Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the Kalam CA

tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God
C2: Therefore, the cause of the universe is God

PREMISES

Premise 1: Causality

Dr. Craig defends this premise as rationally intuitive, arguing that, inductively, everything that begins to exist has a cause. I object to this on grounds that time is required for anything to be "caused" coherently. It's a hasty generalization -- you can't generalize from "who killed Roger Rabbit" to "what caused the universe," because there's no time sans the universe. Lacking time, we lack time directionality, which is required for anything to be coherently "caused." Anything that "happens" requires itself to be contingent on time.

Premise 2: Beginning to Exist

Dr. Craig uses cosmology to defend this premise. But his interpretation of cosmological and philosophical justifications presume the presentist ontology of time. Under an ontology of time that makes no distinction between "past," "present," and "future," there's no such thing as time "beginning to exist," since time has no past. The universe would have just existed as a tenseless four-dimensional block. Most special relativity agrees with a tenseless ontology, except for the neo-Lorentzian interpretation, but there is no evidence for a neo-Lorentzian "ether" existing that would entail three-dimensionalism.

Premise 3: God

The third premise has to presume a substance dualist ontology of the mind, which is unjustified entirely, since all "mind-like stuff" is explicable by the nature of the brain itself. According to studies, physicalism is the best explanation for eternalism and the brain's presentist perception of temporal becoming as being compatible. Further, physicalism has greater explanatory power than substance dualism, since the latter fails to show what the mind even *is,* and fails Occam's razor.

Therefore, the Kalam cosmological argument is unsound.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 1:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God
C2: Therefore, the cause of the universe is God

PREMISES

Premise 1: Causality

Dr. Craig defends this premise as rationally intuitive, arguing that, inductively, everything that begins to exist has a cause. I object to this on grounds that time is required for anything to be "caused" coherently. It's a hasty generalization -- you can't generalize from "who killed Roger Rabbit" to "what caused the universe," because there's no time sans the universe. Lacking time, we lack time directionality, which is required for anything to be coherently "caused." Anything that "happens" requires itself to be contingent on time.

Premise 2: Beginning to Exist

Dr. Craig uses cosmology to defend this premise. But his interpretation of cosmological and philosophical justifications presume the presentist ontology of time. Under an ontology of time that makes no distinction between "past," "present," and "future," there's no such thing as time "beginning to exist," since time has no past. The universe would have just existed as a tenseless four-dimensional block. Most special relativity agrees with a tenseless ontology, except for the neo-Lorentzian interpretation, but there is no evidence for a neo-Lorentzian "ether" existing that would entail three-dimensionalism.

Premise 3: God

The third premise has to presume a substance dualist ontology of the mind, which is unjustified entirely, since all "mind-like stuff" is explicable by the nature of the brain itself. According to studies, physicalism is the best explanation for eternalism and the brain's presentist perception of temporal becoming as being compatible. Further, physicalism has greater explanatory power than substance dualism, since the latter fails to show what the mind even *is,* and fails Occam's razor.

Therefore, the Kalam cosmological argument is unsound.
Let's debate that, lol.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 3:12:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's also terribly inductive.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 8:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God
C2: Therefore, the cause of the universe is God

PREMISES

Premise 1: Causality

Dr. Craig defends this premise as rationally intuitive, arguing that, inductively, everything that begins to exist has a cause. I object to this on grounds that time is required for anything to be "caused" coherently.
It's actually an appeal to ignorance, Tej -- a common problem in philosophy, because ideas are sometimes grounded in language rather than observation, and language enshrines ignorance and prejudice.

If you were to ground it in observation (i.e. where we found it in the first place), cause thereby becomes defined materially and empirically, and insisting that the universe must have a cause becomes a category error, since the universe is both the sole observable source of, and sole record of, causes.

A cause for the universe is a conjecture, not a conclusion.

Premise 2: Beginning to Exist
Dr. Craig uses cosmology to defend this premise.
I question what cause should mean when applied to universes anyway. You need to switch frames to define it, but what's the new frame? How to define it accountably and unambiguously? How can human intuitions, built as they are in the operation of just one universe, be held to apply in there?

