Article: The Kalām cosmological argument (KCA) is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God rooted in the Ilm al-Kalam heritage in medieval Islamic scholasticism. An outspoken defender of the argument is William Lane Craig, who first defended it in his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument in 1979. Since then the Kalam cosmological argument has elicited public debate between Craig and Graham Oppy, Adolf Grünbaum, J. L. Mackie and Quentin Smith, and has been used in Christian apologetics. According to Michael Martin, Craig's revised argument is "among the most sophisticated and well argued in contemporary theological philosophy", along with versions of the cosmological argument presented by Bruce Reichenbach and Richard Swinburne.
In defending the argument, Craig has argued against the possibility of the existence of actual infinities, tracing the idea to 11th-century philosopher Al-Ghazali. He named this variant of cosmological argument the Kalam cosmological argument, from Ilm al-Kalām "science of discourse", the Arabic term for the discipline of philosophical theology in Islam.
Form of the argument
Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:
The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:
"... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."
Historical background
The Kalam cosmological argument is based on the concept of the prime-mover, introduced by Aristotle, and entered early Christian or Neoplatonist philosophy in Late Antiquity, being developed by John Philoponus. Along with much of classical Greek philosophy, the concept was adopted into medieval Islamic tradition, where it received its fullest articulation at the hands of Muslim scholars, most directly by Islamic theologians of the Sunni tradition (Aqidah wasitiyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah). Its historic proponents include Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali, and St. Bonaventure.
One of the earliest formations of the cosmological argument in Islamic tradition comes from Al-Kindi (9th century), who was one of the first Islamic philosophers to attempt to introduce an argument for the existence of God based upon purely empirical premises. His chief contribution is the cosmological argument (dalil al-huduth) for the existence of God, in his work "On First Philosophy". He writes:
"Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."
Between the 9th to 12th centuries, the cosmological argument developed as a concept within Islamic theology.
It was refined in the 11th century by Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and in the 12th by Ibn Rushd (Averroes). It reached medieval Christian philosophy in the 13th century, and was discussed by Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas.
Two kinds of Islamic perspectives may be considered with regard to the cosmological argument. A positive Aristotelian response strongly supporting the argument and a negative response which is quite critical of it. Among the Aristotelian thinkers are Al-Kindi, and Averroes. In contrast Al-Ghazali and Muhammad Iqbal may be seen as being in opposition to this sort of an argument.
Al-Ghazali was unconvinced by the first-cause arguments of Al-Kindi, arguing that only the infinite per se is impossible, arguing for the possibility of the infinite per accidens. In response to this, he writes:
"According to the hypothesis under consideration, it has been established that all the beings in the world have a cause. Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible."
Muhammad Iqbal also stated:
"A finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."
Modern debate
According to atheist philosopher Quentin Smith, "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence." The Kalam cosmological argument has received criticism from philosophers such as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, physicists Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger, and authors such as Dan Barker. Criticism and discussion include the disciplines of philosophy (with a focus on logic) as well as science (with a focus on physics and cosmology).
Bruce Reichenbach provides a summary of the dispute as:
"... whether there needs to be a cause of the first natural existent, whether something like the universe can be finite and yet not have a beginning, and the nature of infinities and their connection with reality".
Premise one: causality and quantum mechanics
Craig has defended the first premise as rationally intuitive knowledge, based upon the properly basic metaphysical intuition that "something cannot come into being from nothing", or "Ex nihilo nihil fit", which originates from Parmenidean ontology. He states that this knowledge is assumed as a critically important first principle of science, and that it is affirmed by interaction with the physical world; for if it were false, it would be impossible to explain why objects do not randomly appear into existence without a cause. According to Bruce Reichenbach, "the Causal Principle has been the subject of extended criticism."
