Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:23 AM
New Britain
October 02, 2025, 02:33 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
October 02, 2025, 12:48 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 02, 2025, 12:03 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM
What's happened to the fo...
September 23, 2025, 12:54 AM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM
Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
September 12, 2025, 10:09 PM
Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM
News From Syria
by zeca
August 09, 2025, 10:33 PM
Gaza assault
July 25, 2025, 05:18 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.

 (Read 8828 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     OP - February 07, 2010, 10:18 PM
    This guy is quite interesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9MtIma5YU
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #1 - February 07, 2010, 10:24 PM
    I just saw this earlier today. He's great. Afro

    Most of what he's saying though, the logical reasoning, I think, may go over the heads of those people who need to hear it most.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #2 - February 07, 2010, 11:33 PM
    ive always considered this guy as a genius after seeing the way he did his ten commandments videos..
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #3 - February 08, 2010, 03:28 AM
    I bet this guy could make a time machine  Tongue.

    But seriously though, he did a great job. 30 secs into the video I paused and checked the Kalam argument on Wikipedia and I was convinced that the universe has a cause. He laid out the counterargument pretty beautifully. 
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #4 - February 08, 2010, 07:24 AM
    Quote from: IsLame on February 07, 2010, 11:33 PM
    ive always considered this guy as a genius after seeing the way he did his ten commandments videos..


    I tried to find that one, link please?
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #5 - February 08, 2010, 07:32 AM
    Quote from: BlackDog on February 08, 2010, 07:24 AM
    I tried to find that one, link please?


    I don't think I've seen the one IsLame is talking about - but this one is my favourite video of his:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvRPbsXBVBo
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #6 - February 08, 2010, 07:35 AM
    The best vid I've seen on the 10 Commandments is this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #7 - February 08, 2010, 08:27 AM
    Quote from: Hassan on February 08, 2010, 07:32 AM
    I don't think I've seen the one IsLame is talking about - but this one is my favourite video of his:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvRPbsXBVBo


    Wow. Fantastic stuff. 

    He's the real Keanu Reeves of the Matrix  Cheesy
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #8 - February 08, 2010, 10:18 AM
    Quote from: BlackDog on February 08, 2010, 08:27 AM
    Wow. Fantastic stuff.  

    He's the real Keanu Reeves of the Matrix  Cheesy

    yep, that is the video I was talking about.. and you're right he is quite cool like that (and not as wooden as Keanu)
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #9 - February 08, 2010, 10:21 AM
    i find it interesting that he didn't reach the obvious conclusion that perhaps his thoughts warranted:
    the universe is eternal - it seemed he still wanted to preserve a "beginning"
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #10 - February 08, 2010, 10:34 AM
    Universe is eternal?? :S
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #11 - February 08, 2010, 10:44 AM
    yes indeed my dear bd
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #12 - February 08, 2010, 10:52 AM
    What about the Big Bang?
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #13 - February 08, 2010, 11:02 AM
    There are a number of reasons to think of the big bang as only the beginning of our portion of the multiverse, not as the beginning of the whole cosmos.
    As the video-maker mentioned the first law of thermodynamics is that energy is eternal; the basic constituent of the reality that is moulded and evolved throughout the universe is itself eternal, it follows naturally that the cosmos in its entirety is infinite aswell.
    There are also a number of issues with the standard big bang model. Many current cosmologists have theorised that our big bang was one of many bubbles that continually implode/explode in the wider cosmos.
    Along a similar line, Professors Steinhardt and Turok have written a book called "endless universe" which basically shows how the universe is best thought of as infinite and eternal in current string theory models of membranes and other exotic physical phenomena.

