3 of 4
3
A case against the KCA and the fine-tuned universe argument
Posted: 27 May 2011 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4623
Joined  2007-10-05

RHB, time is not like space. Space has three dimension, time has one. You move about freely in space, but can only move forward in time. Time is not a physical property, it is the measure of a spacetime interval along a particular trajectory. Imaginary numbers have been around for centuries, they were not constructed to get around the singularity problem. Introducing imaginary numbers into the quantum gravity equations is a legitimate mathematical tool. The singularity problem only arises when one divides by zero, which we know from early childhood is not allowed.

Let’s be realistic here, neither you nor I have the mathematical chops to explain this in detail. For that I have to rely on Stephen Hawking, Sean Carroll, Lee Smolin and others.

Even if you are right and the universe had a beginning and absolutely nothing came before, that still does not prove any kind of god mankind has ever imagined, and it most especially does not prove the god of the Bible as revealed to bronze age sheepherders. As I mentioned a post or two back, if you want to prove god you first have to define it, then offer empirical evidence that god exists. Until you do so arguing the fine points of quantum gravity is pointless.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2011-05-09
DarronS - 27 May 2011 12:13 PM

RHB, time is not like space. Space has three dimension, time has one. You move about freely in space, but can only move forward in time. Time is not a physical property, it is the measure of a spacetime interval along a particular trajectory. Imaginary numbers have been around for centuries, they were not constructed to get around the singularity problem. Introducing imaginary numbers into the quantum gravity equations is a legitimate mathematical tool. The singularity problem only arises when one divides by zero, which we know from early childhood is not allowed.

Yes, even it may not seem so the way I worded my reply, I am aware of basic cosmology and math. But I do have a comment to your space time comment in my next reply as not to derail this reply. However, with all due respect we are talking about the QM model of the universe which as I said is one of seven (types of) current theories. I did not say or mean to imply that imaginary numbers was not a good tool, what I did say and what I thought (perhaps wrongly) you objected to was my claim that the I.N. were a construct. Hey the cosmological constant was a made up thing too, but luckily for Einstein it was correct and it was useful, so that is not a question. But the imaginary numbers do not represent a real thing. You see this is where our different paradigms clash. You are a positivist (I assume, again maybe wrongly) and I am a Metaphysician. I see the models of the universe representing the real thing, real events in the universe. Hmm that was a bit confusing. Allow me an example? ;  Its my belief that the collapse of the wave function in QM the is caused by the sentient observer. It’s not a measurement problem etc, no, rather its a real event. In other words the cat is dead/alive not one or the other. Ha ha !

Let’s be realistic here, neither you nor I have the mathematical chops to explain this in detail. For that I have to rely on Stephen Hawking, Sean Carroll, Lee Smolin and others.

Exactly! The best I cam claim is three semester hours (that I struggled through) of ‘Introduction to Quantum Mechanics’, which I dumbly took as an elective. That said I have so many interests in science and philosophy, etc that I never could or want to learn the advanced details of QM or any advanced science. I am sure you know any one of those disciplines are a life long learning process,  so of course I agree with you. However we understand the explanations theories and nuances of such things given by our mentors right?

Our disagreements may stem from you being a positivist subscribe to the Hawkings of the science world while I subscribe to the worlds John Barrows. You may choose to beleive the QG (Quantum Gravity) Model/ theory, while I choose to beleive the classical physics of the much accepted BB standard model. If you are firm in believing the QG model or the Chaotic Inflationary Model or the Vacuum Fluctuation Model etc we are pretty much at a draw concerning talking points. This of course does mean I am claiming victory its rather like a stalemate. Kind of a anticlimax eh my friend? I would call you my fellow member but it doesn’t have the same ring, and besides I like your style. You remind me of me in a few years. Ha ha a play on words that…

Even if you are right and the universe had a beginning and absolutely nothing came before, that still does not prove any kind of god mankind has ever imagined, and it most especially does not prove the god of the Bible as revealed to bronze age sheepherders. As I mentioned a post or two back, if you want to prove god you first have to define it, then offer empirical evidence that god exists. Until you do so arguing the fine points of quantum gravity is pointless.

