The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true.

The Big Bang Model only deals with the universe after a possible singularity. It does not say anything about the singularity, and the singularity itself is little more than a statement of lack of knowledge. All hypothesis about the singularity and whether or not it was the beginning of time, are just that, hypothesis. They do not compete with ...[text shortened]... l.
Most importantly though there is no real evidence to date for any of the various hypothesis.

Do you have a simplified defintion of what the "Big Bang" is
suppose to be? Is it a large explosion or large noise or sound?
Could it be the voice of God commanding the universe into
existence? Is it energy suddenly changing into matter? If it
caused the universe to come into existence, how did it form such
an orderly universe that seems to obey certain laws or rules?
Was it controlled by some outside force or forces that were already
in existence or were all forces produced at the same time as this
"Big Bang"? How is it supposed to work? Can you make any sense
out of it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you have a simplified defintion of what the "Big Bang" is
suppose to be? Is it a large explosion or large noise or sound?

It is the rapid expansion of space from a near point like size to a very large size in a very short space of time.
The universe is still expanding, and the Big Bang is the early moment so that expansion.

Could it be the voice of God commanding the universe into
existence?
As an atheist, I would have to say no.
As a creationist, you too would have to say no.

Is it energy suddenly changing into matter?
In the later stages, this did happen, yes.

If it caused the universe to come into existence,
It didn't. Any 'coming into existence' was at the singularity itself.

how did it form such an orderly universe that seems to obey certain laws or rules?
I don't know the origin of the laws of physics. They may be a result of something deeper, but ultimately they must just be ie there has to be some brute facts.

Was it controlled by some outside force or forces that were already
in existence or were all forces produced at the same time as this
"Big Bang"? How is it supposed to work? Can you make any sense
out of it?
No, I don't know the ultimate theory of everything, and neither does anybody else.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is the rapid expansion of space from a near point like size to a very large size in a very short space of time.
The universe is still expanding, and the Big Bang is the early moment so that expansion.

[b]Could it be the voice of God commanding the universe into
existence?
As an atheist, I would have to say no.
As a creationist, you too would ...[text shortened]... ?[/b]
No, I don't know the ultimate theory of everything, and neither does anybody else.[/b]

If the "Big Bang" is just the rapid expansion of space, perhaps
it should be renamed. Now, since you have eliminated this
"Big Bang" as the cause of the universe coming into existence,
then could you explain this "singularity" that did it. I am not
at all familiar with it because I studied practical physics for
engineering and not theoretical physics. However, I never got
past an associate degree due the the financial issue.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the "Big Bang" is just the rapid expansion of space, perhaps
it should be renamed.

It does tend to cause confusion, but changing names can be difficult. If it was renamed, half the non-scientists out there would think it was a new Theory.

According to Wikipedia, the name was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to highlight the difference between it and the 'steady state' hypothesis that was an alternative at the time.

Now, since you have eliminated this "Big Bang" as the cause of the universe coming into existence, then could you explain this "singularity" that did it.
I have not so much eliminated it, but rather pointed out that it does not cover that part of the universes history.
From Wikipedia:
The Big Bang model or theory is the prevailing[1] cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly.
Note that it says nothing of the singularity or origin of the universe.

As for the singularity and how that worked, I have no idea. There are a number of hypothesis out there including the possibility that there is a minimum possible size to the universe and that prior to that it was bigger and shrunk in a big crunch. Other hypotheses suggest the singularity popped into existence in a larger universe, and that our universe may similarly spawn child universes from time to time.
But they are all hypotheses at this stage.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It does tend to cause confusion, but changing names can be difficult. If it was renamed, half the non-scientists out there would think it was a new Theory.

According to Wikipedia, the name was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to highlight the difference between it and the 'steady state' hypothesis that was an alternative at the time.

[b]Now, since you ...[text shortened]... larly spawn child universes from time to time.
But they are all hypotheses at this stage.

