(May 8, 2014 at 9:30 pm)Avodaiah Wrote: So a while back, I started a thread defending the Kalam argument. Eventually I got pretty busy and ended up letting the thread expire, but it ended up being mostly about the difference between making a bare assertion and stating a self-evident truth.
The Kalam does presuppose a couple things. It presupposes that nothing can never equal something (which is why everything that has a beginning has a cause) and that anything that moves has a starting point and an ending point (why everything in the universe must have a beginning).
These are not scientific laws, brought about by testing things time and time again and getting a consistent answer. These are mathematical and logical laws, laws that we know because it would be completely impossible for them to be any other way, and the kind of truths that the scientific method itself is based on. If nothing can equal something, then what's the point of looking for a cause for natural phenomena? They could just happen randomly for no reason. Or if motion does not require a starting and ending point, then why would anyone want to know how the history of anything, or how something was before it changed in some way? The fact is that these questions only make any sense because of self-evident truth, which is what a lot of arguments, including the Kalam, are based on.
Can we not agree on this?
On earth, within the space/time continuum, yes, probably.
Outside of our limited world, however, logic breaks down. Things do not work as we would expect them to. Particles and sub-particles do, indeed appear to come from nothing all the time.
There are now many examples from physics of things that appear to be completely against our logic. Simply consider Einstein's equations and their conclusions. The faster you go, the slower time goes. WTF? How does time know how fast I'm going? Doesn't make any sense.
If a train goes past me at 50 miles per hour and I am stationary the train is travelling at 50 mph relative to me. If I am travelling at 30 mph in the same direction the train appears to be travelling at 20 mph relative to me.
With light, however, it doesn't matter how fast I am travelling light always appears to be travelling at the same speed.
Where's the sense in the that? How is that logical?
What you are doing is assuming everything works the same as it does here everywhere else. It doesn't.
Its like saying what goes up must come down. Throw a ball in the air and watch it land back on earth. Go into space, however, and throw the same ball and you will never see it again.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