Yes its pointless. You did not say which theory you choose to beleive if any. But you seem to like the QG (ie the Hartle-Hawking and the Vilenkin models) which is interesting but with all due respect not very believable, and having no empirical evidence. Actually I was arguing against the quantum models with their imaginary numbers and included the scantest bit of information to validate my claims which I remain confident of.

Lastly I beleive I am better off arguing against QM and other such models first and for the standard big bang model, even though its the overwhelmingly accepted model anyway. The reason is that the standard big model along with being the best model for the the details of our universe, it also by happy coincidence supports the KCA, which in turn supports the existence of God. See the logic? If I am debating the validity of the KCA and win, that puts God in the universe. Then I will debate with the remainder (having won the debate with the atheist) of non believers with the other evdiences (which admittedly are weaker than the KCA in most instances) that point to the cause/God of the KCA being the Hebrew God of the bible. However its meaningless to attempt to debate this biblical God with an atheist who does not admit God exists. So that is why I attempt to get the generic God into our universe first and not last. I hope that last mess paragraph made sense , I am attempting to hurry because a storm is on its way and I have to take bogie, my basset and assistant pastor here at ABOTC Church* for his afternoon walk.

* ABOTCC = Apocalyptic Bearer Of The Cross Church ~

Regards, rhb

[ Edited: 27 May 2011 01:48 PM by RevHeadBanger ]
 Signature 

I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers” ‘Gibran’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4623
Joined  2007-10-05
RevHeadBanger - 27 May 2011 01:39 PM

But the imaginary numbers do not represent a real thing.

I will accept that premise only if you agree real numbers do not represent a real thing. Imaginary numbers are incredibly useful tools. Without them we could not have this conversation. Imaginary numbers are a staple of modern engineering.

Lastly I beleive I am better off arguing against QM and other such models first and for the standard big bang model, even though its the overwhelmingly accepted model anyway. The reason is that the standard big model along with being the best model for the the details of our universe, it also by happy coincidence supports the KCA, which in turn supports the existence of God. See the logic?

Yes, I see the logic, and I also see where it is faulty. The Big Bang model does not support KCA. The Big Bang model says nothing about what happened before 10^-43 second after the Big Bang. The KCA model is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument, and is not even internally logical. As several of us have pointed out, assuming the universe had a causal agent does not lead to the conclusion that the Old Testament god created the universe.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
DarronS - 27 May 2011 03:50 PM

The KCA model is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument, and is not even internally logical.

Thank you

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 10:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2011-05-09
DarronS - 27 May 2011 03:50 PM

Yes, I see the logic, and I also see where it is faulty. The Big Bang model does not support KCA. The Big Bang model says nothing about what happened before 10^-43 second after the Big Bang. The KCA model is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument, and is not even internally logical. As several of us have pointed out, assuming the universe had a causal agent does not lead to the conclusion that the Old Testament god created the universe.

Again the reason the BB does support the KCA has nothing to do with your first comment. It has everything to do with the fact that if the universe had a beginning!  If the universe did not begin to exist (such as according to the QG theory that you seem to prefer) the KCA would have to be discarded in my opinion. So that should remove your concern about my faulty logic, for my logic is sound. Also the claim that time was created just after the BB helps the KCA establish that the ‘cause’ that caused the universe to begin to exist is atemporal and eternal helps the KCA immensely. That is a couple of many reasons that the BB supports the KCA and should have been obvious by now!

In addition, with all due respect, you and your friends are so wrong, The KCA is a valid cosmological argument* which is supported by the majority of academia.  Its been validated as such and never been show to not be such. Ask any professor or any professional philosopher, just pick up the telly and ask, they are not shy for the most part. All of them will agree that the KCA is a logically valid cosmological argument. If any dont agree I would question their credentials! Or have a look at the links.