Thanks, for your help. I still don't really understand it. But
apparently, as you say, no one else does either. So I feel
better now, knowing that I am not the only ignorant one.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thanks, for your help. I still don't really understand it. But
apparently, as you say, no one else does either. So I feel
better now, knowing that I am not the only ignorant one.

yes, “ignorance“ of the true nature of the singularity which nobody is sure of, not to be confused with “ignorance“ merely of what “the Big Bang” actually means; I for one don't share that “ignorance“ (not to mention “ignorance“ of the scientific fact that the Big Bang happened; I for one don't share that “ignorance“ either )

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thanks, for your help. I still don't really understand it. But
apparently, as you say, no one else does either. So I feel
better now, knowing that I am not the only ignorant one.

Its not so much a lack of understanding, but a lack of evidence. Knowing what happened that long ago requires very accurate measurement of the radiation left floating about in space. We don't yet have enough telescopes etc to give us that information.
Also it requires knowledge of the intimate details of how matter works on the very small scale. Again, we not only lack the full theory, but fleshing out that theory is partly waiting on necessary instrumentation such as the Large Hadron Collider and other such projects.
Many of the current hypothesis make some predictions about what we should see in sensitive telescopes or at minute scales with particle accelerators, but those predictions are yet to be confirmed or disproved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not so much a lack of understanding, but a lack of evidence. Knowing what happened that long ago requires very accurate measurement of the radiation left floating about in space. We don't yet have enough telescopes etc to give us that information.
Also it requires knowledge of the intimate details of how matter works on the very small scale. Again, w ...[text shortened]... scales with particle accelerators, but those predictions are yet to be confirmed or disproved.

Anyway, once they get everything worked out, I believe it
will be in agreement with the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Anyway, once they get everything worked out, I believe it
will be in agreement with the Holy Bible.

Well that would depend on how you interpret the Bible. It was my understanding that it was already in significant disagreement with your current interpretation.

Originally posted by vistesd
And where the "grammar of our consciousness" stops, we should—stop. At least with regard to propositional truth claims—and even, I think, with speculation that takes that form. The speculation becomes doctrine, the doctrine can become dogma—and people are told that they must believe (in the conventional sense of that word) what they cannot intellectually a ails nothing more than positing an ultimate Gestalt in which and of which we are...

And this is where I failed in this discussion: Wittgenstein is right. Whereof one cannot speak (without inconsistency), thereof one must remain silent.

But it is not clear that nothing can be said about a non-contingent being, if there is such a being. Take the apophatic tradition, for example, where the contemplative (referencing every 'thing'😉 says of God, "not this, not that." In the same way we can speak of a non-contingent being. And, as far as I am aware, defenders of the Kalam argument don't go beyond just that, e.g., "not physical, not contingent, not temporal, not bound by time," etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not so much a lack of understanding, but a lack of evidence. Knowing what happened that long ago requires very accurate measurement of the radiation left floating about in space. We don't yet have enough telescopes etc to give us that information.
Also it requires knowledge of the intimate details of how matter works on the very small scale. Again, w ...[text shortened]... scales with particle accelerators, but those predictions are yet to be confirmed or disproved.

Interesting things is they have not found this "God particle" yet with the LHC. Some models apparently don't require this particle to exist.





Manny

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]And this is where I failed in this discussion: Wittgenstein is right. Whereof one cannot speak (without inconsistency), thereof one must remain silent.

But it is not clear that nothing can be said about a non-contingent being, if there is such a being. Take the apophatic tradition, for example, where the contemplative (referencing every 'thing ...[text shortened]... nd just that, e.g., "not physical, not contingent, not temporal, not bound by time," etc.[/b]

I agree about the apophatic tradition—and the parallel tradition of using deliberately contradictory speech (e.g., some Zen koans) and poetic metaphor that is not in any way intended to be taken propositinally, let alone literally. That is why, on the “nonsense” thread, I said that the point I was trying to get at applied only to propositional speech (thought).* That is why I have no problem with folks such as Pseudo-Dionysus.

I think that these traditions also generally recognize that scripture is also not to be taken as always (or, perhaps, even often) being propositional in nature.

I would suggest that a rigorous apophatic discourse represents precisely Wittgensteins statement on the needs to—stop.

_______________________________________

* I don’t recall if you were involved in the thread where bbarr and ConrauK and I were all agreeing about what bbarr once called “elicitive” speech? Well, I ended up agreeing, after I recall my initial objections being quickly corrected.