The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Wiccan_Child]

I am opening the invitation to debate on the topic:

"Evidence for God's Existence"

And will be using the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Any takers?

We can have the debate right here in this thread.

The Kalam Argument is an exercise in faulty mathematics, specifically stemming from a mistreatment of infinity and the preclusion of cyclic time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Kalam Argument is an exercise in faulty mathematics, specifically stemming from a mistreatment of infinity and the preclusion of cyclic time.

Do you know of any good essays or videos online that express that point of view? I'd be interesting in investigating that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

The Kalam Argument is an exercise in faulty mathematics, specifically stemming from a mistreatment of infinity and the preclusion of cyclic time.

If what you say is true, then you should be able to defend this view in debate.

Two questions remain:

Can you?

And will you?

If you are unwilling, then I cannot accept that you can. For accepting that you can defend it merely on your word would be akin to you accepting merely on my word, that the C.A. is evidence of God's existence. Surely you would not accept that conclusion because I say so now would you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If what you say is true, then you should be able to defend this view in debate.

Two questions remain:

Can you?

And will you?

If you are unwilling, then I cannot accept that you can.

That would be an illogical conclusion. If someone is disinclined to engage in formal debate with you, there could be many causes: they may be disinclined to debate with you, they may dislike formal debates themselves, or indeed they may be unable to defend their claim.

It is illogical to conclude that they are unable to defend their position, simply because they are unwilling to. Me, I dislike formal debates. I'm happy to talk casually about it, but I've never been fond of the strict protocol of a formal debate.

Nevertheless, outline the Kalam Argument and we'll proceed from there.

For accepting that you can defend it merely on your word would be akin to you accepting merely on my word, that the C.A. is evidence of God's existence.

That would be a false equivalence.

 

[Elioenai26]

The Kalam Argument is an exercise in faulty mathematics, specifically stemming from a mistreatment of infinity and the preclusion of cyclic time.

Which one of the two premises of the argument does the above statement address?

 

[Elioenai26]

Nevertheless, outline the Kalam Argument and we'll proceed from there.

Refer to the beginning of the thread.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Refer to the beginning of the thread.

I can see no outline of the Kalam Argument in the first page. If you're referring to post #4, that's not the Kalam Argument (which typically goes "An infinite past requires an infinite number of steps to get to the present. We can't have an infinite number of steps. Therefore, the past isn't infinite").

The Kalam Argument fails because of dodgy mathematics. The Cosmological Argument presented in post #4 fails because of dodgy physics.

 

[Elioenai26]

I can see no outline of the Kalam Argument in the first page. If you're referring to post #4, that's not the Kalam Argument (which typically goes "An infinite past requires an infinite number of steps to get to the present. We can't have an infinite number of steps. Therefore, the past isn't infinite").

The Kalam Argument fails because of dodgy mathematics. The Cosmological Argument presented in post #4 fails because of dodgy physics.

The Kalam is listed on post 4.

You say if fails because of "dodgy" mathematics and "dodgy" physics.

If we were in a debate I would be quietly smiling right now waiting for my turn to say:

Thus far, Wiccan Child has failed to address either of the two premises of the argument.

I would then sit down and wait for you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Kalam is listed on page 4.

You say if fails because of "dodgy" mathematics and "dodgy" physics.

If we were in a debate I would be quietly smiling right now waiting for my turn to say:

Thus far, Wiccan Child has failed to address either of the two premises of the argument.

I would then sit down and wait for you.

Of course I haven't addressed either of the premises - I haven't found them yet. I looked at page 4, and found no listing of the Kalam argument. Perhaps you are confused and meant post 4?

Elioenai26, I'm happy to debate the Kalam argument, and I'd begin dismantling the flaws in post 4, but if they're not the premises you mean, I'd rather not waste my breath. Instead of vaguely gesturing to where the premises might be ("the first few pages" - that encompasses 40+ posts I'm expected to trawl through; "It's on page 4" - unless you wrote it in white text, it's not there), just delineate the premises here and now for all the world to see. Then we can actually start the discussion.

And quite why you're acting so smug is beyond me - refusing to outline your premises is hardly a victory.

 

[Elioenai26]

100, 000, 000 installs of the Bible App!

Yay!