A common objection to premise one appeals to the phenomenon of quantum indeterminacy, where, at the subatomic level, the causal principle appears to break down. Craig has responded that the phenomenon of indeterminism is specific to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, pointing out that this is only one of a number of different interpretations, some of which he states are fully deterministic (mentioning David Bohm) and none of which are as yet known to be true. He concludes that subatomic physics is not a proven exception to the first premise.
Philosopher Quentin Smith has cited the example of virtual particles, which appear and disappear from observation, apparently at random, to assert the tenability of uncaused natural phenomena. In his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has proposed how quantum mechanics can explain how space-time and matter can emerge from "nothing" (referring to the quantum vacuum). Philosopher Michael Martin has also referred to quantum vacuum fluctuation models to support the idea of a universe with uncaused beginnings. He writes:
"Even if the universe has a beginning in time, in the light of recently proposed cosmological theories this beginning may be uncaused. Despite Craig's claim that theories postulating that the universe 'could pop into existence uncaused' are incapable of 'sincere affirmation,' such similar theories are in fact being taken seriously by scientists."
Philosopher of science David Albert has criticised the use of the term "nothing" in describing the quantum vacuum. In a review of Krauss's book, he states:
"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields."
Likewise, Craig also argued that the quantum vacuum, in containing quantifiable, measurable energy, cannot be described as "nothing", therefore, that phenomena originating from the quantum vacuum cannot be described as "uncaused". On the topic of virtual particles, he writes:
"For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum."
Premise two: cosmology and actual infinities
Craig has defended the second premise using both appeals to scientific evidence and philosophical arguments: Firstly, with evidence from cosmology and physics, and secondly using an a posteriori argument for the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities. For the former, he appeals to:
Scientific confirmation against a past-infinite universe in the form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, a cosmological theorem which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
Professor Alexander Vilenkin, one of the three authors of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, writes:
"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."
Victor J. Stenger has referred to the Aguirre-Gratton model for eternal inflation as an exemplar by which others disagree with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
At the "State of the Universe" conference at Cambridge University in January 2012, Vilenkin discussed problems with various theories that would claim to avoid the need for a cosmological beginning, alleging the untenability of eternal inflation (including the Aguirre and Gratton model), cyclic and cosmic egg models, eventually concluding: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." Despite the certainty of this phrase, in his later presentation, Vilenkin said that the universe probably had a beginning. Moreover, when discussing the Craig's interpretation of the BGV, he said that the absolute beginning "raises some red flags".
The co-author of BGV theorem, Alan Guth says, “It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue.”
On the impossibility of actual infinities, Craig asserts:
The metaphysical impossibility of an actually infinite series of past events by citing David Hilbert's famous Hilbert's Hotel thought experiment and Laurence Sterne's story of Tristam Shandy.
The mathematical impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition.
Michael Martin objects:
"Craig's a priori arguments are unsound or show at most that actual infinities have odd properties. This latter fact is well known, however, and shows nothing about whether it is logically impossible to have actual infinities in the real world. ... Craig fails to show that there is anything logically inconsistent about an actual infinity existing in reality."
Properties of the cause and theological implications
In a critique of Craig's book The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Michael Martin states:
"It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."
Martin also claims that Craig has not justified his claim of creation "ex nihilo", pointing out that the universe may have been created from pre-existing material in a timeless or eternal state. Moreover, that Craig takes his argument too far beyond what his premises allow in deducing that the creating agent is greater than the universe. For this, he cites the example of a parent "creating" a child who eventually becomes greater than he or she.
In the subsequent Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Craig discusses the properties of the cause of the universe, describing how they follow by entailment from the initial syllogism of the Kalam cosmological argument:
A first state of the material world cannot have a material explanation and must originate ex nihilo in being without material cause, because no natural explanation can be causally prior to the very existence of the natural world (space-time and its contents). It follows necessarily that the cause is outside of space and time (timeless, spaceless), immaterial, and enormously powerful, in bringing the entirety of material reality into existence.
Even if positing a plurality of causes prior to the origin of the universe, the causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused, otherwise an infinite regress of causes would arise.
Occam's Razor maintains that unicity of the First Cause should be assumed unless there are specific reasons to believe that there is more than one causeless cause.
Agent causation, volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause.
Abstract objects, the only other ontological category known to have the properties of being uncaused, spaceless, timeless and immaterial, do not sit in causal relationships, nor can they exercise volitional causal power.
He concludes that the cause of the existence of the universe is an "uncaused, personal Creator ... who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful"; remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties.
Theories of time
Craig maintains that the Kalam cosmological argument involves a commitment to the A-theory of time, also known as the "tensed theory of time" or presentism, as opposed to its alternative, the B-theory of time, also known as the "tenseless theory of time" or eternalism. The latter would allow the universe to exist tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block, under which circumstances the universe would not "begin to exist":
"From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."
Craig has defended the A-theory against objections from J. M. E. McTaggart and Hybrid A-B theorists. Philosopher Yuri Balashov has criticized Craig's attempt to reconcile the A-theory with special relativity by relying on a ‘neo‐Lorentzian interpretation’ of special relativity. Balashov claims:
"Despite the fact that presentism has the firm backing of common sense and eternalism revolts against it, eternalism is widely regarded as almost the default view in contemporary debates, and presentism as a highly problematic view."
In response to Balashov, Craig has defended the Lorentzian Interpretation against both the "Relativity" and "Spacetime" interpretations of Special Relativity, and criticized verificationist methods that fail to address the metaphysical and theological components of the topic.
It has recently been argued that a defense of the Kalam cosmological argument does not have to involve such a commitment to the A-theory.
See also
Arguments for the existence of God
Cosmogony
Kalam Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy
Natural theology
Principle of sufficient reason
Temporal finitism Notes References http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
Initial Arguments: A Defense of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html
Causal Premiss of the Kalam Argument
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5705
Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology
The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/reply.html
Cosmological Argument: The Causal Principle and Quantum Physics
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument
Toward a new kalām cosmological argument
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2015.1062461 Further reading
The Kalām Cosmological Argument
A swift and simple refutation of the Kalam cosmological argument?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-swift-and-simple-refutation-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument
Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration
Scaling the Secular City: A Defence of Christianity
The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0408/0408111.pdf
Methuselah’s Diary and the Finitude of the Past
http://philpapers.org/archive/WATMDA-2.pdf nl:Kalam-argument |
Source: Forum Users' Agreement • @Facebook • FAQ Board index ‹ Debunk It ‹ Creationism Change font size Print view Register Login
Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation
Moderators: kiore , Blip , The_Metatron Post a reply • 48 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1 , 2 , 3
Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#1 by Stormcrow
» Jan 14, 2012 6:18 pm
A religious friend of mine recently posted this article from Uncommon Descent on his Facebook page.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... beginning/
Now, I'm only vaguely aware of Dr. Vilenkin's work, but based on what I do now, it seems likely that a hefty amount of information is being left out of these quotes. i was just curious to see if anyone could see the
New Scientist
article that it references, or maybe just has some further information that I can take back to show that Dr. Vilenkin is not, in fact, providing support for the Kalam cosmological argument here.
P.S. I wasn't really sure where to put this thread. I hope this is the right place. It seems like a physics-related question.
Stormcrow THREAD STARTER Posts: 196 Country: U.S.A. Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#2 by Landrew
» Jan 14, 2012 6:26 pm
This is a rather awkward conflation of poor semantics and deliberate misrepresentation of scientific research. The notion that scientists are acknowledging
magical creation
by virtue of having used the word "creation" in their dialog is an example of ID apologetics at it's shoddiest.
The central tenet of Intelligent Design is that in lieu of a scientific explanation, the answer must be "magic." If science has shown us anything over the millennia, it's that each and every claim of "magic" has invariably been shown to be the result of
natural causes.
It's the duty of a
Scientist to investigate the unexplained ; not to explain the uninvestigated . Landrew Name: greg p Posts: 782 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#3 by twistor59
» Jan 14, 2012 7:16 pm
Vilenkin has a "universe from nothing" model.
I can't find an online copy at the moment, but I've got a paper copy somewhere. I don't recall it saying in there that it needed an external entity to kick it off
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
twistor59 RS Donator Posts: 4966 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#4 by Spearthrower
» Jan 14, 2012 7:57 pm
There are lots of strange and erroneous claims there.
Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder.
No information is retained through into the next cycle. It's an etch-a-sketch ending, so the question of order and disorder is a category error.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome
Learn Stuff. Stuff good.
https://www.coursera.org/ Spearthrower Posts: 33854 Age: 48 Country: Thailand Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#5 by Rumraket
» Jan 14, 2012 10:12 pm
Rule of thumb: Don't trust the portrayal of valid science manufactured on uncommondescent. Creationist quotemining is the rule, not the exception.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
Rumraket Posts: 13264 Age: 43 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#6 by Animavore
» Jan 14, 2012 10:19 pm
There's a great interview with him here
http://www.thoughtcast.org/science/the- ... ly-topics/
A most evolved electron.
Animavore Name: The Scribbler Posts: 45108 Age: 45 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#7 by Landrew
» Jan 15, 2012 2:49 pm
Spearthrower wrote :
There are lots of strange and erroneous claims there.
Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder.
No information is retained through into the next cycle. It's an etch-a-sketch ending, so the question of order and disorder is a category error.
It's also contradicted by empirical evidence. A chaotic mix of broken rock is washed into rivers by rainfall, and then sorted into orderly layers of sand, silt and gravel.
It's the duty of a
Scientist to investigate the unexplained ; not to explain the uninvestigated . Landrew Name: greg p Posts: 782 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#8 by twistor59
» Jan 15, 2012 3:31 pm
Animavore wrote :
There's a great interview with him here
http://www.thoughtcast.org/science/the- ... ly-topics/
Just listened to it. Good stuff. I like how the interviewer asked him what the equation was that described the beginning of the universe.
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
twistor59 RS Donator Posts: 4966 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#9 by Teuton
» Jan 15, 2012 3:36 pm
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."
– Alexander Vilenkin
"[The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem] has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning. We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."
(Stenger, Victor J.
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145)
Are there two Vilenkins or is there one schizophrenic Vilenkin?
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
Teuton Posts: 5461 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#10 by hackenslash
» Jan 15, 2012 3:42 pm
No, it's merely equivocation on the use of the word 'universe', such as I have repeatedly exposed.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.
hackenslash Name:
The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910 Age: 54 Country: Republic of Mancunia Website Top
Print view this post
Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#11 by Precambrian Rabbi
» Jan 15, 2012 3:55 pm
Perhaps we should invent a word which limits its definition to the observable part of the universe to avoid the problem.
The "observerse" maybe?
"...religion may attract good people but it doesn't produce them. And it draws in a lot of hateful nutjobs too..." AronRa
Precambrian Rabbi Posts: 1591 Country: Greenandpleasantland Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#12 by hackenslash
» Jan 15, 2012 4:00 pm
I tend to employ 'cosmos' to observe this distinction, although semantically the two words are actually indistinguishable. It does negate the need for the excessively cumbersome 'that which arose from the big bang', though.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.
hackenslash Name:
The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910 Age: 54 Country: Republic of Mancunia Website Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#13 by Teuton
» Jan 15, 2012 7:51 pm
hackenslash wrote :
No, it's merely equivocation on the use of the word 'universe', such as I have repeatedly exposed.
I don't think so.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
Teuton Posts: 5461 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have...
#14 by twistor59
» Jan 15, 2012 8:09 pm
Precambrian Rabbi wrote :
Perhaps we should invent a word which limits its definition to the observable part of the universe to avoid the problem.
