athiest and a muslim debate Kalam

[philh 0]

Last Sunday I went to the real speakers corner in Hyde Park London and have agreed to carry on a debate with Muslim chap I met there. I asked to post our back and forth here as we get so little Muslim views in this forum and he agreed. So here is it below and I will continue to post it up for anyone who is interested to join , perhaps Ghali will sign up and post direct.

PHILH:

Hi

Got something of a quiet moment at work so I thought Id write a little something on why I don’t buy the argument you presented on Sunday. I’m going to use the wikipedia definition of the Kalam argument here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument



Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

That cause is god. (last bit my addition)



The second premise is usually supported by the following argument:

An actual infinite cannot exist.
A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.


I’m going to assume they have summarized the argument correctly. If that is not correct please let me know.



My problems

1 Premise one is pure assertion. It is not clear at all that this is the case. Quantum events are often considered to be cause less. As Heisenberg said

“I believe that indeterminism, that is the nonvalidity of rigorous causality, is necessary, and not just consistently possible. “
Bohr also said“The renunciation of the ideal of causality in atomic physics . . . has been forced upon us . . . “

The argument relies on causality holding throughout the universe; therefore something operating without causality must be outside of the universe. But if physists such as Bohr and Heisenberg are correct then we do not need to go outside the universe to look for an event without a cause hence the entire argument collapses.

Now it’s not for me to assess the validity of Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s statements. But it is enough to at least cast doubt on premise 1. But even without QM premise 1 is actually a contradiction to its conclusion. The conclusion of course is that there is something without a cause namely god, but the premise is that there is nothing without a cause. So there is a contradiction. The only way out of the contradiction is to make the argument you made on Sunday, which is the rules don’t apply to god as he is outside of the universe. The problem with this, is one could just as easily postulate there is something inside the universe that can violate laws as outside. Since there is no way to verify either, both are just speculations. We have no way of knowing if one, both or neither is true.



This brings me on to a more fundamental point. Arguments are not evidence. One can argue until one is blue in the face as to some aspect of reality that we cannot detect, but ultimately its detection that settles the argument. If god is outside of space and time how are we supposed to detect him? It’s a get out of jail free card for any reasonable standard of evidence, how convenient. No matter how reasonable ones argument may seem, without physical evidence to back it up we should not have such a high level of confidnce in its conlusion as religious people seem to me to have. Argument for the existence of the aether seemed very reasonable but physical evidence often contradicts what appears to be sound logic.



2 Premise 2 is also shaky. Of course most people agree that the Big Bang is verified by the data. But there are many cosmological models that postulate events prior to the big bang. One example of this is Brane Cosmology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Alternatively consider eternal inflation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

Whether these speculations will be shown to be correct or false remains to be seen, but neither are known to be inconsistent with known physics or observations. Premise 2 requires that they are indeed disallowed by physics and that is far from certain, so we cannot yet say that it is correct.



3. The premise that denies physical infinity is also an assertion without evidence. It’s asserting actual infinites do not physically exist. But this is something we just don’t know. To accept them gives us a paradox of course. But to deny them also gives us a paradox. For example if space and time are not infinite what bounds them? If we can accept time exists infinitely in the future, we are being inconsistent to deny it infinitely in the past.

Whether infinites exist in reality we have at this time, no way of knowing. One way round the paradox is simply to go Harry Potter and say lets just replace laws of nature with magic. If we allow for magic then one can explain away any paradox. How did Hermione Granger take 6 hours of classes in one four hour period? Well she used magic of course. Problem solved. To introduce a being who is outside of space and time, whom we have no way of physically detecting is no different to answering a question with: it’s magic. Such as answer is no answer at all.


GHALI'S RESPONSE:

Sorry about the delay in replying! Great to hear from you. Ok lets look into your objections.



> My problems
> 1 Premise one is pure assertion. It is not clear at all that this is
> the case. Quantum events are often considered to be cause less.

Well the Quantum world on one interpretation talks strictly in statisical models. So yes we can energy fluctations that produce "virtual particles" if you wish. Hey why not real particles as well.

You see that is all nice and well but we are talking about the totality of matter including the "side constraints" that allow this to happen. Causality in my eye is another way "sufficient reasons" if you wish so this model fails radically if we take it as an explaination of matter as a whole.

That is the reason why we can apply the "ad hoc"
qualification for Allah and not for the "internal"
material system that he creates.

It is like saying that I have explained how matter came into being using matter.



.

> This brings me on to a more fundamental point.
> Arguments are not evidence. One can argue until one is blue in the
> face as to some aspect of reality that we cannot detect, but
> ultimately its detection that settles the argument. If god is outside
> of space and time how are we supposed to detect him?

That assumes a radical verificationist model. Well you would then have problems with universals including the verification principle itself. This would include most variations of the principle as far as I know.

Could you detect logic? Is it empirical? What about the mathematical world? Are numbers real? Can you sense them? Are you a Platonist?

