The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Jack]

A universe that consistantly expands and contracts, is "born', "dies" then is "born" once more would avoid your logic trap and be as consistant with any evidence we can find as any other theory.

[LetThereBe]

A universe that consistantly expands and contracts, is "born', "dies" then is "born" once more would avoid your logic trap and be as consistant with any evidence we can find as any other theory.

So how would an expanding and contracting universe regain lost energy? How would it return from heat to matter? And what forces could possibly cause such to happen? Saying that requires more faith than believing in God, because it requires one to ignore a physically observable law that creation does not require. How is the reversal of entropy possible without a source of infinite energy imput into the system?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Again, you do not think the laws of thermodynamics always operated? Eventually everything would be converted into heat-energy. The universe would be consumed by entropy. How could this be reversed, minus an intervening force of infinite energy, which I could only identify as God? If the universe always existed, all stars would have burned out, all planets would have been cold and dead, and life would be impossible. Anything that could possibly be in any way less organized would have been so infinitely ago.

Stars burn out, planets get cold and lose life, and lifeforms vanish. Stars also are born from nebulae, planets are formed and gain life, and lifeforms succeed. You are assuming our universe is an isolated system, where it cannot exchange matter and energy outside of its boundaries. If nothing is out there, then I don't see why that nothing could be filled with something. That something being moving particles or energy.

[zynner]

I'm sure most of you have already heard this numerous times, but I seek opinions.

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. The universe has a cause.

Its a very simple argument. But is it valid?

No.

You don't know if the universe or god had a beginning.

~ zynner

[Jack]

So how would an expanding and contracting universe regain lost energy?

There's no lost energy. The universe is the ultimate closed system, there's nothing outside it. Every atom that has ever existed and will ever exist is contained within it.

[Jack]

Saying that requires more faith than believing in God

A hypothesis does not require faith, it only needs to be investigated and tested to see if it's viable or not. Science does not pretend to be looking for absolute truth, unlike religion.

[LetThereBe]

There's no lost energy. The universe is the ultimate closed system, there's nothing outside it. Every atom that has ever existed and will ever exist is contained within it.

Not quite. Matter can be created and destroyed, but there is an exchange with energy. According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy cannot be decreased. A closed system will always move to the lowest energy state. Whenever any work takes place, heat is given off. Can the energy from heat move up to a higher energy type?

[LetThereBe]

A hypothesis does not require faith, it only needs to be investigated and tested to see if it's viable or not. Science does not pretend to be looking for absolute truth, unlike religion.

The expanding contracting model is untestable. The idea that the universe will again be "reborn" is just as much an article of faith as any religion.

[LetThereBe]

No.

You don't know if the universe or god had a beginning.

~ zynner

Do not bring God into this yet, but you are going the right path with the beginning.

[LetThereBe]

Stars burn out, planets get cold and lose life, and lifeforms vanish. Stars also are born from nebulae, planets are formed and gain life, and lifeforms succeed. You are assuming our universe is an isolated system, where it cannot exchange matter and energy outside of its boundaries. If nothing is out there, then I don't see why that nothing could be filled with something. That something being moving particles or energy.

Stars may be born from nebulae, but some of the energy is lost as heat, and some energy is lost as heat when they die. It is constantly being radiated out. You say you do not believe the universe is a closed system? Are you arguing that there is something of infinite energy putting energy in (such as the "God" concept) or that there are multiple universes that interact with our own? And if so, would they not also be consumed by entropy?

[RickSp]

The problem is - if the universe has a cause, what caused the cause? It reminds me of the old Chinese sage who claimed that the world rides on the back of a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle rides on, he answered another turtle. And when asked what that turtle rides on he replied - turtles all the way down. That is the problem with the argument from First Cause. If there was a First Cause, what caused the First Cause?

I also am not convinced that one can simply say the "universe has a beginning" or that "everything which has a beginning has a cause" unless you define "cause" very broadly. Philosophers and phycisists have argued over whether the universe is steady state and universal or transient with a distinct beginning and end for centuries. Does the universe have a beginning? Or is it just a point of transition? I'm not convinced that there is a single answer that I can rely on.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Stars may be born from nebulae, but some of the energy is lost as heat, and some energy is lost as heat when they die. It is constantly being radiated out. You say you do not believe the universe is a closed system? Are you arguing that there is something of infinite energy putting energy in (such as the "God" concept) or that there are multiple universes that interact with our own? And if so, would they not also be consumed by entropy?

Not if the number of universes was infinite as well.