 

[Elioenai26]

Of course I haven't addressed either of the premises - I haven't found them yet. I looked at page 4, and found no listing of the Kalam argument. Perhaps you are confused and meant post 4?

Elioenai26, I'm happy to debate the Kalam argument, and I'd begin dismantling the flaws in post 4, but if they're not the premises you mean, I'd rather not waste my breath. Instead of vaguely gesturing to where the premises might be ("the first few pages" - that encompasses 40+ posts I'm expected to trawl through; "It's on page 4" - unless you wrote it in white text, it's not there), just delineate the premises here and now for all the world to see. Then we can actually start the discussion.

And quite why you're acting so smug is beyond me - refusing to outline your premises is hardly a victory.

Post 4. I usually make that mistake. Post 4. Thank you!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Post 4. I usually make that mistake. Post 4. Thank you!

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

1) Unsubstantiated assertion. Phenomena like the Casimir effect demonstrate that causality is not as universal as classical physics assumed. If you utilise Craig's 'no infinite regress' argument, then you make the mathematical blunders I mentioned earlier.

2) Unsubstantiated assertion. The evidence allows us to conclude the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but we are as yet unable to probe beyond the start of the Big Bang. For all we know, the universe could be trillions of years old, or eternal, or cyclic; the start of the Big Bang is an observational horizon we have not yet breached. Don't make the common error and confuse it for an actual origin of the universe.

3) Valid, but unsound.

 

[Elioenai26]

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

1) Unsubstantiated assertion. Phenomena like the Casimir effect demonstrate that causality is not as universal as classical physics assumed. If you utilise Craig's 'no infinite regress' argument, then you make the mathematical blunders I mentioned earlier.

2) Unsubstantiated assertion. The evidence allows us to conclude the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but we are as yet unable to probe beyond the start of the Big Bang. For all we know, the universe could be trillions of years old, or eternal, or cyclic; the start of the Big Bang is an observational horizon we have not yet breached. Don't make the common error and confuse it for an actual origin of the universe.

3) Valid, but unsound.

Bravo Wiccan_Child!

You are actually one of the few people, if not the very first person, who has actually taken the premises and tried to offer undercutting defeaters for them.

So let us take a look at what you have said and see if you can represent the opposition well!

Let us begin with your response to premise (1) which reads:

(i) Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

Your response:

1) Unsubstantiated assertion. Phenomena like the Casimir effect demonstrate that causality is not as universal as classical physics assumed. If you utilise Craig's 'no infinite regress' argument, then you make the mathematical blunders I mentioned earlier.

In the above you say that premise 1. is an unsubstantiated assertion, but no where have you dealt with the reasons/arguments that I gave for why we can hold premise 1 to be more plausibly true than its contradictory. I gave several. You mention mathematical blunders when speaking of Craig's 'no infinite regress argument'. But I do not recall ever using that as support for premise 1. Nor do I recall Dr. Craig ever using that as a support for premise 1. So this seems to me to simply be a strawman.

So let us now talk about the Casimir effect. You state that it demonstrates that causality is not as universal as classical physics assumed. I think here is the meat of your argument against premise 1. But does it diminish our warrant for thinking that premise 1 is more plausibly true than its contradictory? Victor Stenger has argued along this line specifically and postulates that quantum events which occur within a quantum vacuum demonstrate that some things (virtual particles) are things that come into existence without a cause. He alludes to the Casimir effect as one such cases. The argument here hinges on the nature of a quantum vacuum and how one interprets quantum mechanics either deterministically or not.

In the first place, not all scientists even agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused and none can say that a quantum vacuum is actually no-thing. A great many physicists are quite dissatisfied with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics and are exploring deterministic theories like that of Bohm. In fact, there are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum mechanics, many of which are fully deterministic.

Victor Stenger himself even admits:

"Other viable interpretations of quantum mechanics remain with no consensus on which, if any, is the correct one"; hence, we have to remain open to the possibility that causes maay someday be found for such phenomena." Victor Stenger, Has Silence Found God? (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 2003), 188-89, 173.

Wiccan_Child, you allude to the view that virtual particles literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. This is your argument. But virtual particles do not come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. So where do they come from? What is their cause? They come from the energy locked up in a vacuum which fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to change into evanescent particles within that return almost immediately to the vacuum. These fluctuations of energy within the quantum vacuum are the cause of said virtual particles coming into existence and immediately returning into the vacuum from whence they came.