It's not a constructive definition (and perhaps not a definition at all.) To me it seems at best suspect; at worst a category error.

Premise 3: God
The third premise has to presume a substance dualist ontology of the mind, which is unjustified entirely, since all "mind-like stuff" is explicable by the nature of the brain itself.
Worse, there's nothing requiring creation to be intelligent, deliberate, morally compatible with, or engaged to the welfare of humanity. Why can't our observable universe be the unintended byproduct of some other process we cannot see? There's no guarantee that our universe's existence is unique -- that there aren't infinite of them -- or that any intelligence has seen it, or cares one whit about it, or about us within it.

Thus, there's nothing requiring a creation event to have an intelligent, deliberate creator, nor one worthy of worship. Using 'God' as a referent for a prime cause (if there were one), is therefore a silly, ignorant, anthroplogically conceited, ill-defined, and intellectually dishonest appeal to antiquity.

Therefore, the Kalam cosmological argument is unsound.
In the 8th and 9th centuries, Muslim philosophers wanted a philosophical response to non-Muslim philosophers questioning the authority of their revelation, and kalam (Arabic for 'speech') was one approach. Though it caused Muslim concern about defining God through philosophy rather than receiving description through revelation, it nevertheless made some sense for its day.

However, voiced by modern minds trying to adapt it to modern understanding of epistemology and causality, it's beyond dopey. I'm always surprised that people waste such a lot of time on this stupid, conceited, error-filled argument.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 8:34:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

How does Craig know that?

All he can testify is that to this day, in our everyday lives, things that begin to exist have seemed to have a cause. He can't make that promise about the quanta level, singularities in the Universe, let alone the Universe itself.

In a way, I think this argument encapsulates the problem with some flavours of apologetics, namely creationism. Creationists take their everyday experience and extrapolate it to much larger or much smaller scales of time and space. They think the Universe operates on common sense. But relativity and quantum mechanics have thrown that premise to the waste bin. We know for a fact that the Universe is not bound by what we perceive in our daily lives, no matter how mind-boggling some might find that to be.
thethrone
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:01:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 8:34:35 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause


How does Craig know that?

All he can testify is that to this day, in our everyday lives, things that begin to exist have seemed to have a cause. He can't make that promise about the quanta level, singularities in the Universe, let alone the Universe itself.

In a way, I think this argument encapsulates the problem with some flavours of apologetics, namely creationism. Creationists take their everyday experience and extrapolate it to much larger or much smaller scales of time and space. They think the Universe operates on common sense. But relativity and quantum mechanics have thrown that premise to the waste bin. We know for a fact that the Universe is not bound by what we perceive in our daily lives, no matter how mind-boggling some might find that to be. : :

Our Creator knew that His computing language of invisible wavelengths would confuse His people. That's why He used this first age to teach us who we are and how He created everything before ending part one of His program called Eternal Life.

In the next age ( part 2 ) we will get to know that we're living in make-believe worlds and that we people are only characters in His program similar to the characters in The Sims simulation game. Once we all know the Truth, then we won't fear anything. This means we'll all live in peace and harmony knowing we're not real people.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 10:26:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 3:12:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It's also terribly inductive.

I don't think that's an explicit problem. Science itself is inductive in nature.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 11:11:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 10:26:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/30/2015 3:12:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It's also terribly inductive.

I don't think that's an explicit problem. Science itself is inductive in nature.

This isn't really a scientific venture.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 11:52:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 8:04:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It's actually an appeal to ignorance, Tej -- a common problem in philosophy

Ohh boy...there we go again....
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 12:46:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 11:52:37 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:04:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It's actually an appeal to ignorance, Tej -- a common problem in philosophy
Ohh boy...there we go again....
Wherever you and nameless others may have gone before, Fkkize, it wasn't with me.

I'm not a STEM guy who thinks philosophy is worthless or superseded; I think it remains important.