The "observerse" maybe?
"Observable Universe" is pretty common !
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
twistor59 RS Donator Posts: 4966 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#15 by Teuton
» Jan 15, 2012 8:11 pm
Teuton wrote :
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."
– Alexander Vilenkin
"[The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem] has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning. We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."
(Stenger, Victor J.
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145)
Are there two Vilenkins or is there one schizophrenic Vilenkin?
"I contacted Aguirre and Vilenkin, the latter whom I have known professionally for many years. I greatly admire the work of each, which will be referred to often on these pages. I first asked Vilenkin if Craig's statement is accurate. Vilenkin replied:
'I would say this is basically correct, except the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags. The theorem says that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably cometo a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down—that is, where the universe is no longer expanding. This is true for all particles, except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, there may be some (infinitely rare) particles whose histories are infinitely long.'
…
I then asked Vilenkin, “Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?” He immediately replied,
'No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.'
Vilenkin further explained,
'For example, Anthony in his work with Gratton, and Carroll and Chen, proposed that the universe could be contracting before it started expanding. The boundary then corresponds to the moment (that Anthony referred to as t = 0) between the contraction and expansion phases, when the universe was momentarily static. They postulated in addition that the arrow of time in the contracting part of space-time runs in the opposite way, so that entropy grows in both time directions from t = 0.'
…
I also checked with Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, whose recent book From Eternity to Here provides an excellent discussion of many of the problems associated with early universe cosmology. Here was his response:
'I think my answer would be fairly concise: no result derived on the basis of classical spacetime can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity. The BGV [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] singularity theorem is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical GR breaks down, but it doesn't help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there's no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle can't be resolved within a materialist framework. Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps.'
(Stenger, Victor J.
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. pp. 127-30)
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
Teuton Posts: 5461 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#16 by hackenslash
» Jan 16, 2012 12:44 am
Teuton wrote : hackenslash wrote :
No, it's merely equivocation on the use of the word 'universe', such as I have repeatedly exposed.
I don't think so.
But of course you don't, my dear, because you get all your information about the universe from the lint in your umbilicus (or, more accurately by light-years, from the umbilici of others who also think that the colour of said lint constitutes fucking knowledge).
Who knows what the fuck you think? It isn't yours anyway...
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.
hackenslash Name:
The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910 Age: 54 Country: Republic of Mancunia Website Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#17 by hackenslash
» Jan 16, 2012 12:50 am
Teuton wrote : Teuton wrote :
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."
– Alexander Vilenkin
"[The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem] has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning. We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."
(Stenger, Victor J.
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145)
Are there two Vilenkins or is there one schizophrenic Vilenkin?
"I contacted Aguirre and Vilenkin, the latter whom I have known professionally for many years. I greatly admire the work of each, which will be referred to often on these pages. I first asked Vilenkin if Craig's statement is accurate. Vilenkin replied:
'I would say this is basically correct, except the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags. The theorem says that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably cometo a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down—that is, where the universe is no longer expanding. This is true for all particles, except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, there may be some (infinitely rare) particles whose histories are infinitely long.'
…
I then asked Vilenkin, “Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?” He immediately replied,
'No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.'
Vilenkin further explained,
'For example, Anthony in his work with Gratton, and Carroll and Chen, proposed that the universe could be contracting before it started expanding. The boundary then corresponds to the moment (that Anthony referred to as t = 0) between the contraction and expansion phases, when the universe was momentarily static. They postulated in addition that the arrow of time in the contracting part of space-time runs in the opposite way, so that entropy grows in both time directions from t = 0.'
…
I also checked with Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, whose recent book From Eternity to Here provides an excellent discussion of many of the problems associated with early universe cosmology. Here was his response:
'I think my answer would be fairly concise: no result derived on the basis of classical spacetime can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity. The BGV [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] singularity theorem is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical GR breaks down, but it doesn't help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there's no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle can't be resolved within a materialist framework. Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps.'