When the layman thinks of a "vacuum" it is typically imagined to be empty space, however, this is not the nature of the vacuum that physicists understand it to be for as John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . .

"the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440)

German Philosopher of Science Bernulf Kanitscheider emphasizes that a quantum vacuum is NOT 'nothing' when speaking of the misleading way some scientists have used the phrase:

"The violent microstructure of the vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected this to far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language when they maintained 'the creation of the universe out of nothing'..... From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. (Bernulf Kanitscheider, "Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?" in Studies on Mario Bunge's "Treatise," ed. Weingartner and G. J. W. Doen [Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990], pp. 346-74).


Therefore, the microstructure of the quantum vacuum can be looked at as a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."






With regards to premise 2. you object by saying that

The evidence allows us to conclude the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but we are as yet unable to probe beyond the start of the Big Bang. For all we know, the universe could be trillions of years old, or eternal, or cyclic; the start of the Big Bang is an observational horizon we have not yet breached. Don't make the common error and confuse it for an actual origin of the universe.

You say that the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old. Well, I agree with that!

You also state that we are unable to go beyond the start of the Big Bang, well I agree with that too! For P.C.W. Davies states:

"An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity."P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.

So I agree with you here.

You then state:

For all we know, the universe could be trillions of years old, or eternal, or cyclic;

And here is the meat of your argument. It fails miserably. Possibilities come very cheap. In fact, I can even agree with you and even add that the universe could be an illusion. It could be a lot of things which is precisely my point. In order for this to count as an undercutting defeater we must have some good reason or argument to hold that one of these bare possibilities is actually true.

But the cumulative case for an actual beginning of the universe from science, astrophysics and cosmology stands to this very day. The Standard Model calls for an absolute beginning of the universe. Throwing out possibilities in no way diminishes the clear evidence we have.

P.C.W. Davies states:

"Most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself." P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.

There simply is no evidence that the universe right now appears to us to be approximately 15 billion years old, but actually is trillions of years old. There is no evidence that exists that demonstrates that the universe is cyclic or eternal. None whatsoever. The Standard Model is the standard model for a reason.

You then say:

the start of the Big Bang is an observational horizon we have not yet breached. Don't make the common error and confuse it for an actual origin of the universe.

And I agree with the first part! We have not been able via scientific method to go beyond the Big Bang.

Does this in anyway diminish the fact that the universe began to exist a finite time ago? Of course not! Your reasoning assumes that there is something physical beyond the Big Bang i.e some natural explanation lurking there, waiting to be discovered. But this simply is begging the question. In order to hold to this view, you must discard the Standard Model's conclusions and by faith believe that another Model will replace it which concludes that the universe did not begin to exist.

You then say that it is erroneous to conclude that the universe began to exist. But the reason you gave for this is that we cannot go beyond the Big Bang, but (it is implied) one day we will.

But as I stated in order to maintain this, you must maintain that the Standard Model is inaccurate.

But why? Why go to such great lengths? Why not just agree with the evidence? Why not rather just admit that the universe began to exist and agree with the consensus of the scientific community?

From physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)


From agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow:

"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)


"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." (Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University)


"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." (Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan)


"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan)


"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." (University of Illinois)


"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." (Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University)


"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." (Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University)

"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)


From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.
​

​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wiccan_Child, you allude to the view that virtual particles literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. This is your argument. But virtual particles do not come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. So where do they come from? What is their cause? They come from the energy locked up in a vacuum which fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to change into evanescent particles within that return almost immediately to the vacuum. These fluctuations of energy within the quantum vacuum are the cause of said virtual particles coming into existence and immediately returning into the vacuum from whence they came.

There is a striking resemblance between the text here and the text here. Wiccan Child, it seems that you are going to be having a conversation with William Lane Craig rather than Elioenai26.

Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440)

Therefore, the microstructure of the quantum vacuum can be looked at as a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."

This too appears strikingly similar to the text in the above link:

The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It therefore seems that Smith has failed to refute premiss (1').

And here is the meat of your argument. It fails miserably. Possibilities come very cheap. In fact, I can even agree with you and even add that the universe could be an illusion. It could be a lot of things which is precisely my point. In order for this to count as an undercutting defeater we must have some good reason or argument to hold that one of these bare possibilities is actually true.

