God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Hi cat, The standard BBT requires a beginning of everything.cavediver does not use the standard model as he immediately goes to the Hartley Hawking no boundary universe according to his own words to Son Goku.Stephen Hawking made the following statement in a lecture. Source Scroll down to the last paragraph.Even though Stephen Hawking put forth the no boundry universe model the Standard BBT model is the accepted model.This is the model that the KCA and the good RCH is following in their argument.It is a sound argument. It just seems everybody is all up in arms trying to prove the statement wrong.First you have to change the Standard BBT to incorporate cavedivers argument to dent the statement.But the KCA and the good RCH are wrong because the Standard BB theory is wrong.As you and everyone else here that know me know that I believe the universe and earth has always existed in some form. I am persuaded science will come to that conclusion in the future.This is the position I have held for the past 60 years after reading Genesis 1:1 as a 10 year old.I would still like to know how the 'anything' in the statement can be confined to the universe when it says any thing. Could you please explain.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Straggler, Why Not?Lets chase this rabbit one more time.The Standard BBT requires the universe to have a beginning as well as time, space, matter, energy and gravity.If everything is contained in the universe as you and others here have tried to pound into my head we have 2 choices.Either the universe has always existed, as I believe.ORThe universe had a beginning as Stephen Hawking said and the Standard BBT requires.Again if 'every thing' is contained inside the universe, time, space, matter, energy and gravity.That means that 'no thing' exists outside the universe.Therefore if the universe did not exist then 'no thing' existed.There was no space for a vacuum or 'any thing' to exist in as there was 'no thing'.Now when you get to the point you can grasp what 'no thing' is you will understand the problem.Now the real problem is the universe exists.What kind of a solution do you propose.Don't start with the zero energy instanton universe as there was 'no thing' for the instanton to exist in as there was no space vacuum,
'no thing'.Now if the universe had a beginning 'some one' or 'some thing' had to cause it to begin.If the Standard BBT is correct the argument from Message 1 stands. Why do you think all the religious folk jumped on the Standard BBT bandwagon?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I am not completely certain as to what you are asking, but as I see it, if the universe began to exist, then it came from nothing.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi ICANT, You're problem is in the "requires the universe to have a beginning" There's no a priori requirement. You are introducing this requirement because you are misunderstand what GR is saying about the early conditions and do not understand the current big bang model(s).I refer you back to cavediver's Message 68, Message 74 and Message 88.Specifically This:

quote:

---

Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field. This includes the much mentioned virtual-particles/pair-creation. The only thing that "begins to exist" is our terminology for the new form.

---

and this:

quote:

---

Ever since SR and Minkowski, we have known that our Universe is based upon a four dimensional space, with a non-definite metric: one of the four dimensions appears with opposite sign to the other three in the space-time metric - usually this is the t-time dimension. This indefiniteness introduces a causal structure to space-time. Space-time "evolves" from past to future, always obeying causality: point p can only be affected by events in p's past light-cone and point p can only affect events in p's future light-cone.

​

In a infinite past space-time, there are always past light cones, and no first cause external to the space-time is required.

---

- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Why? Name one applicable example of your experience in the matter of things coming into existence.

Hi RevCrossHugger,I've run into this argument many times. I have found the simplest way to demonstrate it's flaws is to break it down in it's simplest form. Pre1: The group of things capable of existing without a cause is 0[zero].
(If the group of things capable of existing without a cause is not 0[zero] then Pre1 is false, and what you are considering may indeed exist without a cause in the absence of empirical evidence) Pre2: X began to exist, (after that comma evidence is provided to demonstrate X indeed began, ig video of a child being born)
(If no empirical evidence can be provided for X's beginning, then Pre2 is false, as X may indeed invalidate Pre1 and have come into existence without a cause, or have always existed.) Pre3: X had to have had a cause to exist.
(Simply inserting therefor, does not make a premise a conclusion. This is indeed a premise, and has been properly labeled as such.) Con: The group of things capable of existing without a cause is at least 1. This thing is responsible for the cause of X.
(The conclusion invalidates Pre1, as such, this is a false argument).

You have completely misunderstood the BBT and the nature of the universe. The BBT does not say that the BB was "a beginning of THE universe".The BBT states that the BB was "a beginning for OUR universe". This is why there have been such hypotheses as the Big Crunch Theory tossed around as a solution.

The reason I do not reply to you anymore, ICANT, is because you are incapable of understanding anything that I have ever written - you always think that your own spin on what is written takes precedence. Here is a perfect example: Rubbish - I demolish the argument without even mentioning the Big Bang. It falls apart immediately:

quote:

---

1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence

---

Complete nonsense.We have yet to experience anything that "begins to exist" so to claim that all things A such that A "begins to exist", implies A "has a cause for its existence" is simply making propositions about fairies' wings.Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field. This includes the much mentioned virtual-particles/pair-creation. The only thing that "begins to exist" is our terminology for the new form.

Hi Oni, But the good Reverend and the KCA is not discussing the current BBT models held on EvC by you, cavediver and others.The Standard BBT is what is being discussed.The man that proved there was a singularity at T=0, that there is a breakdown of GR says everything had a beginning about 15 billion years ago. Source Scroll down to the last paragraph.Is Stephen Hawking wrong?You are correct when you say I don't understand GR. That is the reason I take Stephen's word for it. So why do I have to understand it? My position is that the universe has always existed in some form. This is what Genesis 1:1 tells me.You and I have agreed on this point in the past.So I don't have a problem with what cavediver says.It is just the opposite of what Stephen Hawking and others say about the Standard BBT.Stephen Hawking did say: "the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago" SourceIf my understanding of what Stephen Hawking said is wrong please present the correct view.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Phage, This message. It did not exist 5 minutes ago.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Mich, That is very possible with my peanut understanding as cavediver put it.But does Stephen Hawking completely misunderstand the BBT also? Source Scroll down to the last paragraph.Let me break Stephen's statement down.The universe had not existed forever.
Conclusion since the universe is here it began to exist.The universe, and time itself.
Conclusion universe and time began to exist.Had a beginning in the Big Bang.
Conclusion, the universe had a beginning in the BB not after and not before.Please point out where my conclusions are wrong.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The problem is that there are a lot of different definitions for "The Universe". It has and continues to change.Less than a century ago "The Universe" is what we now call the Milky Way. Galaxies were, for a time, called "Island Universes".Now we are forced to expand our understanding of what is "everything".Both Michamus and Hawking are right but not talking about the same thing.

No, it did. Every component of it existed, down to the electrons that make it up on your computer, mine, the server, etc. Even the chemicals in my brain existed before and after the message was posted. Nothing about it was anything more than pushing already existing elements around; unless of course you can name something.Anything. Go ahead, try again.

Hi cavediver,I am sorry that I am such a pain in the...But I am still trying to learn and that is kinda rough at 70. It is kinda hard to demolish the argument without even mentioning the Big Bang when the argument is about the Big Bang.Did the universe begin to exist?

quote:

---

the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

---

Is Stephen Hawking wrong when he says: "the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."You have emphatically stated there is no before T=0.That means there is 'no thing' prior.But you also state: "Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field."cavediver which is it.Is there 'no thing' prior to T=0?ORHas 'all things' existed eternally?They either existed eternally or they began to exist.You can't have it both ways.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Phage,Did you get the message I sent you between # 130 and this one?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."