Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 17   [ 334 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:56 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Why do you say it fails?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:26 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4975
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Because the second premise cannot be demonstrated to be true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:15 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
TheJack wrote:
Because the second premise cannot be demonstrated to be true.


The universe began to exist? I think it can be proven both logically and scientifically. An infinite past is logically impossible as this moment right now would constitute the end of an infinity, which is a contradiction of terms. Scientifically, it is proven with the BBIT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:24 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80653
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
pax wrote:
An infinite past is logically impossible as this moment right now would constitute the end of an infinity, which is a contradiction of terms.

St. Thomas disagrees with you. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article2 See in particular Objection 6 and the reply thereunto. And Objection 7 and its reply.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:37 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
pax wrote:
An infinite past is logically impossible as this moment right now would constitute the end of an infinity, which is a contradiction of terms.

St. Thomas disagrees with you. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article2 See in particular Objection 6 and the reply thereunto. And Objection 7 and its reply.


Reply to Ob.6 is just lame. Hilbert understood the paradox better than Aquinas. I could have an infinite number of infinite sets containing infinite numbers of infinite sets of days and still be infinitely distant in time from the present moment. Indeed, there could be an infinite number of infinite pasts all preceding an infinite number of infinite pasts and I am still infinitely distant in time from the present moment. It is much more logically coherent to say that at some point all of physical reality came into being.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:38 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80653
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Also note that BBIT does not conclusively prove a beginning to the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

I would be wary of calling St. Thomas "lame" and suggesting that Hilbert understood it better. Can you tell me what St. Thomas is saying in Obj. 6?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:43 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76001
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
TheJack wrote:
Because the second premise cannot be demonstrated to be true.


I strongly disagree, the evidence of the Doppler shift proves that the universe is expanding, everything is moving further apart. This means that there must have been a time, a finite amount of time in the past, when the expansion began, and that the expansion originated from a single point, the moment when the expansion began is the beginning of the universe, and some simple mathematical calculations show that the expansion began a finite amount of time ago. Also, the laws of thermodynamics conclusively demonstrates not only the universe originated a finite amount of time ago, but that the universe will end a finite amount of time in the future. The universe began with a Big Bang and will end with a 'Big Crunch' also known as the Heat Death of the universe. The Steady State theory is no longer a viable option.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:49 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76001
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Also note that BBIT does not conclusively prove a beginning to the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model



The Big Bang by itself does not, but the Big Bang combined with the Laws of Thermodynamics do.

I don't want to get into an overly technically explanation of the laws of thermodynamics, but my professor who taught my thermodynamics did a good job of summarizing them:

First Law: You can't win

Second Law: You can't break even

Third Law: You can't stop playing


In short, even in the cyclic universe model, there can only be a finite number of cycles, because eventually everything goes to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, aka the heat death of the universe.

In the words of CS Lewis 'Humpty Dumpty is falling' cannot be the entire story, if he is falling, there must have been a time when he was sitting on the wall before he fell, and there must also be a time after he has fallen when after he hits the ground. He cannot just be falling for no reason forever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:03 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4975
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Sorry, pax, but I've seen the arguments trying to prove via reason that the universe necessary has a beginning. I side with Aquinas on this, and I've no interest in going down a tired old road. You can think you are smarter than him, if that is to your liking, of course.

And Doom, as little as I care for pax' hubris, I care less for your appeals to science. Science, by its nature, absolutely cannot provide a demonstration. Scientific theories can change tomorrow in ways that we cannot imagine. If you are going to appeal to science in support of premise 2, the argument must be recast as follows:

1. That which comes into existence must have a cause;
2. The best scientific evidence we have today strongly indicates that the universe came into existence;
3. Therefore the best scientific evidence we have today strongly indicates that the universe must have had a cause.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument and it is one I endorse. It stops short, however, of being a demonstration. Still, if an atheist wishes to challenge (2) as I have phrased it, they either must insist that the modern theories do NOT suggest a true beginning of the universe or else they are forced to argue that the modern theories are wrong. On that basis, we may ask their warrant for rejecting all modern theories, and, of course, they will not be able to provide any warrant since ALL possible grounds for doing so would be question begging. So not only does my version of the "kalam" prove to be more stable (logically speaking) but it works better rhetorically because it lures atheists into a trap that demonstrates rather clearly that their rejection of God is its own matter of faith and their "arguments" against Him are viciously circular.

But, as I said above, feel free to continue pushing a bad argument. It doesn't really matter to me in the least. It would only suggest that you don't understand the nature, limits, or proper application of science. And while that is a great many things, it is least of all, my friend, my problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:34 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29082
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Just one comment...there is a difference between saying that the universe had a beginning cannot be demonstrate purely from the nature of time or a claim from some logical consequent, and saying it cannot be demonstrated from particular empirical evidence that may not have been available to Aquinas.

And then there is a difference between saying that with said evidence we can demonstrate with certitude that it, or rather time had a beginning and saying that we can prove it in the sense of not only a reasonable argument but, in light of evidence showing that the other opinion is unreasonable. That would be considered proof in the modern scientific sense, and we would call that a proof of sorts.

pax, you beg many questions. You didn't seem willing to even elucidate a clear conception of time, let alone present an argument that all of time exists right now, such that an indefinite past would mean an actual infinite. Nor did you want to address whether time was the inner form of apperception (Kant), some distinct entity apart from bodies, whether it has an objective existence qua time, or whether as Aquinas, Aristotle and even Einstein would hold (in different words) that time is the number of motion according to before and after. If so the "quantity" only exists in the numbering mind. And while that might raise interesting questions like does God know all numbers, and if so is there an actual infinity, it pushes the question to the objective foundation of time, which is motion.

And then we can talk, because modern evidence proves (in the modern sense of not strict demonstration but overwhelming support) the "motion" of our universe is not eternal. As doom said the cyclic theory is untenable in the current models with current evidence. So we would be saying that if the world had no beginning, then some motion has to exist that did not have a start and could continue indefinitely, such as the perfect circular motion of the heavens in Aristotle. Just as Aquinas denied that as a fact, because of his faith, we can deny it, or an analogate, because it would be unsupportable with current evidence

But if you want to argue logical impossibilities, you have to address a lot more. Frankly your Aquinas is lame is laughably stupid here. Even were he wrong, you did nothing remotely to even suggest anything other than it is all over your head.

Please read http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aq ... ernity.asp


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:13 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80653
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Doom wrote:
The Big Bang by itself does not, but the Big Bang combined with the Laws of Thermodynamics do.

Newer attempts at a cyclic universe model escape that problem by various means. See the link article above.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:17 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80653
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I must say that the "Aquinas is lame" statement reminded me greatly of the way modern atheists dismiss him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:45 am 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19322
Doom wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Also note that BBIT does not conclusively prove a beginning to the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model



The Big Bang by itself does not, but the Big Bang combined with the Laws of Thermodynamics do.

I don't want to get into an overly technically explanation of the laws of thermodynamics, but my professor who taught my thermodynamics did a good job of summarizing them:

First Law: You can't win

Second Law: You can't break even

Third Law: You can't stop playing

n in the cyclic universe model, there can only be a finite number of cycles, because eventually everything goes to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, aka the heat death of the universe.

In the words of CS Lewis 'Humpty Dumpty is falling' cannot be the entire story, if he is falling, there must have been a time when he was sitting on the wall before he fell, and there must also be a time after he has fallen when after he hits the ground. He cannot just be falling for no reason forever.


"Miracles", in God IN THE DOCK 1970), part I, number 2, p. 34.

GKC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:18 am 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76001
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Doom wrote:
The Big Bang by itself does not, but the Big Bang combined with the Laws of Thermodynamics do.

Newer attempts at a cyclic universe model escape that problem by various means. See the link article above.


I'm familiar with both the cyclic universe model and the inflationary model from my physics courses in college. And they are nothing but baseless speculation. Sure, they 'work' as models in a purely intellectual sense, but there is basically no evidence to support them, and in fact, they fly in the teeth of all the available evidence. They 'avoid the problem of the heat death of the universe' by simply asserting, with no basis in fact other than wishful thinking, that the laws of thermodynamics don't count because I say they don't count. The math works, but the physics does not because there is no evidence to support the these theories.

Here's thing thing: much of modern cosmology is just baseless speculation and wishful thinking, many modern cosmological theories are not based on any evidence, but are rather attempts to get around known facts by pretending that those facts do not exist, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the cyclic universe model and other models are the result of desperation by committed atheists to avoid the inescapable fact that all of the available facts point to the universe having a beginning a finite number of years in the past, and having an ending a finite number of years in the future because they are uncomfortable with the philosophical and theological implications. Such theories are not based on science, but frankly, theology.

Well....the point of science is that we base our conclusions not simply on logic and mathematics, but on evidence which can be observed and measured. And there is no evidence for things like the cyclic universe model, the inflationary universe model or string theory. Indeed, the fact that modern physicists increasingly like to indulge in fantasy and speculation (my physics professor used to say 'they suffer from hallucinations when reading the evidence') rather than base their conclusions on fact is one of the main reasons why I lost interest in physics as an undergraduate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:21 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Aquinas wrote:
Objection 6. Further, if the world always was, the consequence is that infinite days preceded this present day. But it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium. Therefore we should never have arrived at this present day; which is manifestly false.

Reply to Objection 6. Passage is always understood as being from term to term. Whatever bygone day we choose, from it to the present day there is a finite number of days which can be passed through. The objection is founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.


He is saying that one can traverse the time from an infinite past until the present day by dividing the time into a finite number of sets.

But, it doesn't work, as Hilbert pointed out.

And, I agree with Doom. If we are going to argue a point of science, then it cannot be some ad hoc hypothesis. It must be something with some real meat behind it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:26 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Here is how you get from the infinite past unto the present:

Infinite Past - 1 Unit of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - 2 Units of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinite Units of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - 2 x Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinity x Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Hmm......no matter what I do I cannot get out of the infinite past


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:40 pm 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 39913
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
pax wrote:
He is saying that one can traverse the time from an infinite past until the present day by dividing the time into a finite number of sets.

That's actually not what he's saying. It's more akin to a proof by induction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:55 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80653
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The panther is correct. That's not what St. Thomas is saying. Remember, if you think you have caught St. Thomas in an elementary mistake, it is much more likely that you have misunderstood him than that he made the mistake you thought he made. St. Thomas can be wrong; it is highly unlikely that he is trivially wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:59 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80653
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
St. Thomas's conclusion was controversial even in his own day, BTW, so I'm not claiming that it's obvious that he was right. But the controversy was more that some thought he was denying the creation of the world in time as a fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack -- The Kalam Argument
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:10 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:30 am
Posts: 593
Religion: Catholic
pax wrote:
Here is how you get from the infinite past unto the present:

Infinite Past - 1 Unit of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - 2 Units of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinite Units of Time = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - 2 x Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Infinite Past - Infinity x Infinite Past = Infinite Past

Hmm......no matter what I do I cannot get out of the infinite past


You're making the assumption that we have to start from a first moment in time and traverse through all the moments in time one by one in order for the present moment to exist. Obviously, if you assume that's how time works, there cannot be an infinite past because you're assuming from the beginning that there's a first moment! If the past is infinite, there can't be a first moment. On the other hand, if you pick any actual moment in time from an infinite past, there is only a finite amount of time to span to the present as Aquinas points out.

Since time is created by a God who exists in eternity, it does not seem like any moment in time needs to be dependent on the preceding moments of time for its existence.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 17   [ 334 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to:  
cron