But the cumulative case for an actual beginning of the universe from science, astrophysics and cosmology stands to this very day. The Standard Model calls for an absolute beginning of the universe. Throwing out possibilities in no way diminishes the clear evidence we have.

P.C.W. Davies states:

"Most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself." P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.

There simply is no evidence that the universe right now appears to us to be approximately 15 billion years old, but actually is trillions of years old. There is no evidence that exists that demonstrates that the universe is cyclic or eternal. None whatsoever. The Standard Model is the standard model for a reason.

You then say:

And I agree with the first part! We have not been able via scientific method to go beyond the Big Bang.

Does this in anyway diminish the fact that the universe began to exist a finite time ago? Of course not! Your reasoning assumes that there is something physical beyond the Big Bang i.e some natural explanation lurking there, waiting to be discovered. But this simply is begging the question. In order to hold to this view, you must discard the Standard Model's conclusions and by faith believe that another Model will replace it which concludes that the universe did not begin to exist.

You then say that it is erroneous to conclude that the universe began to exist. But the reason you gave for this is that we cannot go beyond the Big Bang, but (it is implied) one day we will.

But as I stated in order to maintain this, you must maintain that the Standard Model is inaccurate.

But why? Why go to such great lengths? Why not just agree with the evidence? Why not rather just admit that the universe began to exist and agree with the consensus of the scientific community?

From physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)


From agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow:

"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)


"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." (Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University)


"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." (Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan)


"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan)


"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." (University of Illinois)


"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." (Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University)


"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." (Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University)

"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)


From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.
​

[/COLOR]
[/LEFT]

Did you do your own quote-mining as well or did you get Craig to do it for you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In the above you say that premise 1. is an unsubstantiated assertion, but no where have you dealt with the reasons/arguments that I gave for why we can hold premise 1 to be more plausibly true than its contradictory. I gave several. You mention mathematical blunders when speaking of Craig's 'no infinite regress argument'. But I do not recall ever using that as support for premise 1. Nor do I recall Dr. Craig ever using that as a support for premise 1. So this seems to me to simply be a strawman.

Craig's 'no infinite regress' is used to truncate the infinite regress that would otherwise resolve out the Kalam argument.

So let us now talk about the Casimir effect.

[snip]

Therefore, the microstructure of the quantum vacuum can be looked at as a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."​

Being a theoretical physicist, I'm well aware of the non-empty nature of the 'vacuum' of space. However, pointing this fact out does nothing to disprove the notion that the Casimir effect violates classical causality.

With regards to premise 2. you object by saying that

You say that the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old. Well, I agree with that!

You also state that we are unable to go beyond the start of the Big Bang, well I agree with that too! For P.C.W. Davies states:

"An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity."P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.

So I agree with you here.

Jolly good.

You then state:

For all we know, the universe could be trillions of years old, or eternal, or cyclic;

And here is the meat of your argument. It fails miserably. Possibilities come very cheap. In fact, I can even agree with you and even add that the universe could be an illusion. It could be a lot of things which is precisely my point. In order for this to count as an undercutting defeater we must have some good reason or argument to hold that one of these bare possibilities is actually true.

Incorrect. That the possibilities exist is sufficient to disprove the hidden assumption lurking beneath the Kalam argument - namely, that time and causality are linear. As it's not known if they are, the hidden assumption corrupts the whole argument.

But the cumulative case for an actual beginning of the universe from science, astrophysics and cosmology stands to this very day. The Standard Model calls for an absolute beginning of the universe. Throwing out possibilities in no way diminishes the clear evidence we have.

P.C.W. Davies states:

"Most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself." P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.

There simply is no evidence that the universe right now appears to us to be approximately 15 billion years old, but actually is trillions of years old. There is no evidence that exists that demonstrates that the universe is cyclic or eternal. None whatsoever. The Standard Model is the standard model for a reason.

The evidence allows us to look back 13.5 billion years until we hit an observational wall. This wall is a little like looking out to see and being limited by the horizon. We don't know what, if anything, is beyond that observational barrier.

Modern theories of physics do not accurately describe how matter and spacetime behave under the conditions prevalent during that period of time. This means no evidence exists regarding what, if anything, happened during that time. This goes for your position as well: despite what Davies says, there is no evidence that the universe began 13.5 billion years ago, only that it is at least 13.5 billion years old.

