Kalam Cosmological argument

I can't empirically prove the existence of God. No one can. Anyone that claims they can is in for a headache. You will never catch me saying that I can "prove" the existence of God. Now, that isn't to say that there aren't good arguments to support the necessity of a Creator. But assigning what the Creator "is" is an impossible task. Since there is no instance where space doesn't surround matter, the burden of proof remains with you to solve the insoluble. Seriously, how can there be matter if there is not space that it is inside of? If you can give me one instance where matter exists apart from space, then I will gladly concede. It isn't any one law, but the conglomerate of all the laws of physics.

quote:

---

Aside from all of this, something cannot be created from nothing.

---

Being that nothing has ever spanwed from nothing, then, again, the burden of proof lies with you to solve the insoluble.How can you say that I'm making bare assertions, when your argument is thus far tantamount to, "why?" "Why not?" "You don't know that for sure." That isn't an argument and you've neglected to answer my questions. You just answer my questions with more questions of your own. Right after I said that, I said that it was a belief of mine for a lack of any other theorem. You haven't given me a theorum that doesn't consist of the pre-existence of energy/matter/space/time. And I understand that you can't without breaking the rules of physics. That's what makes the Kalam argument so appealing. Hawking begrugingly believes in a Creator, but he takes a Diest position. He makes referrences to God all the time in his books, but I believe that his statements concerning God is his way of assigning the embodiment of reason within nature. I don't know what Richard or Roger believe in. But I suspect that you can understand that because you are a strict naturalist, you are bound by naturalism and its applicable laws. Composing a compelling theory is very difficult for strict naturalists without making no sense.I'll throw you a bone here. I propose that you plead the fifth with my alternative theory, which is, the beginning of this universe could have been the end of another that had the creative power to create this universe. That way you don't neccesarily have to break any laws of physics in this universe, but you can't disprove it either. Its a very safe position for an atheist. Its not circular! Time can't exist without space. Matter can't exist without space. Its a very, very simple concept. That isn't circular. And if you say it is, then you are at odds with the vast preponderance of astrophysicists. I have repeated it several times to you, both using physics and philosophy. I already explained to you that a singularity was necessary. This is becoming annoying. If I'm unable to live in a universe without a Creator, then you are incapable of even considering it as a possible answer. You've ruled out the Creator as a priori. I'm not saying that a Creator is an undeniable scientific axiom. What I'm saying is that a wholly naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and the universe is impossible. Impossible. Again, the only way you can get around it is to assume that another universe existed prior to the one you exist in. There is no accounting for the rules of the previous universe even if it is incapable of assigning the First Cause, but its as proveable improvable as an Intelligent design theory. I can imagine a universe that's topsy-turvy and one that defies all the laws we know today, but it exists only in my mind. The fact is, the universe we live in is bound by rules that I didn't make up or have any control over. It is what it is. And its demonstrable. They are so reliable that they decided to call it a "law." Its never ever been proven to be broken. Your position is very precarious. Intellectual scam? You've provided NO theorem whatsoever. All you've done is ask me why the Laws of physics exist and we you aren't allowed to break the rules. The Kalam argument is impenetrable aside from the alternate universe theory. Your lack to grasp the concepts isn't a failure on my part or Dr. Craig's or Kalam himself. I mean, I don't know what else I can say to you that's going to make a difference. You seem dead-set in your ways and those are your rights. Exercise them. But if you are gonna call me gullible, a cultist, fundamentally dishonest, only because you have NO argument whatsoever, then the discussion is over. There's nothing more I can say.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Something that has mass, i.e. matter That's what we are trying to ascertain. I say by a Creator, but I realize that an answer of such brevity would emasculate the scientific aspect. Space-time.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

quote:

---

An actual infinite cannot exist.

---

Yes, an actual infinite is something that extends to the physical world being that we are composed by, and ruled by the laws of the physical world. An infinite set of numbers is a concept, not an actuality. And Craig explains that a potential infinite exists but that an actual infinite in the known universe does not and could not. He's right. And to be sure, demonstrate how your numbers can go on to infinity. Lastly, there is not an infinite amount of anything because anything that can be added to or subtracted from cannot be infinite. You might argue that no one has been able to quantlify the stars, so they are concievably infinite. but even this breaks down because wehave seen star deaths. So, again, anything that can be added to or subtracted from cannot possibly be infinite.

quote:

---

An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.

---

Infinity. Neither beginning nor ending. That's why He referred to Himself as, I AM. Because He just, is. And if the Creator is infinite, then He must be outside or at least not contained within the boundaries of the physical universe. Energy/matter/space/time cannot contain Him.

quote:

---

Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.

---

How so?

quote:

---

Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

---

Because again, numbers aren't physical components of the universe, they are human concepts. There is demonstrable evidence for anything in the universe being infinite and it even betrays logic philosophicaly because we couldn't add/subtract to the universe it was.

quote:

---

The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.

---

Yes, time is a direction of space. What are you asking?

quote:

---

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.

---

Agreed.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I understand how you can take this position. But my argument doesn't extend to whether or not YHWH created the universe. My argument stems from recognizing the neccessity for something cognizant creating the universe. In other words, it gives more credence to the Intelligent Design theory. But listen, I meant what I said. I can't prove the existence of God. Even with a pile of evidence that might logically lead to us a Creator, at the end of the day, it is still required to have faith.To some faith seems like its lacking. But think of it another context. Most of us appeal to the authority of expert testimony, don't we? I mean, if we haven't done the experiments oursleves, then on some level we are taking their testimony on good faith. This is isn't blind faith. They are presenting logical evidence to support their theory. But it is still required of us, on some level, to exhibit faith. That's just the nature of it.To even further drive home the point, think of what love is. What is it? How do you capture something like that in mere words? Can anyone one of you prove to me that you love your parents or your wife or your kids? How could you? You could demonstrate something that we may be able to logically reconcile that you love your kids, but how are we to ever really know? Think about that deeply. Something like God and love can only be understood in the heart of the individual. That's why some of us can know that God exists, while others have no clue because it hasn't been made personal. And until faith is tried it can never have the chance to become personal.Did I get my point across?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I could easily say the same thing about an atheistic point of view. Alright, then answer the questions that are listed on the first page in sequential order. If you you still feel the same way, explain to me why and how you've come up with your answers that are contrary to mine. We'll go from there. Look, none of what I said goes against what we already know to be true. The inevitability of a beginning, the lack of an actual infinity, the fact that that everything is influenced by a cause isn't mere conjecture. Life backs up those points to the point where none of those things have ever been even close to being refuted. I'd say that's nothing to scoff at. Since that's the case, for any one of you to try to put some other spin on it that circumvents the laws of physics is an obscurantist. It balks intuition and demonizes logical thought. And then the argument is turned around on me, the theologian, that I'm not scientifically minded. But I'm the one following the laws of physics, everyone else is stepping out in blind faith. Actually its the other way around. Faith transitions into confidence, at least in my own experience. What, like, love is nothing more than firing synapses in regions of the brain? Me neither, that's why I reject a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe. It defies logic... and physics.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I've been over this many, many times now. Answering questions with more questions doesn't substitute for an answer. So go back to all of my posts and refute my points. I've answered all of these questions. And because I've repeated myself a number of times, I've grown dull with whole debate - the one sided debate.If you really want to be a sport, then actually engage the conversation with something more laudable than rhetoric and unending questions that have already been answered.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

My points haven't even been addressed, let alone refuted. All the opposition has done is asked me, "why universal law stands true." The opposition has weakly stated that just because the laws of physics have never been circumvented, doesn't mean that they could not at some point. If that's the case, then nothing is true. If nothing is true, then what are we arguing about?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I haven't implied single causation. All that I've ever said is that for there to be a reaction, there must first be an action to precipitate the event. In other words, for anything to happen, it needs a cause to actualize it.Lets suppose that you see a boulder on the edge of a cliff everyday on your walks through the forest. Everyday the boulder appears to be in the same position. On one particular day, the boulder before your eyes, falls off of the cliff. To you, nothing caused the boulder to fall. You didn't see anyone push it, so it must have just taken place for no reason at all. But you have not taken into consideration the effect that gravity placed on the boulder. What had actually taken place is that gravity was always acting upon the boulder, but to your eyes, the action was insensibly small. That doesn't mean that it didn't have a cause. Everything has a cause.The fact that you exist is because of multiple causes. But nonetheless, you don't just exist. You exist for a variety of reasons. Buddha was also unable to observe the universe through high-powered telescopes. But even so, Buddha would still fail to recognize that for himself to exist in a timeless, infinite universe, then he himself would timeless, because he is apart of the universe. Though I've read some of Aristotle's works, I have not read about his philosophical view concerning this topic. I presume that he understood this principle that I speak of. When we speak of the First Cause, we aren't trying to define what that first cause that set off a chain-reaction of events was. We are simply recognizing the neccessity for a beginning. I can't definitively state what the First Cause was anymore than anyone else. I'm simply taking the position that a First Cause was neccessary. Again, I have never said that an action has a sole cause. There are multiple reasons for anything that occurs, occurs. I'm simply recognizing that a cause is neccessary for anything to become actual. Since you arrogantly suppose that men of approx 2,000 years ago must have been of a lesser intelligence, perhaps the obvious eludes you. Without their inventions, we wouldn't have come to ours. Aside from the fact, that my beliefs concerning the neccessity of a beginning and a cause, is irrespective of anything other than its obvious truth. you could have addressed any of the problems. You've answered none of the questions, so for you to take the safe route by answering my questions with more questions, only gives you a false sense of security.You seem to be under the misguided notion of the universe being eternal, in which case you have to reject the Big Bang. Just answer me how, if the universe is infinite, that you can have additions and subtractions to it. That was I who said that. I meant it. I cannot empirically prove the existence of God you, all I can do is give you sound reasons for the neccessity of a Being that encompasses what God has been described as. In other words, its a form of Intelligent Design that does not seek to unmask who the Creator is, but just to recognize that one exists.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Speak your mind. There is no danger in speaking to an ex-cosmologist, because any cosmologist would understand this principle that I speak of. You can start by answering my quesions and going over Dr. Craig's.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but perhaps you can show us how these actions have no cause. What leads you believe that it has no cause, especially in consideration that simply because you can't percieve of the cause does not negate the cause. The phenomenon is known as cause and effect."For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."- Sir Isaac NewtonUnless of course you are bringing the 3rd Law of Motion into question. Let me break it down for you this way.The Material Cause: is that from which a thing comes into existence as from its parts, constituents, substratum or materials. This reduces the explanation of causes to the parts (factors, elements, constituents, ingredients) forming the whole (system, structure, compound, complex, composite, or combination) (the part-whole causation).In other words, if you keep breaking down factors for what comprises any material object, at some point you will be left with nothing to actualize anything. Not even the potential for actuality exists.The Formal Cause: tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis, or archetype. It embraces the account of causes in terms of fundamental principles or general laws, as the whole (macrostructure) is the cause of its parts (the whole-part causation).The Efficient Cause: is that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. It identifies 'what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed' and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest. Representing the current understanding of causality as the relation of cause and effect, this covers the modern definitions of "cause" as either the agent, agency, particular events, or states of affairs.And this is what some of my detractors keep bringing into question. They want me to define the coefficients of all that it is actualized.The Final Cause: is that for the sake of which a thing exists, or is done - including both purposeful and instrumental actions. The final cause, or telos, is the purpose, or end, that something is supposed to serve; or it is that from which, and that to which, the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives; rational, irrational, ethical - all that gives purpose to behavior.In other words, what is any event without at least one cause? How does an event without a cause occur, when any event is defined by its cause?Causality - Wikipedia

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Then you explain how you can add to an infinite. Please explain how you can add to an infinite. Its very simple. And no one has answered this question. If the universe is infinite, then so is everything in it. This is obviously not the case because we have additions to the universe all the time. You are an addition. So how can you be added to the universe if the universe was always infinite? You are bringing up irrelevant uses cincerning time. You are mentioning the methods of how humans conceptualize time. We have no need of this in this particular discussion because if space exists, then so does time. How can time exist without space? What does "rather special part of the universe," mean?the only "waffling" that seems to be going on is the opposition, who keeps bringing irrelevant what-if's to the table that currently undermine the physics that govern our universe.Given our knowledge of General Relativity and theoretical physics, this cosmological argument is useless. Doesn't mean I don't believe in God, but this is no proof of His existence.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Newtons Law isn't an example of cause and effect???? LOL! Okay, you're cut off. You can't even be reasoned with. I've tried to help you along the way, but your inability to climb a curb 4 inches high is no longer going to be mt burden. Long since rejected by science? Oh yes, this coming from someone who has repeatedly rejected the very notion of physical science and physical law because he doesn't know how to get around it, either scientificaly or philosophically, someone who refuses to answer the questions asked of him without, himself, answering those questions with more questions, and someone who presents baseless assertions, like, "it has long since been rejected by science." You're cut off. Talking to you deeply is like talking to my dog. Its pointless. You'll do anything, make up anything, give yourself countless excuses, just to win an argument. I can't be around somebody that subjective.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I've repeatedly stated that a potential infinite exists, mathematically and conceptually. I only add that the universe is NOT an infinite entity. It couldn't. And to be sure, not one person has actually answered the question. Then explain your position. This is the eigth time you've stated it, but you've backed it up with nothing, whatsoever, other than your longing for it to be true. You don't see the paradox in your approach? If the Big Bang was the beginning of time, then space-time begun at the singularity, right on down to Planck's Time. If it continues on to infinity, then so did matter and energy. This is impossible because you can't add to an infinite. The conundrum to notice is time doesn't exist without space, and matter doesn't exist without space. So how, if they are all ultimately wrapped up together, can space-time be infinite, but not matter or energy? There would be nothing wrong with that conceptually. One could argue that He continues His creation with the advent of procreation. But, even the universe could not be infinite because its being added to. That would mean that God, alone, is infinite. You grandstandingly stated that you were an ex-cosmologist. So please enlighten us by going over Craigs theorem in sequential order and explain to me how an actual infinite can exist in the physical universe. I've been waiting along time, but only one person attempted it. I've grown weary of this thread. And being that its going no where, and I have other debates going, I'm really getting disinterested in pursuing it any longer.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

What about the argument do you find insipid? Is it this underscored, supercilious attitude that plagues this thread? This thread was meant to be one of pure metaphysics and philosophy. My detractors have managed to derail it into a discussion on theoretical physics, none of which, that can be corroborated through empiricism. Are you finding a similar distatse or are you worn thin on metaphysic talk? What exactly is your objection that your home forum was questioning?

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Ah, I understand. Well, I feel it is an excelent argument and perhaps Kalam and Craig did not improve what some might otherwise call Aristotle's argument, impenetrable philosophically. I guess I share your admiration for the argument and can't understand why anyone would argue a point that is so, to me, obvious and logical. I think this philosophy does alot of personal damage to anyone that wants to believe in a banal, capricious, purposeless existence. I just don't see it that way. Its the old crux between meaningful and meaningless. Ironically, those who prefer the banality and meaningless often find themselves smuggling in meaning wherever they can. I find that to be a tragic conclusion for them. That logic breaks down because there are additions and subtractions to the universe all the time. That thought defies observation. If it did then your dog that was born in 1983 and died in 1994 is infinite. How can that be? The dog began to exist, and then it ceased to exist... Unless of course our concept of existence is totally unknown to us.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner