The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[LetThereBe]

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.

It just seems to me that the Second law of Thermodynamics kills any idea of infinite past. As for what caused the cause, at this point I'm even open to the idea of the universe causing itself: I'll leave that question for another time.
At the moment I'm just on the issue of infinite past.

[zynner]

Not if the number of universes was infinite as well.

That would be my guess, but I don't claim to know it.

~ zynner

[SoccerfreakAB2]

That would be my guess, but I don't claim to know it.

~ zynner

Neither do I. Just complicating the certainty of the belief in God through logical questioning.

[LetThereBe]

Not if the number of universes was infinite as well.

But each would be heading to entropy at the same rate. Unless a universe was created every so many years..... but that would be a net-increase in the sum of matter and energy, which would violate thermodynamics law number one. Not only that, but it would also infer our universe was also created. But again, how would another universe interact with our own? If it could somehow send in an imput of energy or matter, we should have evidence of it. If it were something too distant, how would the imput reach the stars and galaxies near our home planet?

[zynner]

At the moment I'm just on the issue of infinite past.

Think back in time. Go as far back as you can imagine. Go back before the big bang. Then, even futher back. However far back you can imagine, you can always go back even futher.

So, if time just "began" at some point, then what about going back before that? You can't conceive of time beginning. Because once you locate a point where time began, you can imagine a time before that.

So, time could not have ever had a beginning. Since space and time are inseparable, then space could also have never had a beginning.

Just a thought.

~ zynner

[zynner]

But again, how would another universe interact with our own? If it could somehow send in an imput of energy or matter, we should have evidence of it. If it were something too distant, how would the imput reach the stars and galaxies near our home planet?

Here's an idea. I do not assert that this is true, it is just a hypothesis.

Imagine the known universe with all its matter (galaxies, etc.). It's big, huh? Something over 25 billion light years across. What is beyond that?

There is no such thing as "nothing." At the very least, there is space beyond the outer boundries of the known universe. How far does that go? Infinity? How far is infinity? Well, it's infinity, as in forever. That's much, much larger than the known universe. In fact, it's infinitely larger.

What if there were multiple universes all throughout that infinite space? What if there are so many universes, just as there are so many galaxies, that when one universe expands outward to the point where the matter within it gets so far apart, that it causes an imbalance in the overall universe and causes a new big bang? What if the entire universe is infinite with infinite big bangs and expansions of matter throughout infinite time?

~ zynner

[LetThereBe]

Think back in time. Go as far back as you can imagine. Go back before the big bang. Then, even futher back. However far back you can imagine, you can always go back even futher.

So, if time just "began" at some point, then what about going back before that? You can't conceive of time beginning. Because once you locate a point where time began, you can imagine a time before that.

So, time could not have ever had a beginning. Since space and time are inseparable, then space could also have never had a beginning.

Just a thought.

~ zynner

The concept of "before" may be inappropriate in such a circumstance. Since space and time are inseperable as you say, time would not even exist outside of the nearly infinitely small space that was the pre-big bang matter. (Many if not most cosmologists do not see the Big Bang as matter exploding out in space, but space expanding and carrying the matter with it.) So time would not even exist outside of that small point.
We can't possibly look at the state of things back then. Nor can we understand how things operated at the very first moments. But we can see how things operate now, and if we can assume that the laws of thermodynamics were operable before us then we can know the universe was not always. Is that not the way of the scientist? Draw conclusions based on the observable? Why do you base your arguments on the inobservable? That is an article of faith. I see a repeating pattern in the decline unto entropy, and apply this knowledge. It is a more logical approach.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

But each would be heading to entropy at the same rate. Unless a universe was created every so many years..... but that would be a net-increase in the sum of matter and energy, which would violate thermodynamics law number one. Not only that, but it would also infer our universe was also created. But again, how would another universe interact with our own? If it could somehow send in an imput of energy or matter, we should have evidence of it. If it were something too distant, how would the imput reach the stars and galaxies near our home planet?

No, the laws of thermodynamics apply to each individual universe. Not net-increase.

Not of universes are created and destroyed. CYCLE. Must there be a beginning? No. No need for the creation of the first cycles. And also, avoid using Earth-like analogies like the chicken before the egg. The circumstantial difference is too great. We would have no idea what goes on at the border of our own universe.

[LetThereBe]

Here's an idea. I do not assert that this is true, it is just a hypothesis.

Imagine the known universe with all its matter (galaxies, etc.). It's big, huh? Something over 25 billion light years across. What is beyond that?

There is no such thing as "nothing." At the very least, there is space beyond the outer boundries of the known universe. How far does that go? Infinity? How far is infinity? Well, it's infinity, as in forever. That's much, much larger than the known universe. In fact, it's infinitely larger.

What if there were multiple universes all throughout that infinite space? What if there are so many universes, just as there are so many galaxies, that when one universe expands outward to the point where the matter within it gets so far apart, that it causes an imbalance in the overall universe and causes a new big bang? What if the entire universe is infinite with infinite big bangs and expansions of matter throughout infinite time?

~ zynner

I don't see what this "unbalance" is that you speak of, and again, these new big bangs would require another imput of energy and matter, which would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Regardless, you point implies that OUR universe began at some time. Unless all of these other universes are just a means of sustaining our own, but that would be the silliest thing I could think of, unless of course there was an intelligence or deity that liked ours more than the rest. Besides, since these universes are unobservalbe, how could any energy or matter imput reach our system?

[LetThereBe]

No, the laws of thermodynamics apply to each individual universe. Not net-increase.

Not of universes are created and destroyed. CYCLE. Must there be a beginning? No. No need for the creation of the first cycles. And also, avoid using Earth-like analogies like the chicken before the egg. The circumstantial difference is too great. We would have no idea what goes on at the border of our own universe.

What is it you constitute another universe? Is it just another group of galaxies, only billions of light years away? Is it something that operates in an alternate dimension? If its an alternate dimension matter/energy could never reach us, so the point is null. If it is just really far away, it isn't any different than one big universe, and the first law of thermodynamics should still be applicable.
Anyways, you are implying that all of these universes are just coming into being. Hence, should they not have a cause?
Your argument still requires the impossible reversal of entropy.

[Jack]

Your argument still requires the impossible reversal of entropy.

I haven't read anything that states for a fact that we know this to be impossible. Science is always limited to our current understanding. It does not pretend to know that for which there is no evidence. We may never have witnessed such a thing, our best understanding currently may say that such a thing is unlikely or in violation of science as we now understand it, but it does not state absolutely that such a thing is impossible. All we know is that it would be inconsistant with our current scientific knowledge.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

What is it you constitute another universe? Is it just another group of galaxies, only billions of light years away? Is it something that operates in an alternate dimension? If its an alternate dimension matter/energy could never reach us, so the point is null. If it is just really far away, it isn't any different than one big universe, and the first law of thermodynamics should still be applicable.
Anyways, you are implying that all of these universes are just coming into being. Hence, should they not have a cause?
Your argument still requires the impossible reversal of entropy.

Moving through dimensions isn't all that hard, really. Grab the nearest black hole and go for a ride through time. Nope, no cause. Just coming into being, continuously, forever. We haven't even discovered all of the dimensions that exist in the universe. Many scientists think some 16 dimensions in all exist. It's more confusing than we think out there, hence all the entropy I suppose.