(Stenger, Victor J.
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. pp. 127-30)
Thank you for demonstrating my point with laser-like precision with quotes supporting my assessment from the horse's fucking mouth.
Go learn some fucking physics. Or wallow in your ignorance thereof and continue to demonstrate that your brand of lack-of-thought is utterly useless in elucidating reality. I really don't care.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.
hackenslash Name:
The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910 Age: 54 Country: Republic of Mancunia Website Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#18 by Landrew
» Jan 16, 2012 12:14 pm
Think about the alternative to: "the universe had a beginning."
"The universe has always existed."
Does this statement make sense? How could infinite regression possibly work?
If time and space themselves were created at the time of the Big Bang, it solves the problem quite nicely.
It's the duty of a
Scientist to investigate the unexplained ; not to explain the uninvestigated . Landrew Name: greg p Posts: 782 Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#19 by hackenslash
» Jan 16, 2012 12:33 pm
What infinite regression (aside from the fact that your question is a textbook
argumentum ad ignorantiam
)? What justification is there for supposing that time and space were created at the time of the big bang (indeed, can you actually formulate a coherent event prior to the big bang that doesn't include time)?
It always amuses me that those who haven't spent any time studying or keeping up with developments in cosmology wheel out this trope about time starting at the big bang, despite the fact that the conclusion is held to be flawed by the two physicists who derived the conclusion in the first place.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.
hackenslash Name:
The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910 Age: 54 Country: Republic of Mancunia Website Top
Print view this post
Re: Alexander Vilenkin “All the evidence we have..."
#20 by Landrew
» Jan 16, 2012 12:44 pm
hackenslash wrote :
What infinite regression (aside from the fact that your question is a textbook
argumentum ad ignorantiam
)? What justification is there for supposing that time and space were created at the time of the big bang (indeed, can you actually formulate a coherent event prior to the big bang that doesn't include time)?
It always amuses me that those who haven't spent any time studying or keeping up with developments in cosmology wheel out this trope about time starting at the big bang, despite the fact that the conclusion is held to be flawed by the two physicists who derived the conclusion in the first place.
The argumentum
was absent my post, but the
ignorantiam
was evident in yours. I was asking a question, not making a claim. If something is claimed to have "always existed" the problem of infinite regression always applies. If something is claimed to have a beginning, the question of what happened before the beginning always applies. If, as some theoretical physics suggests, that time did not exist before the big bang, it offers a possible solution.
It's the duty of a
Scientist to investigate the unexplained ; not to explain the uninvestigated . Landrew Name: greg p Posts: 782 Top
Print view this post
Next
Display posts from previous:
All posts 1 day 7 days 2 weeks 1 month 3 months 6 months 1 year Sort by Author Post time Subject Ascending Descending Post a reply 48 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1 , 2 , 3 Return to Creationism Jump to: Select a forum ------------------ Welcome to RationalSkepticism Announcements Welcome New Members
Science & The Humanities
General Science & Technology
Technical Design and Engineering.
Physical Sciences & Mathematics
Astronomy & Space Science
Chemistry Earth Sciences Mathematics Physics Biological Sciences
Evolution & Natural Selection
Medicine Psychology & Neuroscience
Social Sciences & Humanities
Anthropology History Philosophy Sociology Linguistics Economics Belief & Nonbelief Nontheism Atheists in Foxholes Student Life Theism Christianity Islam
Other Religions & Belief Systems
Debunk It Creationism General Debunking Conspiracy Theories Paranormal & Supernatural Pseudoscience General Topics General Discussion Events Debates Other Languages
News, Politics & Current Affairs
The Arts & Entertainment
Books Film & TV Music Video Games Parenting & Education Who is online
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest
Board index • Your posts The team •
Delete all board cookies
• All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2010-2021 rationalskepticism.org |