|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Aug 31, 2013 9:05:55 GMT 5
As I see that most (not all) people on this forum reject the idea of a personal creator, I challenge every non-creationist to prove the Kalam Cosmology theory wrong.
Argument Summarized:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
What properties must this cause have?
Spaceless and timeless - this cause must transcend space and time.
Unimaginably powerful - as this cause created the universe.
There are only two things we know can be this, an un-embodied being or abstract numbers.
It must be an un-embodied being - as abstract numbers do not do anything by themselves.
Therefore; A spaceless, timeless, unimaginably powerful un-embodied personal creator caused the big bang, hence the universe.
Prove this wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 31, 2013 9:22:37 GMT 5
Whoah man what if the universe is the spaceless timeless unimaginably powerful unembodied being!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Aug 31, 2013 9:45:20 GMT 5
William Lane Craig uses deductive reasoning, therefore logically speaking the argument is correct. Also, I agree, as do most scientists that the universe began to exist.
However, I'm not convinced by the first premise. Where's the evidence that anything that begins to exist has a cause?
What does it mean to begin to exist? Surely, I have seen atoms re-arranging into other physical shapes to make different objects, such as it is the case when a plant grows, or when a car is made, but I have never seen something simply "beginning to exist". Nor have I ever seen the mere thought of a mind create a physical object, as this is how Craig wants us to believe God created the universe.
A better first premise would be: Anything that begins to exist has a physical cause. As William Lane Craig himself said, God is not a physical being, then rationally speaking, he could not have caused the universe.
The funniest part about this argument, is that it actually disproves the existence of God!
1. Anything that exists in time, changes over time.
2. Timelessness is changeless.
3. God is timeless, therefore changeless.
4. A cause creates an effect and change.
5. God creating the universe is a changeless change.
God is a scientific contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Aug 31, 2013 10:03:06 GMT 5
There are two problems with this claim: 1. Craig assumes that every infinity is the same. This is false. 2. Craig assumes that simply because something fails mathematical laws, it cannot exist, this is also false. 1. There is more than one type of infinity, in fact, there are an infinite number of infinities. For instance, in Dr. Craig's first example, he tries to prove that by subtracting the # of even numbers from the # of total natural numbers, you get the total # of odd numbers. This argument is correct. In Craig's second example, he claims that by subtracting the # of natural numbers above 3 from the total # of natural numbers, you get 3 as an answer. This is also correct. However, where Dr. Craig fails, is that he assumes that the infinity in his first example is equal to the infinity in his second example. This however, is simply false. The # of natural numbers above 3 does not equal the # of even numbers. They are different types of infinity. A better, more improved version of Dr. Craig's equation would be: N = natural numbers N > 3 = natural numbers above three NO = natural odd numbers NE = natural even numbers N - NE = NO The total # of natural numbers minus the total # of even numbers equals the total # of odd numbers. N - [N>3] = 3 The total # of natural numbers minus the total # of natural numbers above 3 equals 3. Now these infinities make a lot more sense. The best way to understand an infinite past, is by representing the infinite past with all the negative integers. Right now, at this very point in time, is "0". A certain unit in time can be -1, and you can go all the way down to -?. There is no evidence against the existence of infinity, or any other integer in the natural world. 2. Even if a number fails a mathematical law, it can still exist. The number zero, too, is very problematic. You cannot divide by zero, or you could make 2 = 1  This equation is mathematically valid, except for the fact that that it divides by zero in the third step, this allows us to mathematically prove that two equals one, which is obviously fallacious. In fact, you can make anything equal to anything using zero. Another problem with zero is the fact that it defies another mathematical law, the exponential law. 5 ^ 3 = 5 * 5 * 5 = 125 5 ^ 2 = 5 * 5 = 25 5 ^ 1 = 5 = 5 5 ^ 0 = 1? How? Once again, zero fails another mathematical concept; yet despite that, zero is considered to be a valid number in the mathematical world. Therefore, why can infinity not be considered real in the natural world, even if it does fail mathematical concepts? |
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267 
|
Post by Derdadort on Aug 31, 2013 13:14:22 GMT 5
A better first premise would be: Anything that begins to exist has a physical cause. As William Lane Craig himself said, God is not a physical being, then rationally speaking, he could not have caused the universe. The funniest part about this argument, is that it actually disproves the existence of God! 1. Anything that exists in time, changes over time. 2. Timelessness is changeless. 3. God is timeless, therefore changeless. 4. A cause creates an effect and change. 5. God creating the universe is a changeless change. God is a scientific contradiction. I wanted to write something more, but this is a summarize of my opinion as well. Maybe some more thoughts later. EDIT: Okay, this ultimate cause/creator/god has to be spaceless and timeless. This means (like vodmeister already wrote) that the creator is changeless. If a single object in a space don't act (moving, morphing,...,changing) no time will pass. Timelessness means stagnancy. But to cause the big bang, the creator has to change something or even itself. To change something, the creator has to be a physical being, but it is also spaceless, so it can't be a physical being and without being physical it can't change anything. (weird sentence...^^). So this creator would be trapped in stagnancy and has not the possibilty to change anything. This wouldn't be even a deistic creator, you can equalize it with not-existing. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 31, 2013 16:35:49 GMT 5
Craig denies infinity, so does that mean he believes there is an "end of time" somewhere in the future, where all suddenly stops to exist?
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Aug 31, 2013 17:00:18 GMT 5
Craig denies infinity, so does that mean he believes there is an "end of time" somewhere in the future, where all suddenly stops to exist? Timelessness only means things are not changing. In a far future when all stars are gone or morphed into black holes and all possible objects are to far away to "see" them, you wouldn't be able to recognize any change => time stands still |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 31, 2013 18:34:19 GMT 5
But time still exists, although you don't notice it. Don't some black holes rotate? If yes, something would still happen. Also, it is possible that something like this happens (you can watch this from 37:00 onwards): www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-xonOOlL1cP.S. I will try to find the English version, so that others can watch it too. EDIT: Here the documentary in English: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFLAUlRkvDs |
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Aug 31, 2013 20:24:02 GMT 5
If nothing can happen, a possible spectator can't distinguish between past and future, because there is no distinction and so there is no time. Time describes the succession of events and if there are no events...  I watch the video tomorrow, can't do it now. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 31, 2013 20:39:37 GMT 5
1. But if black holes rotate, something would happen.
2. The video says that at some point an old universe can collide and another can be created. This could happen in an infinite circle (If you don't have time, you can simply watch the last 5 minutes).
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Aug 31, 2013 20:52:27 GMT 5
Yeah, okay. If your spectator flies above a black whole, you may be right (But I'm wondering if your even able to see the black hole, because there is no matter left for that spiral, if you know what I mean).
I have time to watch, but I can't turn my sound on at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Aug 31, 2013 21:10:45 GMT 5
Craig denies infinity, so does that mean he believes there is an "end of time" somewhere in the future, where all suddenly stops to exist? Craig makes the Aristotelian distinction between actual and potential infinity. The number of past events in a beginingless universe are actual infinities, whereas the number of future events is only potentially infinite. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Sept 1, 2013 3:17:15 GMT 5
Infinity DOES exist in the physical universe, in fact, my hand was in an infinite number of places as I typed this sentence.
Also, this argument asks us to "prove" something unobservable, immeasurable, and nonexistent. None of which are valid scientific goals.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 1, 2013 7:51:05 GMT 5
Infinity DOES exist in the physical universe, in fact, my hand was in an infinite number of places as I typed this sentence. Also, this argument asks us to "prove" something unobservable, immeasurable, and nonexistent. None of which are valid scientific goals. Craigs counterargument is that we have no evidence that space is not discrete. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Sept 1, 2013 8:19:23 GMT 5
Infinity DOES exist in the physical universe, in fact, my hand was in an infinite number of places as I typed this sentence. Also, this argument asks us to "prove" something unobservable, immeasurable, and nonexistent. None of which are valid scientific goals. Craigs counterargument is that we have no evidence that space is not discrete. A good counter argument for that would be: We have no evidence against an un-embodied mind either. Then challenge him to play with the burden of proof fallacy.  |
|