Still...We detect alot of things by the results that they produce. After all we cant see many sub atomic particles but we "deduce" they exist by the results that they produce.

Similarly we have this material world as "proof" for the existence of a creator




" Argument for
> the existence of the aether seemed very reasonable but physical
> evidence often contradicts what appears to be sound logic."

Here you go again confusing "common sense" with logic.
Logic does not tell you how things are. It just claims to say what are and what are not valid arguments. It shows you how to preserve truth in an argument if you wish. A bit a of "rule of the thumb" but it does help here.




> 2 Premise 2 is also shaky.

All the models you have used, some of which have largely been rejected do not really address how you can complete and "endless task" now do they? If they claim to do so then so much for the model!

By the way one of the main reasons quantum fluctuation models were rejected was precisely because of this. It lead in many cases to absurd conclusions i.e.
contradictions!


> 3. The premise that denies physical infinity is also an assertion
> without evidence. It's asserting actual infinites do not physically
> exist. But this is something we just don't know. To accept them gives
> us a paradox of course. But to deny them also gives us a paradox. For
> example if space and time are not infinite what bounds them?

Well to talk about the bounds of time (unless you spatalise it then we are really only talking space) is a category mistake.

What came before time? That is the question but the question is wrong. There is no before when we have no time. Sort of like Stephen Hawkings "no boundry"
quantum gravity model.

Similarly we can only reasonably talk of boundaries when we view space as something that can be deformed, twisted etc... Think of the maths of Topology.

Vacuums are strictly speaking not "space".

At least on this view we can help the paradox. Nothing by definition has no boundaries!

Even if we have paradoxes on both sides of river it does not give us an allowance to accept them! We have to find ways to resolve them.

Your argument in a nutshell is a tu quoque fallacy

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quantum events are often considered to be cause less.

Just because we can't detect the cause doesn't mean there isn't a cause.

Its interesting, other than the use of the word Allah the response could have been written by a Jew or a Christian.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jakee 1,595]

Fuck me, that response from Ghali was one of the most useless pieces of twaddle I've ever seen, and I've been posting in SC since it started!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

I still can't get my head around the concept of an "athiest Muslim"

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[philh 0]

I meant an atheism and a muslim sorry if thats wasnt clear. Ive changed the heading now.
Ive also written a response to ghalis criticism but am awaiting some real physicists to check it over.
As to Skyrads point on whether there is a real underlying cause in QM that we havent detetced yet. Well perhaps there is but thats not really the point. The Kalam argument has to assume that there is and all Im arguing is that its premature given our current understanding.

[shropshire 0]

Sorry Phil - I knew but just couldn't help myself - Yeap, I'm an arse

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[philh 0]

my reply to Ghali:

“You see that is all nice and well but we are talking about the totality of matter including the "side constraints" that allow this to happen. Causality in my eye is another way "sufficient reasons" if you wish so this model fails radically if we take it as an explaination of matter as a whole.”



I’m not clear exactly what you are saying but I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I wasn’t referring to the totality of matter, what I was referring to was whether we need to look outside of our universe for at least one example of a break down of strict causality. Virtual particles cannot be written off as just an aberration of a model. They have real physical effects e.g. for example the Casimir Effect. Quantum mechanics does in deed give us the possibility of a break down of strict causality. Many physicists would certainly use much stronger language than “the possibility”. But no stronger statement is in fact required to defeat the Kalam argument. The reason is that it assumes everything in the universe has a cause and that the hypothesised un caused cause must therefore be outside the universe. If that assumption has even the possibility of being wrong then one cannot so easily procead from it and use it to make a case for god. The un caused cause could just as easily be within the universe and not a magic man outside of it.

Indeed many cosmologists do theorise that matter does have its origin from a vacuum fluctuation. I’m sure you are familiar with papers by Edward Tyron, Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle who all take this view. If you want to rubbish these ideas you need provide some references to dismiss them as easily as you do. In fact you simply state they are wrong with no real reason at all. It is not like saying matter created matter. Mass and energy are equivalent and if the negative energy of gravity is equal to the positive energy of mass then there is no in balance to be explained. The net energy of the universe will be zero. So no, matter does not create matter, a fluctuation of the vacuum created matter. Now this theory may or may not be true but in order to use the Kalam argument you have to prove they are impossible. The reason for this is that there is no observational evidence to verify the Kalam argument, so all other possibilities must be excluded in order to even consider it as anything approaching a fact. You have not done that.

“That assumes a radical verificationist model. Well you would then have problems with universals including the verification principle itself. This would include most variations of the principle as far as I know.”



Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about here.



“Still...We detect alot of things by the results that they produce. After all we cant see many sub atomic particles but we "deduce" they exist by the results that they produce.”



Of course, did you seriously think I was suggesting otherwise? The point is whether we discover sub atomic particles through indirect or direct means, we are still detecting them. No remotely similar claim can be made for god. The existence of certain sub atomic partciels makes predictions which are tested in experiments by physicists, again the god hypothesis does nothing like this.





“Could you detect logic? Is it empirical? What about the mathematical world? Are numbers real? Can you sense them? Are you a Platonist?”



Maths, Logic etc are all are all methods of human reasoning. They are relevant to the extent that they can describe the real physical world. Of course maths and logic are extremely useful in describing physical reality but without empirical evidence to verify our reasoning they are not very useful. For example Lord Kelvin disputed Darwin’s theory of evolution because he calculated the age of the sun as being too young to allow it. His calculations were apparently spot on. But he didn’t know his physical assumptions were wrong, he didn’t know about nuclear fusion or radioactive decay. So like all maths, logic , modelling etc it’s a question of garbage in garbage out. We need to make empirical measurements to guard against this. That’s how human knowledge progresses.

As to whether or not I’m a Platonist, no,if you would like a label to describe my philosophy I guess scientific scepticism is the best fit. You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

But I dont really care about philisophical labels to be honest.



“Similarly we have this material world as "proof" for the existence of a creator”

Now you are just assuming what you want to prove. You’ll have to do better than that. My position is I don’t know where the material world came from. But to just assume it came from a creator doesn’t solve the problem it just removes it a step and so it is no solution at all. There is no more evidence for a creator than there is evidence for magic.







“Here you go again confusing "common sense" with logic.”



The problem is as long you are talking about anything in physical reality then strict logic is not sufficient. The Kalam argument makes assumption about the physical world and gives us a supposed answer to some of the problems one can discuss about them. Hence it needs to have some empirical evidence to support it and it has none whatsoever. To give an example of why such logic is insufficient, consider the aether. Every observed wave had a medium to travel through so it was considered light needed a medium to travel through. That turned out to be wrong. It was an empirical study by Michaelson and Morley that discovered this. No one reasoned their way to it. The logic of the argument did not seem unreasonable but when compared to the physical world everyone was surprised to find it was wrong. The Kalam argument makes a similar assumption. Everything needing a cause is no different assumption than every wave needs a medium. We need to compare our reasoning against the physical world to give us a reality check. The Kalam argument now comes off worse than the ether argument because at the time there was no observation to doubt the need for a medium. Now we do have reasons to doubt strict causality operates everywhere in the universe.



“All the models you have used, some of which have largely been rejected do not really address how you can complete and "endless task" now do they? If they claim to do so then so much for the model!”



Can you give some references which back up your claim that these models have been “largely rejected”? Furthermore I make no claims to solve the paradox of an endless chain of causes. Nor do the models, they merely open the question as to whether there was something before the big bang. If there was something before the big bang then premise 2 fails.



“By the way one of the main reasons quantum fluctuation models were rejected was precisely because of this. It lead in many cases to absurd conclusions i.e. contradictions!”



Rejected by whom? Again please provide references, otherwise I’m going to assume you mean it’s been rejected by theist rather than physicists. Quantum mechanics has many conclusions which were considered absurd, so what? If that’s reality we have to accept it, seemingly absurd or not.



“Well to talk about the bounds of time (unless you spatalise it then we are really only talking space) is a category mistake.”



Why is this a mistake? Space and time are considered one object in relativity not two separate unrelated entities.



“What came before time? That is the question but the question is wrong. There is no before when we have no time. Sort of like Stephen Hawkings "no boundry" quantum gravity model.



Whether or not there was something before the big bang is still an open question. Two main conjectures to describe quantum gravity have been proposed. Loop quantum gravity and string theory. Both of these have been used to predict a physical reality before the big bang, here are some links that describe them:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm



Now it could be that both of these conjectures are wrong, but at the moment I cant see how one can say anything other than its an open question. You seem to just jump to conclusions for reasons that I can only guess simply suit your conclusion. Furthermore the conclusion Stephen Hawkings drew from his no boundary model were certainly not yours so I find it amusing you refer to him, to quote him:

One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

(From a brief History of Time )



“Vacuums are strictly speaking not "space".”

Well of course that just a linguistic question about how you define vacuums and how you define space. One could say that the vacuum is not really empty because of its fluctuations but then would could say nothing is really empty and space in the common understanding of “nothingness” simply has no known counterpart in reality.



“Even if we have paradoxes on both sides of river it does not give us an allowance to accept them! We have to find ways to resolve them.”



That’s somewhere where we have common ground. I agree with you 100%. Where we may disagree is that I don’t assume the paradoxes can be solved by introducing an invisible magic being who we can declare as above all natural laws to solve those paradoxes. There is no problem we can’t solve by inferring the existence of magic, but without physical evidence that such magic exists we can’t accept such explanations. You can replace the word magic with god and the conclusion is the same. If we don’t have a solution to the paradox one should be humble and admit that is the case, theists seem to be unable to do that.