Why the Kalam cosmological argument fails.

[theantithesis]

I was shown  this forum post that explains the fatal flaw in the KCA better than any I have encountered.

Summary: The KCA contains the logical fallacy equivocation. The phrase "begins to exist" is employed with two different meanings.

In the first premise, this refers to macro object. You began to exist when you were born. Your car began to exist when it was built, etc. Material object formed by the rearrangement of matter and energy.

In the second premise does not refer to the rearrangement of matter and energy but the creation of matter and energy itself.

Simple illustration: say you have a bucket of Legos. This represents the universe and the Legos are the constituent components of matter. Take the Legos and build something, such as a little car. The little car "begins to exist" when you build it out of Legos. So in this illustration, "beginning to exists" means to build it out of Legos.

The Legos are not built out of Legos any more than a chocolate cake is made out of chocolate cake. How the Legos themselves "begin to exist" is a different process than "building out of Legos." If the KCA were written for this illustration, it would read like this:

      1. Whatever is built out of Legos has a cause.
      2. The Legos are built out of Legos.
      3. Therefore, the Legos have a cause.

I'm kind of depressed that I didn't notice this flaw myself.

[TheJackel]

I was shown  this forum post that explains the fatal flaw in the KCA better than any I have encountered.

Summary: The KCA contains the logical fallacy equivocation. The phrase "begins to exist" is employed with two different meanings.

In the first premise, this refers to macro object. You began to exist when you were born. Your car began to exist when it was built, etc. Material object formed by the rearrangement of matter and energy.

In the second premise does not refer to the rearrangement of matter and energy but the creation of matter and energy itself.

Simple illustration: say you have a bucket of Legos. This represents the universe and the Legos are the constituent components of matter. Take the Legos and build something, such as a little car. The little car "begins to exist" when you build it out of Legos. So in this illustration, "beginning to exists" means to build it out of Legos.

The Legos are not built out of Legos any more than a chocolate cake is made out of chocolate cake. How the Legos themselves "begin to exist" is a different process than "building out of Legos." If the KCA were written for this illustration, it would read like this:

      1. Whatever is built out of Legos has a cause.
      2. The Legos are built out of Legos.
      3. Therefore, the Legos have a cause.

I'm kind of depressed that I didn't notice this flaw myself.

That is where the Lego's are the Universal Set of all Sets. In this case the Lego's have no cause to exist because they are the substance to existence itself. Here it is impossible for Lego's to not exist because non-existence or nothing can not literally ever exist as a form of existing existence as an object, person, place or thing. Now just replace Lego's with the term "Energy". Energy is the Universal substance to all existence, and that includes empty space itself, or even itself. For a clearer image of this concept, you only need to know that -1 energy can not exist, and that -1 dimensional space can not exist (a negative capacity). This is how we know space, and energy are infinite. You can only ever achieve zero base energy, or zero base capacity (the lowest possible level = zero base).

So in essence there is no such thing as nothing, or nonexistence, and there will always be something. This is however not an argument for a GOD's existence, or creationism. And that is because such a being would equally be slave to the need to be made of said "Lego's". So one can not create existence, or the substance of existence. In this sense there is no such thing as a "Creator", or "GOD" even though there can be manipulators and builders to which can utilize and build with these Lego's. We human beings represent just that . We may know what everything is made from or of, but we may never know how exactly everything works, was made, or had come to be.

[gatorpower]

For a clearer image of this concept, you only need to know that -1 energy can not exist, and that -1 dimensional space can not exist (a negative capacity). This is how we know space, and energy are infinite. You can only ever achieve zero base energy, or zero base capacity (the lowest possible level = zero base).

In physics, gravity is considered negative energy.  The sum total energy in the universe is zero.

[TheJackel]

For a clearer image of this concept, you only need to know that -1 energy can not exist, and that -1 dimensional space can not exist (a negative capacity). This is how we know space, and energy are infinite. You can only ever achieve zero base energy, or zero base capacity (the lowest possible level = zero base).

In physics, gravity is considered negative energy.  The sum total energy in the universe is zero.

Incorrect. It's not literal -1 energy.. That is like saying driving in reverse is a negative velocity when it isn't. The Terms of negative used here has to do with existence and not in terms of something like negative charges or positive charges. And Gravity is the bending of space time and also has to do with the acceleration of Masses. Hence if Earth were to spin 1/2 the speed of it's current rotation there would be a noticeable reduction in gravitation, and it's gravitational field. Earth's Gravitational field is also not uniform to where you Weigh more at the poles than you do at the Equator.

Also, Zero energy is not literally zero energy. It's energy at it's lowest possible measurable form of existence known as Zero point energy, Ground State, or Vacuum Energy. And this is because literal Zero can not be measured since it's literally the base to everything that exists. Thus it's referred to as being zero but not in the literal context of being non-existent.

Nothing or Non-existence can not exist as a literal person, place, object, entity, or thing. Even empty space isn't "nothing". Or for instance, we or even a supposed deity can not be made of nothing. You reach a point to where infinite regress is solved by a universal set of all sets. This universal set solves the problem to infinite regress because it's non-existence is literally impossible. The only thing that can solve infinite regress is the substance of existence itself. And only Energy can represent solve that and represent a Universal Set of all Sets.

Energy is all information, spatial dimensions, capacity, patterns, feelings, thoughts, emotion, interaction, processes ect. It's self-oscillating, and self-organizing from a system of chaos to which all the above can arise as emerging properties and patterns. This includes us, or any living entity or organism.  We are essentially all made from the same pile of sand.

[gatorpower]

Incorrect.

Now I am just doing this to help you out because I see that you are quite interested in this subject

I'm sorry.  It's just you seem unfamiliar with the subject I am referring to.   Gravitational fields have negative energy and matter has positive energy.

My purpose for posting was to share the currently-held viewpoint of physics, not really to discuss the cosmological argument, per se.

Think of the subject like this brief analogy.  We create a system where a person drops a ball from 5 feet, picks it up, and then returns it to its original position.  Where does the energy in the system come from?  Why, it's the energy required to pick up the ball.  If this expends 1 joule each time the cycle is completed, how much energy does it take to drop the ball?  None?  No.  If there was no energy, then the ball simply would not move.    

You are not 'creating' energy after each cycle, it's simply returning to an equilibrium of zero.  This means that the gravitational field MUST be contributing negative energy, as the net result will be zero.  +1 -1 = 0.  It takes real energy to act against gravity, which is simply a force created by the presence of matter.

You can read more by picking up some Stephen Hawking, Alexei V. Filippenko or Lawrence Krauss.

[TheJackel]

Incorrect.

Now I am just doing this to help you out because I see that you are quite interested in this subject lol. Measurable energy is only potential energy from zero base energy. Equilibrium also doesn't state that there is literally zero energy, it only states that energy is in a state of Equilibrium as far as we can tell since we can't actually measure energy to which is less than what we attempt to measure it with. Your argument is like trying to argue the double slit experiment. You are basically playing with the uncertainty principle here.

So I will simply Quote Wiki since they so eloquently state what I am telling you.

Because of the uncertainty principle all physical systems, even at absolute zero temperature, have a zero-point energy that is greater than literal zero. Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields.In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[1] The variation in zero-point energy as the boundaries of a region of vacuum move leads to the Casimir effect, which is observable in nanoscale devices. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.[2

You can feel free to explain how nothing is something or can exist as a something. It's impossible and it's a fallacious to even consider it. Especially when nothing states that itself doesn't exist. All scientists I know of, including Steven Hawkins will tell you that the Universe requires no creation or intervention because Energy itself is self-attaining in property.

[gatorpower]

Incorrect. Gravity is considered a pseudo-force. Mass creates a gravity well, and gravitation is what gives you weight to which has to do with Mass acceleration. You might also want to learn what the equivalence principle is and why there can be no local distinction between upward acceleration of mass and gravitation. Negative energy you are referring to has to do with a negative charge. It's not actually negative energy . Measurable energy is only potential energy from zero base energy. Equilibrium also doesn't state that there is literally zero energy, it only states that energy is in a state of Equilibrium as far as we can tell since we can't actually measure energy to which is less than what we attempt to measure it with. Your argument is like trying to argue the double slit experiment.

You can feel free to explain how nothing is something or can exist as a something. It's impossible and it's a fallacious to even consider it. Especially when nothing states that itself doesn't exist. All scientists I know of, including Steven Hawkins will tell you that the Universe requires no creation or intervention because Energy itself is self-attaining in property.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it's obvious you make up science as you go along or you chose to distort many of the terms you have read.    Stephen Hawking will tell you the universe requires no creatOR because it requires no energy.

[TheJackel]

Incorrect. Gravity is considered a pseudo-force. Mass creates a gravity well, and gravitation is what gives you weight to which has to do with Mass acceleration. You might also want to learn what the equivalence principle is and why there can be no local distinction between upward acceleration of mass and gravitation. Negative energy you are referring to has to do with a negative charge. It's not actually negative energy . Measurable energy is only potential energy from zero base energy. Equilibrium also doesn't state that there is literally zero energy, it only states that energy is in a state of Equilibrium as far as we can tell since we can't actually measure energy to which is less than what we attempt to measure it with. Your argument is like trying to argue the double slit experiment.

You can feel free to explain how nothing is something or can exist as a something. It's impossible and it's a fallacious to even consider it. Especially when nothing states that itself doesn't exist. All scientists I know of, including Steven Hawkins will tell you that the Universe requires no creation or intervention because Energy itself is self-attaining in property.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it's obvious you make up science as you go along or you chose to distort many of the terms you have read.    Stephen Hawking will tell you the universe requires no creation because it requires no energy.

It's not made up science that I am giving you here. Please learn what Zero point energy is. And it's what Hawking is referring to. It's zero base energy and not the total absence of energy. And do realize that Energy is not totally understood by the scientific community. Especially in the quantum field. However, Quantum Electrodynamics agrees with what I am telling you. Even String theory agrees with my argument.

You are misunderstanding what they mean by zero energy. It's reference to zero point energy. Einstein said, "everything is vibration". He's essentially correct.

[theantithesis]

*snip*.

That's rather overcomplicating the illustration which is only meant to illustrate the equivocation in the Kalam cosmological argument.

[TheJackel]

*snip*.

That's rather overcomplicating the illustration which is only meant to illustrate the equivocation in the Kalam cosmological argument.

I didn't over complicate it. The simple answer is the answer to which can resolve the problem of infinite regress, and represent a Universal Set of all Sets. Kalam cosmological argument is from what I can tell, an argument in regards to a Universal Set. So the Kalam cosmological argument actually reads as:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.
4) The universal Cause to that is all required to have cause has no cause. hence existence never began to exist as it has always existed. This includes the substance of existence itself. This following into your version below.

Your example is entirely different:

1. Whatever is built out of Legos has a cause.
2. The Legos are [strike:2u2cvw2z]built out of[/strike:2u2cvw2z] the substance of the fabric of existence itself.
3. Therefore, the Legos [strike:2u2cvw2z]have a[/strike:2u2cvw2z] are the cause without cause due to their non-existence being literally impossible since they are the very substance of existence.

Now if the Kalam argument fails to address and solve infinite regress to where causation derives from a Universal Set of all sets, I would then agree that it's flawed. And I say that because regardless of the argument there has to be a Universal Set of all sets that solves infinite regress. And energy does just that.

Soooo, once again existence isn't made of nothing because nothing in literal terms isn't anything at all. Nothing isn't empty space, it isn't an object, substance, person, place, or thing. It's not a form of actual existence but rather a descriptive concept to describe what is absent to which you expected to be there. As in "There is nothing in my coffee cup", or "nothing can prevent existence from existing". And this is why literal Zero is actually a logical Fallacy.