You allude to the existence of evidence supporting the claim that the start of the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe - what is it? You assert that the Standard Model is the Standard Model for good reasons - what are those reasons?

You then say that:

the start of the Big Bang is an observational horizon we have not yet breached. Don't make the common error and confuse it for an actual origin of the universe.

And I agree with the first part! We have not been able via scientific method to go beyond the Big Bang.

Does this in anyway diminish the fact that the universe began to exist a finite time ago? Of course not! Your reasoning assumes that there is something physical beyond the Big Bang i.e some natural explanation lurking there, waiting to be discovered. But this simply is begging the question. In order to hold to this view, you must discard the Standard Model's conclusions and by faith believe that another Model will replace it which concludes that the universe did not begin to exist.​

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was:

"[T]he start of the Big Bang is an observational horizon we have not yet breached. Don't make the common error and confuse it for an actual origin of the universe."

I never assumed there actually is something physical lurking beyond the Big Bang, so you are incorrect in accusing me of begging the question. My point was that 13.5 billion years ago represents an observational horizon whose nature we do not yet know. We do not know if the universe began just prior to that horizon, or if its history extends for trillions of more years. That's what an 'observational horizon' means: we cannot see.

Imagine standing on the shores of Ireland looking west. You see the horizon. It could be that the horizon represents the true edge of the world, that you cannot see further because there is no further to look; this is akin to the start of the Big Bang being the beginning of time, we can't see further back because there is no further back to see. Alternatively, the horizon could represents the curvature of the Earth - we can't see beyond the horizon because the world curves down, hiding thousands more miles of surface. This is akin to the start of the Big Bang being problematic to see beyond, but not an actual truncation of spacetime.

Which is the case? Well, that's the problem with an observational horizon - we cannot see. We cannot glean evidence one way or the other. All we can say is that the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old. There is no evidence whatsoever that the universe actually began way back then, nor is the evidence that the universe is much older, or cyclic, or self-causing, or whatever. No evidence - for anyone.

You then say that it is erroneous to conclude that the universe began to exist. But the reason you gave for this is that we cannot go beyond the Big Bang, but (it is implied) one day we will.

Implied because we don't know it's impossible. There's no evidence we can't, and we will never know until we pull back that veil. We might discover a much larger universe, we might discover a brick wall. Who knows.

But as I stated in order to maintain this, you must maintain that the Standard Model is inaccurate.

But why? Why go to such great lengths? Why not just agree with the evidence? Why not rather just admit that the universe began to exist and agree with the consensus of the scientific community?

Because there is no evidence that the universe began there.

If this were a matter of biochemistry, I'd defer to the biochemists, as biochemistry is not my field. But I am a physicst, and I know how vastly misrepresented cosmogeny is among non-theoretical-physicists (other scientists included).

From physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)


[snip]

From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.

​

​

Incorrect. We see nine quotations alluding to evidence supporting the start of the Big Bang as the start of the universe, but these quotations do not constitute 'ample evidence'. It is widely believed, but is ultimately erroneous (akin to the 'empty vacuum' problem). Hawking himself clarified his position, saying that the Big Bang singularity effectively erased anything that came before it (if there was anything), we should thus speak as if the universe did indeed begin with the Big Bang.

Amusingly, Hawking said this in the same article that you quoted him in. His actual words:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

To reiterate, to Hawking, the universe had a 'beginning' inasmuch as there was a singular event that erased all prior history. This event could have coincided with a true beginning, but it is unknown, since, clearly, all prior history (if there is any) has been erased. It's like a blank computer drive: is it blank because it's new, or is it blank because it's been cleaned out?

 

[Elioenai26]

There is a striking resemblance between the text here and the text here. Wiccan Child, it seems that you are going to be having a conversation with William Lane Craig rather than Elioenai26.

​

This too appears strikingly similar to the text in the above link:

​

Did you do your own quote-mining as well or did you get Craig to do it for you?

Your observations in no way undercut or rebut premise 1 or 2. Of the argument.

I think everyone here knows that I rely heavily on Dr. Craig's work in my arguments.

If we were in a debate I would kindly draw attention to the fact that your responses are red herrings and ask that we stick to the argument.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your observations in no way undercut or rebut premise 1 or 2. Of the argument.

