The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[rez]

1. The universe as we know it is finite.

If it is finite, I as a human will question if there is anything above and beyond.

The universe as we know it is finite, and there are many other finite universes.

this is what I am thinking, but I hope this is not true because that would mean humans are stuck in this universe and can never fully know the "truth" of things.

3. The universe as we know it is finite, but it is a part of a much greater, infinite universe.

this and number 2 are pretty much the same..

4. The universe is infinite, and the laws of thermodynamics did not operate as we currently understand them for an infinite amount of time.

Could you agree with this statement?

If the universe is infinite then humans are infinite as well. This means that humans have the capability of doing anything possible (ie constructing our own universes, designing new species). This would also mean that humans can become "God". However, this would not be explaining anything of the origins of "reality". Humans could quite possibly be a creation of some other type of humans that actually achieved a "God" status.



This is NOT an atheist vs theist debate, it is simply a bunch of humans with questions and opinions who want to feel vulnerable to the complex nature of reality. I am sorry to the theists for not bringing up their cave man concept of "God", but this is the 21st century and the human brain is much more informed then it was during the bronze age. In this day and age humans are well equipped with more information about the universe, therefore, can make better predictions. If you can not agree with this then you are ignorant, consequently showing your dishonest appreciation for the search of "God".



P.S. Here is to hoping the human species does not get killed off before such discoveries can be made.

[Dirty Name]

The universe as we know it is finite, and there are many other finite universes.

Impossible. Either the universe is finite, the boundaries of which are defined (and constantly redefined) by the two furthest physical objects, or it is infinite.

To say there are multiple finite universes is impossible unless there is some physical barrier preventing one from merging with the other. But then the physical barriers must also be contained inside something, and what is beyond that? It begins to get absurd rather quickly.

The only logical conclusion is that we exist for reasons far beyond anything our mortal minds could comprehend.

[rez]

How about this? The universe is infinite, but matter is not.

Humans can manipulate its finite shell (matter) with consciousness. For instance because humans are aware and able to adapt using the power of genes and technology there can be a way to fix our finite bodies, ultimately making death a thing of the past.

If the universe is infinite then so is human consciousness because there will be nothing to stop the human brain from evolving. Humans will never hit a brick wall that has no way past it. But even then how far can human consciouness really go? This just brings me up to the point of the question "DO I even exist?"

"When a tree falls and nobody is there, does it make a sound?"

The planets and stars are what happens in manifested reality, but manifested reality is not the whole of the universe.

What do you mean by "manifested reality"?

I believe matter is finite. Hum (?) what if there were nothing to reflect light back to the source? What if the universe is symbiotic?

what do you mean by "source"?

Humans benefit from the universe, could we agree with that? however, humans benefit so much more, which means that we are able to go BEYOND the universe.

The only problem is though, is evolution and consciousness finite?

[rez]

Impossible. Either the universe is finite, the boundaries of which are defined (and constantly redefined) by the two furthest physical objects, or it is infinite.

To say there are multiple finite universes is impossible unless there is some physical barrier preventing one from merging with the other. But then the physical barriers must also be contained inside something, and what is beyond that? It begins to get absurd rather quickly.

The only logical conclusion is that we exist for reasons far beyond anything our mortal minds could comprehend.

It does get absurd rather quickly and that is the point! It is simply not just cause and effect, the Christian God, the hindu Gods etc are not good explainations anymore. There is something much more complex going on.

don't you feel holy when you think of how complex reality really is?

[rcne]

Sometimes as a human I feel wrapped up in a thick blanket of ignorance. I feel like there is so much crazy shit going on without me. However, I must take what I have and just play the game of life, even if its boring.

You have stated the honest human condition philosophically perfectly. (at least in my opinion)

To counter the ancient Klahan argument - infinity or infinities are yet to be proven other than as a mathematically necessary function. On the other hand finite itself is yet to be proven. But consider that our universe may not be the only universe - as in gravity leakage. If gravity can leak out - where does it go? Dimensions also come to mind as an example of a possible infinity.

So my choice would be 5. The universe is infinite, just as all the other universes are infinite.

Why base a philosophy on a 400 year old (and limited knowledge argument)? such as The Kalam Cosmological Argument. I am tending to lean more toward Neitchez.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Your black hole argument is poor. We are not talking about time, we are talking about alternate dimensions of space, not time, in which all of these extra hidden galaxies could be. So you still have no method of traversing extra dimensions, and even if it could all such universes would be moving toward entropy, and if these other universes come into being that implies that at one point so did ours, and if you are saying the universes are just so far away then they would be too far away to imput any matter/energy into our system in the first place.

"Nope, no cause. Just coming into being, continuously, forever."

Thats a powerful statement of faith, and I'm fine with that. However, by your above statement that these universes are "coming into being infinitely, forever" shows that you DO believe that the universe had a beginning. Hence you agree with #1. of the Kalam argument. It seems your point of digression then is #2, you do not believe everything that came into being had a cause. It would be much easier if you just said as much.