Again, to be a valid cosmological argument its premises should form a logical series of events. The KCA does just that with the first three premises that forms a logical (categorical) syllogism. The premises must be true. No one here has shown that not to be these conditions not to have been met by the KCA. Nor has anyone on the professional debate circuit shown the KCA not to be valid. There has been challenges but never a capitulation. All those universities that teach the KCA as an example of a cosmological argument etc would not be presenting it as such if it were invalid! The very best that a naysayer could hope for is not to agree that the KCA is invalid for personal reasons, or on faith IMO.

Lastly, the KCA is absolutely not a ‘gaps fallacy’ because it derives its conclusions from logical deductions. Lastly and I do not know how you have missed this, especially since I said it again in this thread, and I will say it one more time and one more time only, ha ha , dang near infinite redundancies gets old ! Okey hopefully for the last time;  [B] I have never claimed that the KCA shows that the universe was created by the Hebrew God! If you insist otherwise show where I said it, but save your eyes from squinting and your nerves from vainly searching for something I haven’t said here nor anywhere else.

Nevertheless thanks for your reply.

Some additional reading;

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Sep 11, 2008 ... 3), reasons that no current version of the cosmological argument is ..... it remains logically possible that God does….the cosmological argument is deductively valid …“Arguing about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argu

The Cosmological Argument The Kalam VersionFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
The Kalam Cosmological argument is a ‘deductive argument’. This means that if it is logically valid, and its premises are true, then the conclusion must ...
http://www.damaris.org/cm/data/.../Worksheet1_KalamCosmoArgument.pdf

rhb

[ Edited: 27 May 2011 10:33 PM by RevHeadBanger ]
 Signature 

I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers” ‘Gibran’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2011 01:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2011-05-09
DarronS - 27 May 2011 03:50 PM

I will accept that premise only if you agree real numbers do not represent a real thing. Imaginary numbers are incredibly useful tools. Without them we could not have this conversation. Imaginary numbers are a staple of modern engineering.

I don’t think we are communicating at all DarronS! Maybe my second language is failing me! However this time I understand why you think I said or thought that real numbers represent a real thing. That is not the case. I know that numbers are numbers not objects or do not represent objects, at least for our discussion. No that is not the problem I have with imaginary numbers nor why I originally disrespected them in my original mention of them. I tried to explain why I was distressed with the use of them in some apps.  However there is a huge difference between real numbers and imaginary numbers (number sequences would be a better definition). Let me try a bad analogy? Say you bought a new but experimental lawn tractor, no refunds no warranty. However when tried to start it was missing a obvious part! So you use bubble gum and bailing wire to fix it (Imaginary numbers) it works and mimics the part that should be there. However the real part you need may not even exist (real numbers).  See I told you it was a bad analogy ha ha…You see imaginary numbers used as hawking used them is a bailing wire and bubble gum repair. It may work but its not the real replacement part. Real numbers are the real repair, but when hawking plugs in the real numbers the singularity comes back. That was what he was trying to rid the equation of! So he sticks the bubble gum and wire of imiginary numbers back on to make the singularity go away.

If you will read my reply again I agreed that imaginary numbers were a good tool. However they are simply a device to plug into an equation or theory to make it work when the real thing does not exist or when the real thing gives the wrong answer.  If the mathematician had the ‘facts’ or equation right it would give the answer he desired without using imaginary numbers! real numbers to use the situation would be much better. I hope this long clumsy but more detailed clarification helps…

With all due respect; rhb

rhb

 Signature 

I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers” ‘Gibran’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2011 02:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2011-05-09
DarronS - 27 May 2011 12:13 PM

RHB, time is not like space. Space has three dimension, time has one. You move about freely in space, but can only move forward in time. Time is not a physical property, it is the measure of a spacetime interval along a particular trajectory.

Agree however we can get into some highly profound situations if backward travel were permitted in this universe.

Have you read much about Godel? A nice but difficult read; ‘A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein’. Not difficult for math but his style. (I should be one to say such a thing!)

rhb

 Signature 

I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers” ‘Gibran’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2011 02:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4623
Joined  2007-10-05

RHB, this is getting nowhere. You refuse to admit the problems with the KCA and make up a fantasy where most philosophers agree it is logically valid, you keep referring to a nonexistent “professional debate circuit,” and now you show a profound misunderstanding of mathematics. Furthermore, this universe does not permit traveling backward in time, so stating “we can get into some highly profound situations if backward travel were permitted in this universe” is a red herring.

Also, until you define your god and offer empirical evidence for its existence further debate is pointless.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2011 04:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2011-05-09
DarronS - 28 May 2011 02:33 AM

RHB, this is getting nowhere. You refuse to admit the problems with the KCA and make up a fantasy where most philosophers agree it is logically valid, you keep referring to a nonexistent “professional debate circuit,” and now you show a profound misunderstanding of mathematics.

There are no fatal flaws of the KCA’s premises and that is what it takes to invalidate it. So far no one here has done so. Yes its frustrating eh? I did say that I would agree to call a stalemate on the photon thing simply to appease you really and to save a lot of space explaining that even photons do have a cause to begin to exist.  As for your attack on my ability to understand math etc,  I would say I was thinking the same thing about you!

*You seem to fail to grasp the mathematical concepts of what imaginary numbers are used for, even after I posted source information. What is worse you seem not to understand the fundamental differences between the cosmological theories of how the universe began etc.*  And what is worse at least on a personal level you make unfounded accusations even as I try my level best not to respond in kind (except for this time, because basically you are calling me a liar).

*In one post you defended the many universe interpretation, but in this reply you seem to choose the standard BB model. May I ask which cosmological model do you feel is true?

*A professional debate circuit means the various venues that Craig Barrow, you know the professionals visit. I thought that would be self explanatory.

Furthermore, this universe does not permit traveling backward in time, so stating “we can get into some highly profound situations if backward travel were permitted in this universe” is a red herring.

This universe? I thought you were a meta-verse fan! Anyway unless that peculiar comment is a straw man reply,  you are demonstrating that you have serious,  gaps in your understanding (or lack of) of your own beloved theories! Yes, you may be surprised to know that many respected scientists have addressed the possibility of backward time travel saying is theoretically possible if not technically so. Think grandfather paradox! Backwards time travel and its implication best fits It’s the theory of the meta verse ie the infinite universe theory. I have noticed many mistakes such as that one but have been nice enough not to point them out. Lastly, the time travel comment was just friendly banter.

Time travel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, the theory of general relativity does suggest scientific grounds for thinking backwards time travel could be possible in certain unusual scenarios, ...
Grandfather paradox - Twin paradox - Time travel in fiction - Billy Meier
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

NOVA Online | Time Travel | Sagan on Time Travel
NOVA: Do you think that backwards time travel will ever be possible? ... Thirdly, maybe backward time travel is possible, but only up to the moment that ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

Positive Futurist - Backwards time travel possible, say atom ...
Backwards time travel possible, say atom smasher scientists. By Dick Pelletier. “Good morning folks, and welcome to the Time Portal. In a few moments, ...
http://www.positivefuturist.com/archive/383.html

See? Yes if these links are not suitable just Google Grandfather paradox or backwards time travel yourself! Oh BTW I am no wiki fan but have reviewed that site and its accurate.

Also, until you define your god and offer empirical evidence for its existence further debate is pointless.

Conveniently pointless to you, I am sure. You are failing to make your case. I donated several paragraphs attempting to describe how our two opposed paradigms would make this discussion difficult. And we are about there.  Nevertheless, I understand your frustration, a good logical argument for the existence of God does that to some people.  That’s ok we can agree to disagree, its not the end of the world. I used to be the same way, intolerant to atheism when I was a traditional Christian but have learned tolerance and to respect other peoples paradigms over the years.

* Lastly show where I said (you will fail on this as well) I said that I could produce empirical evidence for the existence of God? Never ever said it. I did say I have evidence for the existence of God, and its the same kind of evidence that will put anyone in the electric chair. You seem to stereotype me and are desperate to make me fit your idea of what a theologian is. Sorry DarronS I am not what you think. I was hoping this might end differently but apparently you are forfeiting. Ja I bet that goes over like said turd in punch bowl. If you change your mind I am still here by the grace of the admin or not I suppose!

regards, rhb

[ Edited: 28 May 2011 04:31 AM by RevHeadBanger ]
 Signature 

I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers” ‘Gibran’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2011 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4623
Joined  2007-10-05

RHB, my point is you cannot produce empirical evidence for the existence of a god because there is none. I know you never said you could produce such evidence, and all these other debates are mere sideshows in the absence of such evidence. You keep dodging that and insisting that the silly KCA proves a god exists, then leaping to the conclusion your favorite idea of a god exists. You can go ahead and call this a stalemate if you wish; I will let those reading this thread draw their own conclusions.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2011 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
DarronS - 27 May 2011 03:50 PM

Yes, I see the logic, and I also see where it is faulty. The Big Bang model does not support KCA. The Big Bang model says nothing about what happened before 10^-43 second after the Big Bang. The KCA model is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument, and is not even internally logical. As several of us have pointed out, assuming the universe had a causal agent does not lead to the conclusion that the Old Testament god created the universe.

That part comes from accepting the claims of divinely revealed knowledge by way of prophets.

KCA whether it can be dis-proven or not really has nothing to do with revelations. Religion is based on revealed knowledge. If one chooses to have faith in the revelations of a prophet what do they need KCA for?

KCA is a red herring put out by religious folks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2011 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
RevHeadBanger - 27 May 2011 10:26 PM

Lastly, the KCA is absolutely not a ‘gaps fallacy’ because it derives its conclusions from logical deductions. Lastly and I do not know how you have missed this, especially since I said it again in this thread, and I will say it one more time and one more time only, ha ha , dang near infinite redundancies gets old ! Okey hopefully for the last time;  [B] I have never claimed that the KCA shows that the universe was created by the Hebrew God! If you insist otherwise show where I said it, but save your eyes from squinting and your nerves from vainly searching for something I haven’t said here nor anywhere else.


rhb

Sure, KCA does nothing to support Christianity or the Bible. It provides a logical proof for God based on the premise of causality and redefining the term God.

However a logical proof is just a logical proof. It is not evidence of anything. Based on your premise and definitions, the logic maybe sound. However the factual-ness of the conclusions need to be supported by evidence.

Also if in defining God as whatever caused the universe you haven’t really defined anything. How could any evidence support an undefined conclusion?

[ Edited: 28 May 2011 10:03 AM by Gnostikosis ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2011 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2010-12-03

There are no fatal flaws of the KCA’s premises and that is what it takes to invalidate it.

I pointed out a fatal flaw; that they could be false.  I am going to ask again: How do you know the premises are true?  Please try to answer without dodging or begging the question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2011 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

One last time, we all agree there was “some thing” or “condition” that preceded the BB. Science says that this “condition” must have had at least the potential for energetic expression.

But you introduce the concept of “sentient intelligence”, albeit a metaphysical or supernatural intelligence.  So far you have not made the case for “intelligence” to be a required aspect of this pre-condition.
The burden of proof lies with you and so far you have failed to convince me of the necessity.  All you have posited is an argument that the “improbability factor” proves an intelligent director (creator). It does not prove anything,
Answer this:
a) Proof that intelligence was required and creation could not have been spontaneous.
b) what was the “motive” (imperative) for creation of the universe?

The word God means nothing, unless you can attach it specifically to human existence. I have already proven that the word God can logically mean Potential.
So why God and not Potential?

[ Edited: 29 May 2011 03:32 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2011 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

All those universities that teach the KCA as an example of a cosmological argument etc would not be presenting it as such if it were invalid!

They teach it because it is a popular argument, not because it is valid.

[B] I have never claimed that the KCA shows that the universe was created by the Hebrew God! If you insist otherwise show where I said it, but save your eyes from squinting and your nerves from vainly searching for something I haven’t said here nor anywhere else.

I asked for your favorite proof of God’s existence, and the KCA is what you cited. That is why I started this thread.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3