But I do think that any time philosophy touches an area where professionals no longer trust language alone, philosophers shouldn't trust language alone either.

In my view, that'd include any topic touched by science or technology, and any discussion about justice or public policy.

If you want to argue that philosophers have now embraced diligent empiricism in all four areas as a professional standard, please go right ahead and show us the professional standards endorsed by peak philosophical societies.

But if you can't argue that, then I invite you to consider on what basis you're arguing at all.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 1:31:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 12:46:31 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/1/2015 11:52:37 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:04:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It's actually an appeal to ignorance, Tej -- a common problem in philosophy
Ohh boy...there we go again....
Wherever you and nameless others may have gone before, Fkkize, it wasn't with me.
Yes, it was with you and your claims about scientific objective morality.

I'm not a STEM guy who thinks philosophy is worthless or superseded; I think it remains important.
Then we're in the same boat.

But I do think that any time philosophy touches an area where professionals no longer trust language alone, philosophers shouldn't trust language alone either.
Except that philosophers don't do that.
Which is my point, every time you talk about philosophy, philosophers and the things they deal with, you tend to straw man an entire field of academia.

In my view, that'd include any topic touched by science or technology, and any discussion about justice or public policy.
Except that not even Craig relies on language games.

If you want to argue that philosophers have now embraced diligent empiricism
I told you this before, but the majority of philosophers are naturalists. Meaning there is nothing out of reach for scientific inquiry.
Yes, I want to argue that.
Further empiricism is a philosophical invention to begin with.

in all four areas as a professional standard, please go right ahead and show us the professional standards endorsed by peak philosophical societies.
http://philpapers.org...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 2:47:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 4:01:37 AM, thethrone wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:34:35 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause


How does Craig know that?

All he can testify is that to this day, in our everyday lives, things that begin to exist have seemed to have a cause. He can't make that promise about the quanta level, singularities in the Universe, let alone the Universe itself.

In a way, I think this argument encapsulates the problem with some flavours of apologetics, namely creationism. Creationists take their everyday experience and extrapolate it to much larger or much smaller scales of time and space. They think the Universe operates on common sense. But relativity and quantum mechanics have thrown that premise to the waste bin. We know for a fact that the Universe is not bound by what we perceive in our daily lives, no matter how mind-boggling some might find that to be. : :

Our Creator knew that His computing language of invisible wavelengths would confuse His people. That's why He used this first age to teach us who we are and how He created everything before ending part one of His program called Eternal Life.

In the next age ( part 2 ) we will get to know that we're living in make-believe worlds and that we people are only characters in His program similar to the characters in The Sims simulation game. Once we all know the Truth, then we won't fear anything. This means we'll all live in peace and harmony knowing we're not real people.

Citations needed. Everything mentioned so far is a bare assertion.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I would argue that our universe currently operates by the laws of nature, all phenomenon observed can be categorized within these laws and we can observe that nothing other than the inside of a black hole violates those laws. And, although time is relative and dilates, we know that from our reference frame, time appears to stop beyond the event horizon, yet for an observer at the singularity, time is quite normal.

Time, as we understand it from the perspective of a 4 dimensional metric, began with the Big Bang, hence prior to that, there is no concept of time. However, that which is considered prior to the Big Bang may have also been a singularity, in which time once again most likely had stopped, viewed from a reference frame outside of the singularity, if such a reference frame could exist, hypothetically.

But, similar to the time dilation we observe in a black holes singularity, we can also view the singularity that may have existed prior to the Big Bang, and for that singularity, time was perfectly normal, wherein any events occurring would be a valid "cause". Craig jumps to the conclusion that cause was God. Yet, if we extrapolate all the has occurred over the life of the universe in that every event followed the laws of nature, why then can we not also assume the cause prior to the Big Bang did not also follow the laws of nature, or at the very least, the same laws that govern the singularity and properties of a black hole?

Craig completely fails to take this reasonable and logical approach to the cause he concludes from a cosmological position, yet he does not apply anything from cosmology, the laws of nature or the physics that govern a black holes singularity.