    Perhaps, also, one feels, that an infinite universe is the one that makes most metaphysical and poetic sense. There always has to be something because to posit a creation ex nihilo will get you a fail in logic 101.k
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #14 - February 08, 2010, 11:09 AM
    Quote from: z10 on February 08, 2010, 10:21 AM
    i find it interesting that he didn't reach the obvious conclusion that perhaps his thoughts warranted:
    the universe is eternal - it seemed he still wanted to preserve a "beginning"


    I've discussed this with an atheist once... he said since the universe is infinite/beginingless then it's a causeless cause and therefore there's no need for an infinite beginingless God to create it. And since we are already in touch with this beginingless universe then there's no need to dream up a God (he used Occam's razor).
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #15 - February 08, 2010, 11:14 AM
    I don't like to bring the idea of a cause in because all theories of causality are metaphysically lacking anyway, ever since Hume's great blow to constructing elaborate causal chains of explanation.
    The universe is infinite in every dimension. If you were to posit a limit to space or time in any direction you will be defining the outer limit of the known universe - this is a contradiction in terms, to be outside of the known universe is to still be in the universe, you cannot ever go outside and so the only logical conclusion is that the universe is infinite everywhere and everywhen.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #16 - February 08, 2010, 11:56 AM
    I'm not sure I understand you... you do realize that there can be *infinite* number of *infinite* universes, right?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #17 - February 08, 2010, 05:55 PM
    Yes, that however, proves my point, my friend  Smiley
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #18 - February 08, 2010, 06:17 PM
    We can conduct a simple thought experiment about an "edge" of space:

    Imagine yourself at the edge of the universe. Can you reach out and put your arm outside of the edge?
    The conundrum here is that either answer will lead to the same conclusion, an edge is an absurdity. If you say yes then there is space you are reaching into, if you say no then there is a physical barrier, such that it is also taking space and so you can run the argument indefinately.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #19 - February 08, 2010, 07:28 PM
    But then the universe is not expanding? :S
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #20 - February 08, 2010, 07:28 PM
    And how the hell can you mathematically calculate infinity?  wacko
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #21 - February 08, 2010, 07:37 PM
    Quote from: BlackDog on February 08, 2010, 07:28 PM
    But then the universe is not expanding? :S


    This is a fact within all "theories of everything" in physics. The multiverse, by definition introduces infinity.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #22 - February 08, 2010, 07:46 PM
    Quote from: z10 on February 08, 2010, 05:55 PM
    Yes, that however, proves my point, my friend  Smiley

    Yes, he's talking about infinity there..
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #23 - February 09, 2010, 06:13 PM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeZ_BAWAhQ
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #24 - February 10, 2010, 02:57 AM
    His God Checklist video is just pure awesomeness. We don't need Hawkins or Hitchens to debate. Just show this video and that's it.
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #25 - February 10, 2010, 09:19 PM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on February 10, 2010, 02:57 AM
    His God Checklist video is just pure awesomeness. We don't need Hawkins or Hitchens to debate. Just show this video and that's it.

    +1
    "In every time and culture there are pressures to conform to the prevailing prejudices. But there are also, in every place and epoch, those who value the truth; who record the evidence faithfully. Future generations are in their debt." -Carl Sagan

  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #26 - February 13, 2010, 05:08 PM
    The point the videomaker makes at the beginning of the vid is that just beacause our universe may have had a beginning it doesn't necessarily mean that it has a cause - he's right. In addition, even if we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe had a beginning it still doesn't prove the existence of God. Of course our current cosmological theory, the big bang theory and inflationary cosmology in its stand-alone form,  does suggest our universe had a beginning i.e. that everything came into existence from a singularity of pure vacuum energy.

    Where this energy came from no-one knows. Although the big bang model is the most widely scientifically accpeted model - it has made fantastic predictions which have been confirmed - it poses a problem for scientists because of course energy appearing from out of no-where violates the first law of thermodynamics as the videomaker quite rightly explains in quite some detail. Quite rightly therefore scientists have tried to come up with modified versions of the theory or even competely new theories regardless of the neatness and success of big bang/inflation cosmology in which the frist law of thermodynamics is not violated.

    One very pouplar model is the multiverse theory. Theories such as these envisage that universes sprout out from existing ones hence the term 'bubble universes'.  The most popular model today is called chaotic inflation. However even this model has it?s problems since prominent physicists in the feild such as Alan Guth have suggested that  inflation may be eternal into the future but it appears it probably can not be into the past.

    The other most prominent theory is perhaps cyclic cosmology which has it roots from string/M-theory. The speculative theory proposes that our universe exists on a 'brane'. Our brane may then collide with another nearby parallel brane i.e. another universe evry few trillion years. The resulting collision then gives rise to a new universe and another cosmological cycle. This theory also has its problems the least of which is no one knows what actually would happen when two branes collide and whether the branes themselves exist.

