| Philosophy The forum for the discussion and debate of general philosophy & epistemology |
 | | 
5th November 2009, 06:24 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
21     
| | Join Date: 9th January 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,219
Blessings: 2,067,230
Reps: 67,527,722,863,596,368 (power: 67,527,722,863,607) | | | The cosmological argument
This is the Kalam Cosmological argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
First of all, if the conclusion is true and the existence of the universe has a cause, it does not follow that the cause is God.
I don't accept the second premise, because the evidence doesn't support it.
And I'm not sure if the first premise is true.
It seems like a fairly limp argument to me. Am I missing something here?
__________________
Credit for avatar art goes to Kate Beaton.
|
5th November 2009, 08:50 AM
| | Gimme That Old Time Religion
 
| | Join Date: 24th May 2008 Location: 'neath the marquee moon
Posts: 6,132
Blessings: 12,363,242
Reps: 474,698,394,322,854,976 (power: 474,698,394,322,865) | | | The evidence doesn't support the second premise? |
5th November 2009, 10:00 AM
| | Senior Veteran
21
| | Join Date: 9th January 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,219
Blessings: 2,067,230
Reps: 67,527,722,863,596,368 (power: 67,527,722,863,607) | | Originally Posted by Chesterton  The evidence doesn't support the second premise?
No, it doesn't.
__________________
Credit for avatar art goes to Kate Beaton.
|
5th November 2009, 10:21 AM
| | Gimme That Old Time Religion
| | Join Date: 24th May 2008 Location: 'neath the marquee moon
Posts: 6,132
Blessings: 12,363,242
Reps: 474,698,394,322,854,976 (power: 474,698,394,322,865) | | | What evidence are we talking about, and what type of cosmology does it support? Virtually all scientists in the relevant fields say the evidence indicates the universe had a beginning. |
5th November 2009, 10:40 AM
| | Senior Veteran
21
| | Join Date: 9th January 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,219
Blessings: 2,067,230
Reps: 67,527,722,863,596,368 (power: 67,527,722,863,607) | | Originally Posted by Chesterton What evidence are we talking about, and what type of cosmology does it support? Virtually all scientists in the relevant fields say the evidence indicates the universe had a beginning.
Not really.
The Universe had an early period during which the Universe very rapidly expanded from its state as a singularity. This expansion is known as the Big Bang. But scientists don't know what came before that singularity, if such a question is meaningful at all.
It's still up in the air whether the Universe had a beginning.
__________________
Credit for avatar art goes to Kate Beaton.
Last edited by Nooj; 5th November 2009 at 10:47 AM.
|
5th November 2009, 11:15 AM
| | Gimme That Old Time Religion
| | Join Date: 24th May 2008 Location: 'neath the marquee moon
Posts: 6,132
Blessings: 12,363,242
Reps: 474,698,394,322,854,976 (power: 474,698,394,322,865) | | Originally Posted by Nooj Not really.
The Universe had an early period during which the Universe very rapidly expanded from its state as a singularity. This expansion is known as the Big Bang. But scientists don't know what came before that singularity, if such a question is meaningful at all.
It's still up in the air whether the Universe had a beginning.
But that expansion from singularity was the beginning of this universe. If you want to go beyond that you'll have to resort to religion or science fiction. The second premise is founded scientifically. |
5th November 2009, 11:19 AM
| | Senior Veteran
21
| | Join Date: 9th January 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,219
Blessings: 2,067,230
Reps: 67,527,722,863,596,368 (power: 67,527,722,863,607) | | Originally Posted by Chesterton But that expansion from singularity was the beginning of this universe.
By beginning, I mean: The universe began to exist
The expansion may have been the 'beginning' of the Universe in the sense of an early, formative period but it's not known whether the Universe began to exist, which is another sense of the word 'beginning' and the one relevant to the Kalam cosmological argument. Originally Posted by Chesterton The second premise is founded scientifically.
No, it isn't. Science is silent on the second premise for now.
__________________
Credit for avatar art goes to Kate Beaton.
|
5th November 2009, 11:32 AM
|  | Reverencing the Exalted Spirit of Man
45 
 | | Join Date: 1st January 2003 Location: American resident of Sweden
Posts: 18,492
Blessings: 8,259,692 My Mood 
Reps: 440,945,404,461,670,976 (power: 440,945,404,461,699) | | Originally Posted by Chesterton The evidence doesn't support the second premise?
Considering that it may be meaningless to speak of time outside of spacetime, then it would be equally meaningless to speak of the universe "starting to exist". At most, it would "start to change".
But I see a flaw in premise 1 as well. Causes are understood in terms of change, not in terms of "coming to exist". There is no causal theory of existence ex nihilo. eudaimonia,
Mark
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
5th November 2009, 11:47 AM
|  | Chewbacha
| | Join Date: 15th February 2002
Posts: 17,114
Blessings: 45,126,542
Reps: 1,238,051,283,267,514,112 (power: 1,238,051,283,267,541) | | Originally Posted by Nooj Not really.
The Universe had an early period during which the Universe very rapidly expanded from its state as a singularity. This expansion is known as the Big Bang. But scientists don't know what came before that singularity, if such a question is meaningful at all.
It's still up in the air whether the Universe had a beginning.
Up in the air, perhaps. But the most obvious logical explanation that generally gets tacked on is that the Big Bang was "the beginning." And indeed it is "the beginning," as far as we know currently, of the universe as we know it. As for the beginning of existence, it is true that there are disputes about that: things like oscillatory universe, etc.
But the Big Bang is responsible for time, space, and the laws of nature as we know it. Before the Big Bang, anything could have been. The existence of the universe as it is known today is a direct result of the Big Bang, however. So, we can say the existence of our universe started with the Big Bang. Before that, what constitutes "the universe?" Is another universe shrinking into a singularity part of "our universe?" Or is it something else entirely? The realm before the Big Bang gets very vague about what constitutes "the universe."
I do find it interesting though that the only alternative to an ex nihilo start of the universe is an eternal universe... Or is there another alternative I'm not aware of?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices. |
5th November 2009, 12:05 PM
| | Senior Veteran
21
| | Join Date: 9th January 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,219
Blessings: 2,067,230
Reps: 67,527,722,863,596,368 (power: 67,527,722,863,607) | | So, we can say the existence of our universe started with the Big Bang.
I'd rather say that the current state of our universe is attributable to the Big Bang. Before that, what constitutes "the universe?" Is another universe shrinking into a singularity part of "our universe?" Or is it something else entirely? The realm before the Big Bang gets very vague about what constitutes "the universe."
I'd say the Universe before its Big Bang period was that which existed.
__________________
Credit for avatar art goes to Kate Beaton.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