I think everyone here knows that I rely heavily on Dr. Craig's work in my arguments.

If we were in a debate I would kindly draw attention to the fact that your responses are red herrings and ask that we stick to the argument.

Here is the crux of why no one will debate you Elioenai26. They will not debate with you because they wouldn't be debating with you, they'd be debating with William Lane Craig. Your arguments are entirely derivative of his. You might as well post a link to Reasonable Faith and declare "This is my position. Now debate me on it."

Consider carefully why this might be construed as unfair in your forthcoming debate with Paradoxum. For every response Paradoxum makes you can rely on Craig to provide you with a stock reply, replete with out-of-context quotes from original sources, that you can easily reproduce. In other words, you can rely on Craig to do your research and reasoning for you and to provide you with content. Paradoxum, on the other hand, must rely on her own brain which, while brilliant, must sift through Craig's content to identify those snippets that actually take the form of a relevant response to her position. This is not only unfair to her, but it encourages misinterpretation because the stock reply you obtain from Craig may have little or no bearing upon Paradoxum's own views, in which case she must deal with the consequent strawman arguments.

In my view, relying on a stock response from Craig demonstrates a lack of respect for your debating opponent. This may explain your incessant request that a atheist, any atheist, debate with you. Any atheist will do because, in your mind, we are all the same, and thus a stock Craig reply will suffice in debate with any one of us. That is why no will debate you Elio. You do not respect your opponents enough to allow them to form their own views and arguments. Instead you try to pin them down to a certain set of positions which, in your mind, can be demolished with a single copy-and-paste from Reasonable Faith. A debate format allows you to do this easily and to get away with doing it. An organic discussion in which there is room for intellectual growth makes that task much more difficult for you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is no surprise, IMO, that Craig has a preference for the debate format. It allows him to stick to a well-rehearsed script regardless of what his opponent says. An open discussion would force him away from that script and into a conversation about eternal flames, among other things. Craig is at his strongest, and most comfortable, when reiterating the same arguments and the same objections that have become his signature. He is at his weakest when the formal structure of a debate isn't there to support him, and he is actually questioned on the finer points of his arguments.

 

[Elioenai26]

Paradoxum can use whatever references and citations she desires in the debate. In fact, I would recommend she do so.

It would only be unfair if I made the stipulation that she could not use any sources or citations or arguments from anyone else.

There are brilliant minds who have compiled objections to Craig's work and if she wants to use them, she is more than welcome.

I take the stuff I do here very serious. I believe these matters are most important and if I can find someone who is more knowledgeable, more, intelligent, more articulate, than I am who can represent my position better than I can then I can, then I will rely on their work.

Debate formats are only seen as deficient to those whose arguments are deficient. In a debate there is no room for much of the stuff that atheists use in public internet forums I.e fallacious reasoning.

In a debate you state your position and then back it up. Since the atheist's position is so weak, naturally many will refuse to debate.

This fact should cause you to question the intellectual credibility of your views.

This one can do only if they desire truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Paradoxum can use whatever references and citations she desires in the debate. In fact, I would recommend she do so.

It would only be unfair if I made the stipulation that she could not use any sources or citations or arguments from anyone else.

There are brilliant minds who have compiled objections to Craig's work and if she wants to use them, she is more than welcome.

I take the stuff I do here very serious. I believe these matters are most important and if I can find someone who is more knowledgeable, more, intelligent, more articulate, than I am who can represent my position better than I can then I can, then I will rely on their work.

Rely is surely a euphemism. Your arguments are entirely derivative of Craig's. Paradoxum isn't debating with you, she is debating with Craig.

Debate formats are only seen as deficient to those whose arguments are deficient. In a debate there is no room for much of the stuff that atheists use in public internet forums I.e fallacious reasoning.

Debate formats are seen as superior by internet apologists whose arguments fall apart when they are forced off script. In this case, however, the script isn't even yours, it's Craig's.

In a debate you state your position and then back it up. Since the atheist's position is so weak, naturally many will refuse to debate.

You also do that in an open discussion. Well, I do anyway. I can't speak for you on that point.

This fact should cause you to question the intellectual credibility of your views.

This one can do only if they desire truth.

Craig has admitted that there is nothing anyone could say that could ever convince him to reconsider his views. That is hardly exemplary of someone who desires truth.