Author Topic: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument  (Read 5863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
The KCA:


1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.


So far, I haven't seen a single good objection to the second premise. And I think most people are on board here - the universe began to exist a finite amount time ago. It's the first premise that has been the bigger target here on DTF. I don't think it's an implausible premise, myself, but mostly because its only alternative ("Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause") is absurd.


But there is one objection that's been raised which really gets me. and it's rooted in "mereological nihilism". That's the view that no individual 'thing' actually exist as things more than the materials that make it up; rather, they are material arrangement in the shape of those things. Because the human brain is evolutionarily trained to think macroscopically, humans have designated names for commonly encountered material arrangements in the human experience. These names are ultimately arbitrary categories. Thus, things like 'chairs', 'stars', and the concept of 'I' do not exist in reality as anything other than the arrangement of matter into the shape of those things.


On this view, nothing ever begins to exist. 'I' did not begin to exist at conception, when my first cell's 46 chromosomes got mashed together for the first time. 'I' have existed since the beginning of the universe, because the material that makes up 'me' has existed since the beginning of the universe. Therefore, the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" has no ground in what we see in reality, because nothing has ever actually begun to exist.

tldr; just click the link v

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism

It's probably better at explaining this than me.

So...what do we think about this? If it's true, I believe it could destroy the KCA, as we are then simply speculating about Premise 1. But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.


If it's false, then I think the KCA stands quite firmly where it's at.


One possible objection that came to mind as possible key to refuting MN is that if "only basic building blocks without parts" exist, then, well, you're led to the eventual conclusion that nothing exists at all. You could chop matter in half an infinite number of times and show that everything is made of 'parts'. Even atoms, while not technically divisible, can be chopped up into the 'right half of the atom' and the 'left half of the atom', etc.


Of course, if the eventual conclusion 'nothing exists' is false, then one of the premises of MN is false. No idea which one, though.


Aaaaand..........we're open for debate.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2012, 09:39:02 PM »
I didn't know there was a name for it, but this argument has been touched on before by myself and others here, and it's definitely a big reason I oppose (1). To me, we have no actual basis to believe that that 'existence' has a cause. Everything we know as being 'caused' to exist has, in reality, just been rearranged. We are, after all, made of star stuff.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2012, 09:39:10 PM »
Video Titled: "6. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Nothing Ever Begins to Exist!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qn5V6Cgg1o
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2012, 09:43:27 PM »
Yeah that's where I got the term. But I don't think Craig dislodges it at all.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Rathma

  • Posts: 620
  • oh no she didnt
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2012, 09:46:11 PM »
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Nothing ever begins to exist.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2012, 09:49:23 PM »
Sweet mother of strawmen that was bad. The first half wasn't even an argument, and when he finally did get around to serious argument he just reasserted his initial premise.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2012, 09:50:08 PM »
Okay, so if you're an mereological nihilist, you have to say, "I do not exist." But by saying 'I' you are saying you exist. So you're basically saying 'My existence does not exist' which is a contradiction?

EDIT:
1) If fundamental particles arranged universe-wise begin to exist, they have a cause.
2) The fundamental particles arranged universe-wise began to exist.
3) Therefore, fundamental particles arranged universe-wise have a cause.

Well, there you go.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2012, 09:52:26 PM »
Okay, so if you're an mereological nihilist, you have to say, "I do not exist." But by saying 'I' you are saying you exist. So you're basically saying 'My existence does not exist' which is a contradiction?

You're using either two or three definitions of existence interchangeably. 'Sigz' does not exist. A collection matter that lots of people call and recognize as Sigz does exist.

Basically, saying "I was born therefore I began to exist" is not analogous to saying that matter itself began to exist.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2012, 09:53:27 PM »
After meeting Sigz personally, I can attest that Sigz does in fact not exist.



Either way, axiom 1 that is being used in either of these things hasn't been proven.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2012, 10:07:50 PM »
After meeting Sigz personally, I can attest that Sigz does in fact not exist.
Same. I mean, I thought I met a dude with glasses and an awesome beard. But in reality, I, as a collection of fundamental particles, just met another collection of fundamental particles and 'enjoyed' an evening experiencing energy waves transmitted through a collection of fundamental particles that collections of fundamental particles called "humans" call "air", witnessing three separate collections of fundamental particles called "Sheri", "Stacy" and "Chauntelle" interacting with their respective collections of fundamental particles called "instruments", thereby producing the aforementioned energy waves. But none of these things actually existed, of course. Well, maybe the beard.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2012, 10:24:06 PM »
That's the view that no individual 'thing' actually exist as things more than the materials that make it up; rather, they are material arrangement in the shape of those things. Because the human brain is evolutionarily trained to think macroscopically, humans have designated names for commonly encountered material arrangements in the human experience. These names are ultimately arbitrary categories. Thus, things like 'chairs', 'stars', and the concept of 'I' do not exist in reality as anything other than the arrangement of matter into the shape of those things.

I agree with this, I just don't agree that with where you take it. A "chair" is indeed a fabrication of our own minds and experiences, which are perceptive to certain features of reality (but obviously not all), but it is a fabrication using parts we did not make. There is something which is, which we all perceive, but that something is not what we experience, and so falls outside of the realm of proof. I remember an Indian professor I had, who gave me an old Buddhist? metaphor, comparing mankind to blind men all touching and holding different parts of an elephant, while attesting that what they feel is all that an elephant is.

As I brought up before, color is an amazing example of how this is true. We see color, but color is not some feature of reality. Magenta even more so. Yet, color is reproducible because it comes from something which is a feature of reality. How can we be sure other features which we experience aren't similar to color? Time seems like a prime candidate. It's not constant, it's relative, and our experience of it is rather... sporadic. There appears to be some feature of reality which gives rise to our experience of time - which is why we can measure it; and we can all show up at the same spot, at the same time (well, not exactly the same time). But yet what that is? The same thing as space?

Quote
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.

Why does it need to be the opposite?

Quote
You could chop matter in half an infinite number of times and show that everything is made of 'parts'. Even atoms, while not technically divisible, can be chopped up into the 'right half of the atom' and the 'left half of the atom', etc.

Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2012, 10:31:25 PM »
Quote
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.

Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.

(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.

(a) just makes the most sense to me.


Quote
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 10:39:56 PM by Ħ »
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Rathma

  • Posts: 620
  • oh no she didnt
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2012, 09:15:17 AM »
Video Titled: "6. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Nothing Ever Begins to Exist!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qn5V6Cgg1o

Quote
This objection obviously confuses a thing with the matter or stuff of which the thing is made.

If a "thing" is not the same as what it is made up of, then that "thing" merely amounts to form. Form is in constant flux; as soon as one form begins to exist, it also ceases to be.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2012, 11:59:16 AM »
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2012, 02:24:22 PM »
Nothing ever begins to exist.

This thread has descended into people claiming they don't exist.

I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.

Yes, the fallacy of composition. Yet another fallacy is being committed here: the taxicab fallacy; atheists often claim that everything that begins to exist is true of everything in the universe but is not true of the universe itself. Everything in the universe has an explanation, but the universe has no explanation. But you can't say that everything has an explanation for its existence and then suddenly exempt the universe. It would be arbitrary for the atheist to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule. Merely increasing an object to the size of the universe does nothing to remove the need for some explanation for its existence.

Also

Video Titled: "4. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Fallacy of Composition"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjIfCEBDbG0&list=PL916E17EE70E98A68&index=70&feature=plpp_video

Why Everything That Begins To Exist Has a Cause:

1.) Something cannot come from nothing.

2.) If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.

3.) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Rathma

  • Posts: 620
  • oh no she didnt
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2012, 03:03:13 PM »
Since this thread is about the universe, then maybe it needs to be properly defined. This is what wiki says:

Quote
The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.

If we're talking about the totality of everything that exists, then that would include God if God is something that exists. I propose we use "Universe" for totality and "universe" for other definitions such as only all matter.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2012, 03:13:17 PM »
I would hesitate to include unprovable and unobserved entities into the definition of the universe.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2012, 03:14:53 PM »
1.) Something cannot come from nothing.

2.) If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.

3.) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.

Have't you lectured us a dozen times on how space isn't 'nothing'? By that we have absolutely no experience, personal or scientific, of nothing.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Rathma

  • Posts: 620
  • oh no she didnt
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2012, 03:19:14 PM »
I would hesitate to include unprovable and unobserved entities into the definition of the universe.

There doesn't need to be any argument about what it does or doesn't include other than if it includes everything that exists or only potentially everything that exists.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2012, 04:28:12 PM »
1.) Something cannot come from nothing.

2.) If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.

3.) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.

Have't you lectured us a dozen times on how space isn't 'nothing'? By that we have absolutely no experience, personal or scientific, of nothing.
This is actually a good point.

For the sake of clarity, let us define two terms.

1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space
2) Nothing = no thing, including material, space, time, etc.

We can say quite a bit about "nothing", because it's all around us. We know that "nothing" can produce particles out of energy on the quantum level. We know that something can come from "nothing", and yes, Craig and Omega affirm this.

But the argument actually revolves around whether or not something can come from "Nothing", one of the conditions involving the beginning of the universe. It is tempting to ask that "if something could come from 'Nothing', why don't we observe this all the time?" But in reality, now that the universe is here, "Nothing" doesn't actually exist! So how could we possibly know if something can't come out of "Nothing"?

Nevertheless, even though we don't have any experience of "Nothing", I still think it's more plausible that (a) something cannot come from "Nothing" than (b) something can come from "Nothing". And if we assume (a) is true, then I think that cosmological argument thinking (not necessarily the KCA for MN reasons) flows pretty smoothly.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 04:35:17 PM by Ħ »
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2012, 04:37:16 PM »
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" behavior when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.

rumborak
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 04:43:51 PM by rumborak »
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2012, 04:43:35 PM »
I find relationshism hard to fathom though, considering that the geometry/curvature of space itself affects the motions of bodies.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2012, 04:45:44 PM »
It relies on Mach's principle, which I find fascinating. I've been meaning to read up on Ernst Mach.

Regarding spacetime itself, it is somewhat superfluous though, isn't it? It doesn't "exist" in the way particles do, and we can only ever infer its supposed existence by how it acts on particles. And the shape of it is determined by the particles around it.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2012, 04:51:39 PM »
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
So the pattern is that as you approach Nothing, you see more particles. Could you source this? I'm not calling you out; I just don't have a tremendous amount of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics aside from a few elementary physics courses.

Besides, remember that in Nothing, you have zero energy. From my (limited) understanding of quantum mechanics, I know that energy is a requirement.

Quote
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.
Could you explain this bit?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2012, 05:28:28 PM »
Quote
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.

Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.

(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.

(a) just makes the most sense to me.

Well, it making sense to you doesn't really mean much, if what I say is true.

And in the given discussion, part of the debate is about weather or not the thing in question began to exist. You and I began to exist, but does that mean the thing which makes us up began to exist? We can still exist as an emergent property of a form, while not being the exact thing which makes us up.

Quote
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.
[/quote]

You could also say that everything exists as part of something else. The puts the emphasis on the whole of which we are a part, instead of the parts that make us up.

And why is this is a big deal? A never ending universe is just as stupefying as one that ends and began.
Quote
1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space

Is that possible? Unless you mean that said area of space doesn't contain some energy, which would mean outside of the known universe.

I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.

Exactly, which is also another good reason why we can't talk about the whole nature of the universe, given that what we know is just a minuscule, tiny part of it. That would be like trying to define the whole, based upon the properties of part of it.

Yet another fallacy which the Cosmological argument relies upon.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2012, 06:46:41 PM »
Quote
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.

Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.

(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.

(a) just makes the most sense to me.

Well, it making sense to you doesn't really mean much, if what I say is true.

And in the given discussion, part of the debate is about weather or not the thing in question began to exist. You and I began to exist, but does that mean the thing which makes us up began to exist? We can still exist as an emergent property of a form, while not being the exact thing which makes us up.
Dude, the OP and the majority of posts in the thread address this very issue.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.

You could also say that everything exists as part of something else. The puts the emphasis on the whole of which we are a part, instead of the parts that make us up.

And why is this is a big deal? A never ending universe is just as stupefying as one that ends and began.
It's a big deal because it's at the heart of what "existence" means. And a universe that had a beginning and will eventually fizzle may be stupefying to you, but that's reality.

Quote
Quote
1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space

Is that possible? Unless you mean that said area of space doesn't contain some energy, which would mean outside of the known universe.
Quantum particles emerge out of energy gradient. That is what "nothing" refers to in this case. Matterless space that is affected by energy gradients.


Quote
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.

Exactly, which is also another good reason why we can't talk about the whole nature of the universe, given that what we know is just a minuscule, tiny part of it. That would be like trying to define the whole, based upon the properties of part of it.

Yet another fallacy which the Cosmological argument relies upon.

Actually, you're very wrong here.

"X began to exist" is our second premise. "X" constitutes an object. The universe is an object. To say the universe began to exist is well-supported and rational.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2012, 07:52:29 PM »
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" behavior when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.

rumborak

Rumborak, H, I think it would be better to make the distinction

a.) Being / Existence
b.) Non-Being / Non-existence

rather than

a.) nothing
b.) Nothing


A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.

From personal experience, I understand that you hate it when I sound like a broken record ( :sadpanda:) yet I think it bears re-iterating that quantum events quite obviously do not occur in the absence of existence, being.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2012, 08:11:51 PM »
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
So the pattern is that as you approach Nothing, you see more particles. Could you source this? I'm not calling you out; I just don't have a tremendous amount of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics aside from a few elementary physics courses.

Virtual particles, the ones we're talking about here, manifest themselves around the level of the vacuum energy, which is the lowest amount the space can have because it can't go below (which comes to my point that nature doesn't seem to like nothingness). At that level particles (and their symmetric anti-particles) are spontaneously generated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Quote
Quote
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.
Could you explain this bit?

In Relationism, the point is taken up that spacetime aren't really necessary to describe interactions between particles and energy. You can completely describe physical processes solely as functions of the interacting particles, with no need for spacetime at all. And if you don't something, then you should do away with (Occam).
So, if there really is only interacting particles, and no real "space" between them, the spontaneous generation of virtual particles means that those were truly coming from Nothing.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2012, 08:44:08 PM »
Quote
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.

Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.

(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.

(a) just makes the most sense to me.

Well, it making sense to you doesn't really mean much, if what I say is true.

And in the given discussion, part of the debate is about weather or not the thing in question began to exist. You and I began to exist, but does that mean the thing which makes us up began to exist? We can still exist as an emergent property of a form, while not being the exact thing which makes us up.
Dude, the OP and the majority of posts in the thread address this very issue.

I know, it's why I responded to your argument about it? I'm addressing the assumptions made in your argument, and addressing how those assumptions are just. We could easily, and logically, and justifiably, make other assumptions that reach different conclusions, or reach no conclusion at all.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.

You could also say that everything exists as part of something else. The puts the emphasis on the whole of which we are a part, instead of the parts that make us up.

And why is this is a big deal? A never ending universe is just as stupefying as one that ends and began.
It's a big deal because it's at the heart of what "existence" means. And a universe that had a beginning and will eventually fizzle may be stupefying to you, but that's reality.

I'm sorry, but that theory is not proven, and you're using any theory on the matter wrong, in order to claim that it's reality that the universe began and will eventually fizzle.

Quote
Quote
Quote
1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space

Is that possible? Unless you mean that said area of space doesn't contain some energy, which would mean outside of the known universe.
Quantum particles emerge out of energy gradient. That is what "nothing" refers to in this case. Matterless space that is affected by energy gradients.

E = mc2

Quote
Quote
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.

Exactly, which is also another good reason why we can't talk about the whole nature of the universe, given that what we know is just a minuscule, tiny part of it. That would be like trying to define the whole, based upon the properties of part of it.

Yet another fallacy which the Cosmological argument relies upon.

Actually, you're very wrong here.

"X began to exist" is our second premise. "X" constitutes an object. The universe is an object. To say the universe began to exist is well-supported and rational.


The universe is not an object. It is the sum all off objects. When physicists say the Universe began with the big-bang, they're not using the same definition of universe as we are when discussing theology and the existence of God. You're avoiding this issue.

And your argument is indeed using it. When you state that everything which exists, has a cause, you're drawing upon your personal experience. You're personal experience is simply one view, and one part, of the world we both exist in. You're using that experience to then make a statement about the whole.


--

Omega:

Quote
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.

Except when you try to claim that the universe was created, that God created the universe, even though God does not have universe like qualities, and is supernatural. You basically just said in a couple of sentences exactly why this argument is fallacious, while arguing for why the argument is right.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2012, 08:56:30 PM »
It's a big deal because it's at the heart of what "existence" means. And a universe that had a beginning and will eventually fizzle may be stupefying to you, but that's reality.

I'm sorry, but that theory is not proven, and you're using any theory on the matter wrong, in order to claim that it's reality that the universe began and will eventually fizzle.
Oh, I totally forgot, the Big Bang is just a theory, not a fact! Silly me.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Rathma

  • Posts: 620
  • oh no she didnt
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2012, 09:05:26 PM »
uuuuuuuuuuuuuh

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2012, 09:11:09 PM »
Okay serious question here. If humans evolved from monkeys, then why do monkeys still exist? Bam, disproven.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2012, 09:13:02 PM »
Omega:

Quote
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.

Except when you try to claim that the universe was created, that God created the universe, even though God does not have universe like qualities, and is supernatural. You basically just said in a couple of sentences exactly why this argument is fallacious, while arguing for why the argument is right.

Who every said God is a contingent object?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2012, 09:13:36 PM »
Okay serious question here. If humans evolved from monkeys, then why do monkeys still exist? Bam, disproven.

Are you actually serious? Because if you are I would ask the money back from whatever college you went to.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mereological nihilistic objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2012, 09:14:16 PM »
Dude, you just need to realize that evolution is just a theory and it hasn't been proven at all.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges