finite, there was no initial event or beginning of material existence; for any given event there is a possible precedent event finitely distant from us in time. Similarly, in the future at any finite point in time, there is a possible subsequent event, so that though the future is finite, it does not require an end to the universe (180). But then either there is a possible prior and posterior stage to any event so that the material universe is actually infinite (which he rejects) or else matter is uncaused, with no beginning or end. He accepts the latter; matter-energy is neither caused nor indestructible.

Rundle's argument is suspect in that it assumes that going from the present to the past does not differ from moving from the past to the present; both involve actually finite though potentially infinite series. But although to count events from present to the past always means the event is a finite time-distance from the present, to get to the present from the beginningless past one would have to traverse an actual infinite without a starting point. The two movements are quite disparate, and as Craig (1979) argues, one cannot traverse an infinite. For one thing, Rundle's argument that the past is finite from the perspective of the present, in that any event is a finite temporal distance from the present, is irrelevant; the point concerns how the whole infinite series with no beginning in an initial event can be formed. For another, where there is an indefinite past there is no reason that one has arrived at today rather than yesterday or tomorrow. [Craig defends his case using the example, derived from Bertrand Russell, of Tristram Shandy, who takes a year to write in his diary one day's events; he will only get progressively behind and never catch up. This example has generated a literature of its own (Eells, Oderberg, Oppy 2002b)]. In short, there seems to be no reason not to think of the Big Bang as an event.

You accuse Craig of being selective in his use of science, yet here you are being selective in your use of secondary sources about his arguments. Tsk, tsk.

This is going to be another of those threads where you mangle and misunderstand a theistic argument, isn't it?

[shunyadragon]

Please quote me correctly. Where did I say "It seems to..."? Cite me correctly or retract your misrepresentation.

I am waiting for you to post something of substance. I already cited you completely in a previous post. Respond to that.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, why did you only quote part of the Stanford article on point 5.4??

There are Tweb limits on the length of citations. I cited the relevant section.

Here's the rest of it (emphasis mine):



You accuse Craig of being selective in his use of science, yet here you are being selective in your use of secondary sources about his arguments. Tsk, tsk.

This is going to be another of those threads where you mangle and misunderstand a theistic argument, isn't it?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a top notch reliable academic source, with footnotes.


Of course there are events, but there is no scientific evidence of a definable beginning event of everything.

Still waiting for you to respond with something of substance. Respond with something of substance or you go on ignore from here on.

[shunyadragon]

The universe's singularity isn't a black hole. It is the opposite.

And I do know what a singularity is. If all physical laws 'break down' at that point, it means that there is no space, no time at the singularity. It should never have expanded or come to be in the first place. Now you might want to argue that our universe is the output of the black hole in another metaverse, but that would be just as much speculation as saying "God did it"

What is the source of this assertion bolded above?

[MaxVel]

There are Tweb limits on the length of citations. I cited the relevant section.

Cutting out the section that shows that the objection addressed isn't in fact a problem for the argument. That's a selective, if not deceptive, quote.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a top notch reliable academic source, with footnotes.

No kidding. Yet you failed to accurately convey what it said about the argument. Maybe if you went back to Google.. ?

Of course there are events, but there is no scientific evidence of a definable beginning event of everything.

Still waiting for you to respond with something of substance. Respond with something of substance or you go on ignore from here on.

This is Shunya speak for "Stop showing me up, or I'll take my toys and go home"

[Sparko]

What is the source of this assertion bolded above?

logic. If there was no space to expand into, and no time to create that space. and it takes time to have events occur in, with no space and no time, there would be no change. The singularity would eternally remain a singularity.

[Trout]

Kudos to you, shuny. Kalam is a beast of an argument to critique.

[Sea of red]

The universe's singularity isn't a black hole. It is the opposite.

And I do know what a singularity is. If all physical laws 'break down' at that point, it means that there is no space, no time at the singularity. It should never have expanded or come to be in the first place. Now you might want to argue that our universe is the output of the black hole in another metaverse, but that would be just as much speculation as saying "God did it"

Singularities do not actually exist in nature. They are simply mathematical points where theories 'blow-up'. The singularity in the graph is simply there for illustration purposes.

And I doubt the universe was created from a black hole since that would be at odds with the conservation of... well everything.

[shunyadragon]

logic. If there was no space to expand into, and no time to create that space. and it takes time to have events occur in, with no space and no time, there would be no change. The singularity would eternally remain a singularity.

Logic is insufficient and the above does not remotely reflect the science of physocs, cosmology and what we know of the Quantum world. Again, please back this assertion up with science, or I will have to conclude that it is a product of your imaginative logic.

It should never have expanded or come to be in the first place.

[Sparko]

Logic is insufficient and the above does not remotely reflect the science of physocs, cosmology and what we know of the Quantum world. Again, please back this assertion up with science, or I will have to conclude that it is a product of your imaginative logic.

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.

[shunyadragon]

Next the problem . . .



What's wrong with this?

A few questions to relate to the problem of the use of actual infinities in this context by WLC.

(1) The reality, of time, space, and that of the Quantum World does not have numbers designating time, distance, and the nature of the Quantum World. How would the problem of actual infinities apply?

(2) Actual infinities are a human construct within the time and space within our universe. How could the actual infinities be limiting factors of potential infinities beyond the limits of this time/space universe?