No because then you ask, well what is the beginning of the first universe? And to that there is no beginning, only cycle.

[LetThereBe]

You have stated the honest human condition philosophically perfectly. (at least in my opinion)

To counter the ancient Klahan argument - infinity or infinities are yet to be proven other than as a mathematically necessary function. On the other hand finite itself is yet to be proven. But consider that our universe may not be the only universe - as in gravity leakage. If gravity can leak out - where does it go? Dimensions also come to mind as an example of a possible infinity.

So my choice would be 5. The universe is infinite, just as all the other universes are infinite.

Why base a philosophy on a 400 year old (and limited knowledge argument)? such as The Kalam Cosmological Argument. I am tending to lean more toward Neitchez.

Hmmm, I think I should have been more specific.... I think people are misunderstanding me. I shall restate the four, as I should have said them the first time. I was looking at it more in the realm of time. Perhaps space continues forever in any one direction, but I'm looking at "finite" in that there was a point of time in the past in which it first began to exist.
1. The universe has not always existed.
2. The universe has not always existed, and there are infinite other universes that did not always exist.
3. The universe has not always existed, but it is just one aspect, part, or brane, if you will, of a much greater universe that has always existed.
4. The universe has always existed, but since entropy is not currently at the maximum level the laws of thermodynamics did not act as we currently would predict by scientific observation for an infinite of time.

Personally, I think four is incredibly unlikely, but isher brought up the fact that we can't KNOW those laws were always operable as to our current understanding, so the option should be included.

I think the Kalam argument is still valid. What would you disagree with?
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

Right now we are discussing if the universe began to exist. How can the universe have gone back into infinite time unless:
1. The laws of thermodynamics are invalid.
2. There were an infinite, external power source.

Can anyone think of a third option?

[LetThereBe]

No because then you ask, well what is the beginning of the first universe? And to that there is no beginning, only cycle.

Hence you believe the universe had a beginning, but time did not. I will not try to argue that under your belief there must be a "first universe" but what you say does imply that the universe that we currently interact with had a beginning. Hence the second clause of the Kalam argument would be valid in your view.

[rcne]

Right now we are discussing if the universe began to exist. How can the universe have gone back into infinite time unless:
1. The laws of thermodynamics are invalid.
2. There were an infinite, external power source.

Can anyone think of a third option?

You seem to be of the finite set, which would be a theist outlook. Consider as someone else mentioned - a cycle. A big bang, ending in a big crunch, repeat.

Mass is just another form of energy so the conversion to and from are just part of the cycle. In this phase the second law is valid. Thats not to say the preceding or future phase that same theory we call a law will be valid. Thats point 1.

They external infinite power source is not necessary for an oscillating system. A small diffraction of conversion, or any case of over unity in the conversion process somewhere on either the Big Bang side, or conversely the Big Crunch at the appropriate time would be enough to repeat for the cycle for infinity. Thats point 2.

The initial point which you seem to be getting at may just be our part of our expanding universe, and we can't comprehend anything else before that. I think our Big Bang immediately followed a Big Crunch. That would be point 3. That would be pretty close to infinite, a continuous cycle of mass to energy, and then energy to mass.

[Dirty Name]

So my choice would be 5. The universe is infinite, just as all the other universes are infinite.

Seems like we'd have some overlap there, making them all one big universe. Without overlap, then you are suggesting that each individual infinite universe is contained seperately, but that container would then therefore make up something like, uh...a "metaverse."

Either way, at some point, the nonsense has to stop. If you people are capable of imagining such things, I guess I just don't see why some of you think it such a stretch to imagine a God.

[Jack]

I guess I just don't see why some of you think it such a stretch to imagine a God.

Because the hypotheses mentioned can all fit into known science, whereas belief in god goes beyond that to accepting a supernatural explanation.

[LetThereBe]

You seem to be of the finite set, which would be a theist outlook. Consider as someone else mentioned - a cycle. A big bang, ending in a big crunch, repeat.

Mass is just another form of energy so the conversion to and from are just part of the cycle. In this phase the second law is valid. Thats not to say the preceding or future phase that same theory we call a law will be valid. Thats point 1.

They external infinite power source is not necessary for an oscillating system. A small diffraction of conversion, or any case of over unity in the conversion process somewhere on either the Big Bang side, or conversely the Big Crunch at the appropriate time would be enough to repeat for the cycle for infinity. Thats point 2.

The initial point which you seem to be getting at may just be our part of our expanding universe, and we can't comprehend anything else before that. I think our Big Bang immediately followed a Big Crunch. That would be point 3. That would be pretty close to infinite, a continuous cycle of mass to energy, and then energy to mass.

So the overall entropy of the system would decrease at some point, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Unless of course some energy is lost with each cycle, which would mean that it could not go on infinitely.