What’s Right & Wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[@HainishMentat]

On the issue of philosophy of time when we're down to a very small universe in the past, I don't really see the problem. In quantum mechanics, the quantum state evolves _over time_ (ideally in line with the Schrödinger equation, maybe with some collapses or other stuff....). Of course, specifically what happens during that time is unknown. But, Craig is just saying basically what Aguirre and Kehayias have said: Even when we switch to a fully quantum mechanical description of the world, it's implausible to suppose the state was periodic (unchanging) for a literally infinite number of, say, minutes, _and then_ evolved!

[@PlacidLight]

If I understand correctly, Dr. Thomas Rudelius seems to go even further than the kalam as he seemed to say the universe and all the physical laws including quantum gravity or eternal inflation itself would require a cause whether the universe began to exist or not. Either way, I really like Dr. Rudelius and it would be awesome to see him have a discussion with a philosopher like Dr. Andrew Loke about the implications of a definite beginning. Thank you for this!

[@vaskaventi6840]

That sounds more like a contingency argument for God than a Kalam argument imo

[@SojournerDidimus]

I think this is a very convoluted way to redefine the word "beginning". Either Kalam: all that begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Or eternality: the universe does not have a beginning, therefore it needn't have a cause. However, eternality exists only on paper. Bubble universes, multiverse, eternal inflation, wave universes, etc. exist as a theory only because Kalam would be the alternative, and therefore God is. Let me use the multiverse as an example. By definition the universes of the multiverse do not interact, which makes all other universes definitionally immeasurable. Therefore they are at least as imaginary as God. It also moves the question of "did the universe begin to exist" to "did the multiverse begin to exist", shifting the uncaused cause question simply back a level.

[@LinebackerTuba]

Regardless of motivation it makes sense that people who don't think there is a God would defend the eternality of the universe. The Kalam has the burden of proof, thus positing an alternative explanation (an eternal multiverse) that is plausible does defeat the argument even if it can't be proven and is just speculative. One would have to argue against the probability of there being an eternal multiverse which is rather difficult without a PHD in physics. I say contingency and fine-tuning are much easier to defend. Supporting premise 2 of the Kalam with philosophical arguments also seems a better approach.

[@catholicgamer1345]

24:40 he says the multiverse doesn't fix the fine tuning argument. How?

[@TheAnalyticChristian]

@@catholicgamer1345 he explains why in this 6 minute video. His explanation is different than the one I’ve defended in other videos. But you asked why *he* (not me) thinks the multiverse doesn’t solve fine-tuning. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jl66hKZqm7GMic0si=WmFkcOItkJ3FGSCY

Oh yeah great Topic

[@RonCram]

I do not think a full theory of quantum gravity is possible. It would be possible if spacetime existed in discrete quantum units. But we do not have quantum spacetimetons, for lack of a better term for this quantum entity. Theoretical physicists have proposed their existence. Experimentalists have looked for "chunkiness" in spacetime, but have never found it. I agree with Erica Carlson, professor of physics at Purdue, who says that we do not live in a quantum universe but a classical universe that has some quantum effects such as nuclear power.

[@RonCram]

I am only part way through the discussion but I would disagree with his take on the oscillating universe. I know Paul Steinhardt is still working on this, but it seems he is wasting his time. I believe the oscillating universe model has been ruled out but the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There will be no gravitational collapse. Also, Tolman showed that an oscillating universe would still continue to have increasing entropy. There would be no reset of entropy with each oscillation. This model has no chance.

[@anthonydesimone502]

It would've been nice to address here the conflation of the observable universe with all of physical reality. That's the primary issue with the Kalam.

[@bossmanham]

No one claims that covers all reality. Craig believes in non-material beings like angels and God. But the material observable universe coming into being would demand an explanation, if it happened.

[@anthonydesimone502]

@@bossmanham which is why I said all *physical* reality.

[@HainishMentat]

Which part of Craig's reasoning is confined to "the observable universe"?

[@anthonydesimone502]

@@HainishMentat all of it, which is evident in his use of BBT and BGV.

[@HainishMentat]

​@@anthonydesimone502 Do you think Alexander Vikenkin was also conflating the mere observable part of the Universe with the whole thing when he wrote the quote referenced in the video?

[@eenkjet]

Because it's 4D, it's occasionalist. It contains a concurrent begining and ending. IOW it is a created object.