    I should howver note that the underlying physics behind all these theories are highly speculative and they are frought with technical difficulties. But what's more important is that we have no way of knowing whether these theories are actually correct since we can not make any experimental observations outside our own universe - this is accepted by the proponents of the theories themselves and like the videomaker points out we have no way of knowing what happened before the singularity of  the particular 'big bang' that brought our own universe into existence. In fact people have questioned whether they are in fact scientific theories at all (for more I recommend Lee Smolins 'the trouble with physics') since we have absolutely no way of testing the theories.
     I personally however do not see the harm of speculating with science - and just because we can never  prove these types of theories - it doesn't necessarily mean they are not physical reality - I am a scientist but I am willing to be open minded about this.

    However this does leave us with a couple of uncomfortable choices

    1)   We choose to have faith in these multiverse/cyclic cosmology theories even though we accept we will never be able to prove the theories. This has the advantage that the first law of thermodynamics is not violated.
    2)   We fully embrace the big bang theory in it's current form - this is a testable theory of science which has made some excellent predictions, and we belive that the energy that gave birth to our universe may have appeared from out of nowhere and that the universe had a definite beginning. This would imply faith that a supernatural creator created the universe from nothing and hence a violation of the first law of thermodynamics

    Which option do we choose? I choose option 2 and my reasoning is the following. Something which I feel  is quite often overlooked in these sorts of discussions are the laws of physics themselves. For example the laws of physics are so beautifally elegant, it seems almost impossibe, to me at least that there is no inteligence behind them. Physicists are often in awe of these laws and are humbled by them - they spend their entire lives stumbling around like children trying to uncover their beauty. It is my opinion, and I think a crucial point that the veido maker missed is that the first law of thermodynamics along with all the other laws of physics may have come into existence when the Creator created the universe. Before the creation event these laws may not even have existed. Thus when God creates the universe out of nothing he does not violte the first law of thermodynamics because it simply didn't exist. Only the instant when the universe was created that?s when all the laws of physcis themselves came into existence, space came into existence and time started ticking. Of course there is no scientfic basis for the creation event itslef (i.e. this is real creation not the transformation of energy/matter to different forms the videomaker explained) but it's something we have to take on faith.

    The reason I find this more appealing than option 1 is that with option1 we are still left with the question of where all these truly magnificent and beautiful laws of physics came from. It would be entirley unsatisfactory just to think 'well that's just the way that nature is'. Surely there must be some intelligence behind them?
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #27 - February 13, 2010, 05:56 PM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on February 10, 2010, 02:57 AM
    His God Checklist video is just pure awesomeness. We don't need Hawkins or Hitchens to debate. Just show this video and that's it.


    Yes, I absolutely love his "God's Checklist" video! Afro

    I was thinking of doing an Islamic version as I just know that Muslims watching it will use the fact that his criticisms are directed at the Christian version of this Abrahamic myth as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing.

    But I get so many ideas for videos I just keep shelving them all as I don't have time. lol
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #28 - February 13, 2010, 06:02 PM
    That's a great idea Hassan specially if you could do it in Arabic
  • Re: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.
     Reply #29 - February 13, 2010, 06:07 PM
    Quote from: z10 on February 08, 2010, 11:02 AM
    There are a number of reasons to think of the big bang as only the beginning of our portion of the multiverse, not as the beginning of the whole cosmos.
    As the video-maker mentioned the first law of thermodynamics is that energy is eternal; the basic constituent of the reality that is moulded and evolved throughout the universe is itself eternal, it follows naturally that the cosmos in its entirety is infinite aswell.
    There are also a number of issues with the standard big bang model. Many current cosmologists have theorised that our big bang was one of many bubbles that continually implode/explode in the wider cosmos.
    Along a similar line, Professors Steinhardt and Turok have written a book called "endless universe" which basically shows how the universe is best thought of as infinite and eternal in current string theory models of membranes and other exotic physical phenomena.

    Perhaps, also, one feels, that an infinite universe is the one that makes most metaphysical and poetic sense. There always has to be something because to posit a creation ex nihilo will get you a fail in logic 101.k


    Are you my kindred spirit?
    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »