Kalam Cosmogloical Argument

[needhelpage30]

My thoughts the Kalam cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

Saying everything is simply false. Virtual particles (see wikipedia article), for example, which still abide to conservation laws, pop in and out of existence without cause.

2. The Universe Began to exist

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Currently we have a theory on the big bang singularity. Premise 1 is false, but even if premise 1 was true, using the same logic as premise 1, the quantum field act as a first cause for the big bang singularity.

The cosmological argument does not rule out quantum fields. Example: in an empty void, quantum fields exist. Within them, virtual particles go in and out of existence without a cause. People should recognize that describing an empty void as nothing, is ultimately false, because the definition of "nothing" doesn't correctly apply, because it is not truly "nothing", the word is used loosely by psychists. So, the same "nothingness" I just talked about with quantum fields is the "nothingness" for the big bang singularity, obviously under different circumstances.

Under the logic in the two premises and the conclusion of the cosmological argument, the quantum field fits as the first cause for the big bang singularity.

God is not the only conclusion for the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but either way, it starts with a false premise.

Thoughts?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think your assessment is correct. In addition, I think #2 is false. The universe as we know it began to exist. What preceded this state of affairs, we simply don't know. And this state of knowledge is not the same thing as "began to exist".

 

[Fin1234]

Cause and effect is a law that governs objects in the domain of this universe. However the universe itself is in the domain of something else. And the laws that govern "creation" in this universe may not be applicable to the Universe itself.

Tigers eat meat. But tigers are part of a larger group animals. But trying to derrive Animals eat meat, becuase one domain of Animals eats meat is just a bad generalisation.

 

[daniel777]

Saying everything is simply false. Virtual particles (see wikipedia article), for example, which still abide to conservation laws, pop in and out of existence without cause.

People should recognize that describing an empty void as nothing, is ultimately false, because the definition of "nothing" doesn't correctly apply, because it is not truly "nothing", the word is used loosely by psychists.

these two statements contradict. if virtual particles do not arise out of true nothingness, then they are not truly uncaused.

also, i think you're playing with the word "existence".
do virtual particles exist?

God is not the only conclusion for the Kalam Cosmological Argument

i actually agree with this much. "God" as i think of him isn't the only conclusion of this cosmological argument. you could very well end with "energy is god", assuming that you think "energy" never began to exist.

 

[needhelpage30]

these two statements contradict. if virtual particles do not arise out of true nothingness, then they are not truly uncaused.

The point I made with virtual particles was: within the quantum world, they jump in and out of existence without cause. I didn't say they don't come from nothing, I said an empty void is not truly nothing because quantum fields exist within them. For example, the big bang singularity did not come from nothing. It's cause is quantum fluctuations.

do virtual particles exist?

Virtual particles have some form like real particles, but there are distinct differences. Virtual particles have only a brief existence. They leave observable effects with their zero point energy.

you could very well end with "energy is god", assuming that you think "energy" never began to exist.

Virtual particle pairs create energy. The universe's beginning state was the quantum state, which means it also adheres to the uncertainty principle. The laws of thermodynamics state that zero energy is not possible, but energy can be both positive and negative. All matter has a counterbalance of negative gravitational energy, so it does not break the conservation of energy law.

 

[daniel777]

The point I made with virtual particles was: within the quantum world, they jump in and out of existence without cause. I didn't say they don't come from nothing, I said an empty void is not truly nothing because quantum fields exist within them. For example, the big bang singularity did not come from nothing. It's cause is quantum fluctuations.

ok, but do they come from true nothingness, or don't they?
how can something be uncaused if it doesn't in some way come from true nothingness?

if i told you that baseballs constantly appear from nothingness to existence, and then i say "but wait, when i say 'nothingness' i actually mean a baseball making factory", would it be reasonable to assume that baseballs are uncaused?

Virtual particles have some form like real particles, but there are distinct differences. Virtual particles have only a brief existence. They leave observable effects with their zero point energy.

it seems to me that physics and the kalam cosmological argument have different ways of defining "existence".

 

[ArnautDaniel]

My thoughts the Kalam cosmological argument.

Saying everything is simply false. Virtual particles (see wikipedia article), for example, which still abide to conservation laws, pop in and out of existence without cause.

Virtual particles by their very definition are never actually detected directly.

It is quite possible they are nothing more than a mathematical fiction useful in getting a calculation done correctly.

I wouldn't assume things that are never detected exist.

Currently we have a theory on the big bang singularity. Premise 1 is false, but even if premise 1 was true, using the same logic as premise 1, the quantum field act as a first cause for the big bang singularity.

The cosmological argument does not rule out quantum fields. Example: in an empty void, quantum fields exist. Within them, virtual particles go in and out of existence without a cause. People should recognize that describing an empty void as nothing, is ultimately false, because the definition of "nothing" doesn't correctly apply, because it is not truly "nothing", the word is used loosely by psychists. So, the same "nothingness" I just talked about with quantum fields is the "nothingness" for the big bang singularity, obviously under different circumstances.

Under the logic in the two premises and the conclusion of the cosmological argument, the quantum field fits as the first cause for the big bang singularity.

God is not the only conclusion for the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but either way, it starts with a false premise.

Thoughts?

There is also Bohmian QM mechanics (which may be extended to include fields). This view produces identical mathematical results to QM but is causal.

You are dealing with a particular mathematical construction which is built by supposing intrinsic randomness. Unfortunately when you build a model outside of QM with intrinsic randomness you usually mean that there is some underlying causal process that you don't have specific knowledge of, so you never actually know its parameters.