This thread will be about the kalam cosmological argument. I have made a few threads about this argument before and I have had alot of discussions on this topic and this thread will have refutations to all the objections to this argument.
Firstly the argument.
P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2 Universe began to exist
P3 Universe has a Cause
P1 is proven by virtue of the fact that its opposite something can come from nothing is irrational and insane. This is not just based on experience and because
P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2 Universe began to exist
P3 Universe has a Cause
P1 is proven by virtue of the fact that its opposite something can come from nothing is irrational and insane. This is not just based on experience and because
It is intuitive it is because this is like saying 0 equals 1. That is false. It will always be false. 2 plus 2 will always be 4 in the universe and outside of it. Same way 0 can never equal 1. Plus if there is an absolute nothing how can anything arise from it So P1 stands proven
Now i will make arguments for P2 of the kalam. There are two philosphical arguments and two scientific arguments for the beginning of the universe that I will use. I will be addressing all the contentions after just mentioning the arguments.
The first argument for the beginning of the universe is the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things. Now let's suppose there a shelf with an infinite number of books on it. It has an infinite number of even books and an infinite number of odd books on it. Keep this
In mind. Now let's suppose you were to remove all the even number books of the shelf. How many books will be left on the shelf. Infintie all the odd number books. So we subtracted an infinite number of books from an infinite number of books and still an infinite number of books
Are left on the shelf. Now suppose instead of doing that we were to take all the books from the shelf. How many books will be left on the shelf. Zero. We subtracted an infinite number of books from an infinite number of books again yet we got different results. This shows that
An actual infintie number of things existing in reality is metaphysically impossible. Now i could reference more thought experiments regarding this but the main point of this thread is to refute all the numeorus contentions regarding the kalam cosmological argument so i won't
Mention the other experiments here. The second argument for the beginning of the universe is the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite. This argument is different from the earlier argument in that even if an actual infinite could exist it would still be impossible to
Traverse an actual infintie getting from any point to infinitely. Let me give a very simple reason why this is impossible. Suppose we are at 0 on a number line and we are moving towards infinity. Will we ever get to infinity. No why because at any point we will reach there are
Always more points. We could get to 1000 or 1000000 or 10000000000 or 10000000000000000000 but we will never be able to reach infinity. Now think about what an infintie past entials. It means the number of days that precede today is infinite. That means an infintie number of days
Have to take place before today happens. If we could place each day in the eternal past on a number line it would basically be from negative infinity to 0 which would be today. So we will basically be arriving at 0 from negative infinity. Now here is why that is impossible.
Our initial position is negative infinity. Our final position is 0. The change is final minus initial which means 0 minus negative infinity which is positive infinity. So arriving from negative infinity to zero is the same as traversing an actual infintie that as I have shown
Earlier is impossible. So there cannot be an infintie number of days preceding today. If there were this day would be reached. These are the two philosphical arguments for the beginning of the universe. I will post the scientific arguments before going into all the contentions
Which are the main reason for making this thread. Now first scientific argument for the beginning of the universe is the expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding which has been proven empirically. Since the universe is getting bigger and bigger the further back we go
In time the universe will become smaller and smaller until it simply does not exist. That shows the universe has a beginning. Now the main scientifc support for this premise is the BGV theorm. This theorm is widely accepted by scientists and it has only one assumption.
This assumption is that the universe is on average expanding throughout its history. This is actually a very general assumption and it should hold unless we post a universe that has an infintie contraction or a cyclical universe or a universe that has an initial static phase.
Now i will post a few references of Alexander Vilenkin who is an authority in the field and one of the authors of the theorm regarding this theorm and what it proves.
Our argument shows that null and time-like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these
past-directed geodesics (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin
past-directed geodesics (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin
2003, p. 3) A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification,
our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the
inflating false vacuum.
inflating false vacuum.
The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible (Vilenkin 2006, p. 175). Here is what vilenkin says on the next page. "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.
With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." p176
Now there are basically three types of exceptions to the theorm and I will address each of them and quote scientists identifying the problem with each. Firstly there is an infinitely contracting universe. The issue with this model is that it requires explicit fine tuning which
In turn brings up an intelligent Creator which is not something atheists want to bring up. The following quote is from George Ellis by the way all my references are from William lane Craig's article the kalam cosmological argument in the Blackwell companion to natural theology.
The problems are related: first, initial conditions have to be set in an extremely special way at the start of the collapse phase in order that it is a Robertson-Walker
universe collapsing; and these conditions have to be set in an acausal way (in the infinite past).
universe collapsing; and these conditions have to be set in an acausal way (in the infinite past).
It is possible, but a great deal of inexplicable fine tuning is taking
place: how does the matter in widely separated causally disconnected places at the
start of the universe know how to correlate its motions (and densities) so that they
will come together correctly in a
place: how does the matter in widely separated causally disconnected places at the
start of the universe know how to correlate its motions (and densities) so that they
will come together correctly in a
spatially homogeneous way in the future? Secondly, if one gets that right, the collapse phase is unstable, with perturbations
increasing rapidly, so only a very fine-tuned collapse phase remains close to Robertson-Walker even if it started off so, and will be able to turn
increasing rapidly, so only a very fine-tuned collapse phase remains close to Robertson-Walker even if it started off so, and will be able to turn
around as a whole (in general many black holes will form locally and collapse to a singularity).
So, yes, it is possible, but who focused the collapse so well that it turns around nicely? (Private communication, January 25, 2006)
So, yes, it is possible, but who focused the collapse so well that it turns around nicely? (Private communication, January 25, 2006)
The second option is a static universe. Basically in these models universe stays static for an infinite time and then starts expanding. The problem with these models is that universe cannot remain static for an infintie time as Vilenkin says
“Small fluctuations in the size of the universe are inevitable according to the quantum theory, and thus Einstein’s universe
cannot remain in balance for an infinite time” (Vilenkin 2006, p. 209)
cannot remain in balance for an infinite time” (Vilenkin 2006, p. 209)
The third type of model that avoids BGV theorm is a cyclical model. Basically universe is always contracting and expanding so it's average size remains the same and does not expand. These models have a thermodynamic probelm. Let me quote Vilenkin again
“A truly cyclic universe has a problem with entropy increase: it should have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now” (Personal communication, January 19, 2007)
The second scientific argument for the universe’s beginning is based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe. Thermodynamics is so well-established that this field is virtually a closed science. Already in the nineteenth century, physicists realized that the application
of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the universe as a whole implied a grim eschatological conclusion: given sufficient time, the universe will eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer “heat death.” But this apparently firm projection raised an even deeper question:
if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? The advent of relativity theory and its application to cosmology altered the shape of the eschatological scenario predicted on the basis
of the Second Law but did not materially affect the fundamental question. In contrast to their nineteenth century forebears, contemporary physicists have come to question the implicit assumption that the universe is past eternal.
P. C. W. Davies concludes, “The universe can’t have existed forever. We know there must have been an absolute beginning a finite time ago.”
The thread has become very long so i will make a second thread to respond to content ions to this argument.
Loading suggestions...