C2: Therefore, the cause of the universe is God

PREMISES

Premise 1: Causality

Dr. Craig defends this premise as rationally intuitive, arguing that, inductively, everything that begins to exist has a cause. I object to this on grounds that time is required for anything to be "caused" coherently. It's a hasty generalization -- you can't generalize from "who killed Roger Rabbit" to "what caused the universe," because there's no time sans the universe. Lacking time, we lack time directionality, which is required for anything to be coherently "caused." Anything that "happens" requires itself to be contingent on time.

Premise 2: Beginning to Exist

Dr. Craig uses cosmology to defend this premise. But his interpretation of cosmological and philosophical justifications presume the presentist ontology of time. Under an ontology of time that makes no distinction between "past," "present," and "future," there's no such thing as time "beginning to exist," since time has no past. The universe would have just existed as a tenseless four-dimensional block. Most special relativity agrees with a tenseless ontology, except for the neo-Lorentzian interpretation, but there is no evidence for a neo-Lorentzian "ether" existing that would entail three-dimensionalism.

Premise 3: God

The third premise has to presume a substance dualist ontology of the mind, which is unjustified entirely, since all "mind-like stuff" is explicable by the nature of the brain itself. According to studies, physicalism is the best explanation for eternalism and the brain's presentist perception of temporal becoming as being compatible. Further, physicalism has greater explanatory power than substance dualism, since the latter fails to show what the mind even *is,* and fails Occam's razor.

Therefore, the Kalam cosmological argument is unsound.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible. Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 5:45:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible.

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that notion. You'll need to explain it in detail.

The Schwartzschild solutions and Robertson/Walker metrics show that is not a problem at all.

Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).

Sounds like Craig is spouting gibberish to me.


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.

Okay, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Special Relativity does not deal with this problem, it is merely a subset of General Relativity that specific to certain reference frames, none of which are relevant to the cosmological argument.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 2:13:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 1:31:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/1/2015 12:46:31 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/1/2015 11:52:37 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/30/2015 8:04:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It's actually an appeal to ignorance, Tej -- a common problem in philosophy
Ohh boy...there we go again....
Wherever you and nameless others may have gone before, Fkkize, it wasn't with me.
Yes, it was with you and your claims about scientific objective morality.
I'm not a STEM guy who thinks philosophy is worthless or superseded; I think it remains important.
Then we're in the same boat.
But I do think that any time philosophy touches an area where professionals no longer trust language alone, philosophers shouldn't trust language alone either.
Except that philosophers don't do that.
We might need to discuss what you think they do instead then.

Which is my point, every time you talk about philosophy, philosophers and the things they deal with, you tend to straw man an entire field of academia.
I don't feel I am, since I read philosophical papers from time to time, and as a scientist, some philosophical methods make me uncomfortable.

In my view, that'd include any topic touched by science or technology, and any discussion about justice or public policy.
Except that not even Craig relies on language games.
I didn't say they were games, and I don't believe there's any deliberate intent for intellectual dishonesty (most of the time.) I don't even mind lack of empirical rigour when philosophers create conjectures. it's the lack of rigour under certain kinds of critique and argument that concerns me.

Kalam CA is a good example -- and topical since that's er... our topic.

Does the argument bother you too, Fkkize? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you want to argue that philosophers have now embraced diligent empiricism
I told you this before, but the majority of philosophers are naturalists. Meaning there is nothing out of reach for scientific inquiry.
Do you believe diligent empiricism is implied by methodological naturalism is implied by philosophical naturalism?

I don't myself believe that. Giving someone permission to make inference from their senses isn't showing them how to diligently investigate using observation.

in all four areas as a professional standard, please go right ahead and show us the professional standards endorsed by peak philosophical societies.
http://philpapers.org...
Thanks for the paper,which I found interesting (and will reread in further detail when time permits.) I agree that the survey shows philosophical belief in naturalism. What it doesn't show though is a standard of empirical diligence for matters connecting with areas normally thought empirical -- I've listed science, engineering, law and social policy. We can find no lack of empirical standards for professionals in those areas. Where are those standards in philosophical research?

Further empiricism is a philosophical invention to begin with.
...one which science and engineering developed and refined methodologically. Inventing fire doesn't mean you can operate a steam engine, or diagnose what's going wrong when it fails to do what it was meant to.

I said before that philosophy is important. Especially I think its conjectures are important, and its taxonomic ideas are sometimes very valuable. I can't recall either ever bothering me.

But it seems that I routinely trip over critiques in the methodology of empirical disciplines that seem pretty clueless about the disciplines and methodologies themselves. I spent several years of a postdoc working alongside philosophers in an AI-related field, so I know that there are capable empiricists in philosophy. But if the empirical standards aren't there, then there will be (and I believe are) also philosophers routinely talking absolute bunkum about science, engineering, social policy and law.

Back to topic, the Kalam CA is an example of an idea that would get ripped apart in the sciences -- the very discipline that spends the most time studying causality. You can use a word like 'cause' intuitively because language lets you do that, but the moment you have to demonstrate causality empirically you realise just how hard you have to work to show it's there -- especially when you don't understand mechanism. And you quickly see how problematic demonstrating cause would be when there's no matter around to ground causality in definitive meaning.

So leaning on linguistic intuition when dealing with empirical matters is an appeal to ignorance -- relying on the fact that people believe ideas when they have no language to explore alternatives.

Whatever the metaphysical predisposition of philosophers, unless and until there are standards for philosophical reasoning about empirical disciplines requiring language to be grounded in constructive method whenever you're trying to sell an inference, this sort of appeal to ignorance will still be common, because there'll be nothing stopping it from occurring.

That's the whole of my point, Fkkize. It's not a dismissal of philosophy -- far from it; it's concern about lack of standards for relevant rigour when it interacts with empirical disciplines.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 2:38:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 1:31:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Empiricism is a philosophical invention to begin with.

With a bit of post-shower wit, I wanted to return to this, Fkkize.

Do you believe there's any possible way humans could have had epistemology before trial-and-error methods?

I personally don't. Epistemology requires some pretty abstract language, while trial-and-error just need curiosity, imagination and memory. We see that in many species, and not just our own.

That being so, is it fair to say that philosophy invented empiricism, or would it be fairer to say that philosophy recognised its value, and sought to codify it epistemologically, to help make it explicit rather than tacit?

That's still valuable, but it's not exactly authorship.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 9:12:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 5:45:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible.

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that notion. You'll need to explain it in detail.

The Schwartzschild solutions and Robertson/Walker metrics show that is not a problem at all.

Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).

Sounds like Craig is spouting gibberish to me.


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.

Okay, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Special Relativity does not deal with this problem, it is merely a subset of General Relativity that specific to certain reference frames, none of which are relevant to the cosmological argument.

B-series refutes P2, special relativity confirms B-series [https://en.wikipedia.org...].
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 10:02:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 8:34:35 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
How does Craig know that?

All he can testify is that to this day, in our everyday lives, things that begin to exist have seemed to have a cause.

Ah but there lies the big fat problem of this entire argument. What are the things in our everyday lives that have begun to exist? The law of conservation of matter-energy states that matter-energy in a system cannot be created or destroyed; that matter-energy is simply transferred from one state to another and is therefore conserved. So what actually then begins to exist? We may say in everyday parlance that a person begins to exist, but the matter which composes did not. Until Craig addresses this, I see myself taking this argument very seriously.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 10:05:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
We may say in everyday parlance that a person begins to exist, but the matter which composes *them* did not. Until Craig addresses this, I *don't* see myself taking this argument very seriously.

*Corrected typos
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:40:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 9:12:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 5:45:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible.

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that notion. You'll need to explain it in detail.

The Schwartzschild solutions and Robertson/Walker metrics show that is not a problem at all.

Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).

Sounds like Craig is spouting gibberish to me.


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.

Okay, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Special Relativity does not deal with this problem, it is merely a subset of General Relativity that specific to certain reference frames, none of which are relevant to the cosmological argument.

B-series refutes P2, special relativity confirms B-series [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

I think you're quite confused, Special Relativity has nothing to do with any of this, which makes me think you probably don't understand it.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:11:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:12:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 5:45:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible.

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that notion. You'll need to explain it in detail.

The Schwartzschild solutions and Robertson/Walker metrics show that is not a problem at all.

Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).

Sounds like Craig is spouting gibberish to me.


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.

Okay, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Special Relativity does not deal with this problem, it is merely a subset of General Relativity that specific to certain reference frames, none of which are relevant to the cosmological argument.

B-series refutes P2, special relativity confirms B-series [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

I think you're quite confused, Special Relativity has nothing to do with any of this, which makes me think you probably don't understand it.

"If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe, but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. If each three-dimensional universe exists, then the existence of multiple three-dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four-dimensional." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] This conclusion is drawn from relativity of simultaneity, a subset of special relativity. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:49:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 4:11:21 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:12:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 5:45:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible.

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that notion. You'll need to explain it in detail.

The Schwartzschild solutions and Robertson/Walker metrics show that is not a problem at all.

Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).

Sounds like Craig is spouting gibberish to me.


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.

Okay, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Special Relativity does not deal with this problem, it is merely a subset of General Relativity that specific to certain reference frames, none of which are relevant to the cosmological argument.

B-series refutes P2, special relativity confirms B-series [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

I think you're quite confused, Special Relativity has nothing to do with any of this, which makes me think you probably don't understand it.

"If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe, but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. If each three-dimensional universe exists, then the existence of multiple three-dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four-dimensional." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] This conclusion is drawn from relativity of simultaneity, a subset of special relativity. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Yes, I read that, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is simply a layman's explanation of reference frames and simultaneity. Again, SR has nothing to do with this.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 5:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 4:49:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:11:21 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:12:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 5:45:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible.

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that notion. You'll need to explain it in detail.

The Schwartzschild solutions and Robertson/Walker metrics show that is not a problem at all.

Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).

Sounds like Craig is spouting gibberish to me.


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.

Okay, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Special Relativity does not deal with this problem, it is merely a subset of General Relativity that specific to certain reference frames, none of which are relevant to the cosmological argument.

B-series refutes P2, special relativity confirms B-series [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

I think you're quite confused, Special Relativity has nothing to do with any of this, which makes me think you probably don't understand it.

"If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe, but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. If each three-dimensional universe exists, then the existence of multiple three-dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four-dimensional." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] This conclusion is drawn from relativity of simultaneity, a subset of special relativity. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Yes, I read that, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is simply a layman's explanation of reference frames and simultaneity. Again, SR has nothing to do with this.

It clearly says, "If special relativity is true . . . the existence of multiple three dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four-dimensional." Under this, time is described as the fourth spatial dimension. This means the philosophical position of four-dimensionalism is true, which is only compatible with an eternalist ontology of time. McTaggart's paradox entails that eternalism's truth demonstrates the B-series of time, thus refuting P2.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 5:55:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 5:00:46 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:49:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:11:21 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:40:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/2/2015 9:12:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 5:45:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:49:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:41:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:14:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:23:12 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument formulated by Dr. William Lane Craig, an analytic philosopher and Christian apologist. The argument follows:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause
3: If the universe had a cause, that cause is God

Despite the fact Craig's argument is an appeal to ignorance, we can accept his claim that he universe did have a cause, I have no problem with that. However, he clearly goes well beyond the boundaries of any kind of reason or logic by concluding that cause is God. From where does he get that conclusion? What evidence does he have? None.

I agree with the majority of the post (re: the cause isn't God), but I have some problems. I disagree that we can accept a cause of the universe at all. The reasons are outlined below.

(1) As mentioned, time directionality is required for anything to coherently "happen," or be "caused," since a directionality of time needs to connect cause and effect. Causality cannot occur in really "instantaneous" moments due to Cauchy surfaces preceding effects (since all "instantaneous moments" are, per general relativity, located on Cauchy surfaces). It's impossible to conclude that a cause could exist sans any time or time directionality. Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. Expressing the concept itself requires that I use a word like "yet," which, sans time, is incoherent.

General Relativity does not exclude the passage of time in a singularity, nor does it preclude any events that may occur there. There is no problem with cause and effect. We know that a singularity has properties, mass, charge and angular momentum, all physical properties that can be accounted for anywhere in the universe.

Sorry, I don't see how the Cauchy distribution is a problem?

Craig claims that the singularity itself was caused. This would mean causality requires the passage of time, since Cauchy distribution would make simultaneous causality on such a plane impossible.

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that notion. You'll need to explain it in detail.

The Schwartzschild solutions and Robertson/Walker metrics show that is not a problem at all.

Craig's justification for the singularity being caused is the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite (which is critiqued in Martin 1990, 104-105).

Sounds like Craig is spouting gibberish to me.


(2) The B-series of time would entail that the universe didn't have an absolute ontological "beginning," since expressing such a concept as "the beginning of the universe," whether or not there's time existent, is incoherent under a B-series. Only a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is compatible with the A-series, as opposed to the B-series. There's no real evidence for the existence of a neo-Lorentzian "ether" that would allow escaping the Andromeda paradox, so we're left with the B-series.

Sorry, but I don't see how the A or B series of time is relevant here? This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

The second premise states "the universe began to exist." Under B-series of time, the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning -- instead, it just exists as a tenseless four-dimensional spacetime block. Special relativity (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument and the Andromeda paradox) entails an eternalism ontology of time, which is incompatible with the A-series as a result of McTaggart's Paradox, and the C-series, since eternalism holds time is dimensional, which would entail a B-series of time. It's explained better in my debate with Kasmic.

Okay, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Special Relativity does not deal with this problem, it is merely a subset of General Relativity that specific to certain reference frames, none of which are relevant to the cosmological argument.

B-series refutes P2, special relativity confirms B-series [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

I think you're quite confused, Special Relativity has nothing to do with any of this, which makes me think you probably don't understand it.

"If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe, but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. If each three-dimensional universe exists, then the existence of multiple three-dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four-dimensional." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] This conclusion is drawn from relativity of simultaneity, a subset of special relativity. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Yes, I read that, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is simply a layman's explanation of reference frames and simultaneity. Again, SR has nothing to do with this.

It clearly says, "If special relativity is true . . . the existence of multiple three dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four-dimensional."

Here are the postulates of Special Relativity:

1) The laws of physics are the identical in all inertial frames of reference.
2) The speed of light is invariant, measured at c in all inertial frames of reference for all observers regardless of the source.

So, the layman's explanation you refer explains one aspect of those postulates, that of simultaneity. That's it.

Under this, time is described as the fourth spatial dimension. This means the philosophical position of four-dimensionalism is true, which is only compatible with an eternalist ontology of time. McTaggart's paradox entails that eternalism's truth demonstrates the B-series of time, thus refuting P2.

That is all irrelevant to the discussion.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 5:39:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
That is all irrelevant to the discussion.

This is how it is relevant:

(1) If special relativity is true, four-dimensionalism is true
(2) If four-dimensionalism is true, eternalism is true
(3) Eternalism entails the B-series of time
(4) The B-series of time refutes the second premise of the argument
(5) Therefore the universe needn't have a cause
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 7:01:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't even like the KCA but 99 % of the criticisms I always hear of it make me roll my eyes.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 8:06:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 5:39:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
That is all irrelevant to the discussion.

This is how it is relevant:

(1) If special relativity is true, four-dimensionalism is true
(2) If four-dimensionalism is true, eternalism is true
(3) Eternalism entails the B-series of time
(4) The B-series of time refutes the second premise of the argument
(5) Therefore the universe needn't have a cause
Tej, four-dimensionalism has little to do with this. It is about persistence. You can simply cut the argument by a premise in that SR implies eternalism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic