God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Hi Coyote, Give the man a lollipop.The universe does not care about time. The earth does not care about time. Plants, trees, and animals do not care about time. All any of them care about is existence.On the other hand man is obsessed with time. It is finite to him and especially when he realizes he is running out of time.Now would you care to discuss the OP?If so please explain how something that has a beginning does not need a cause to exist. Didn't Einsetin in his 1905 special theory of relativity declare that the time interval between two events depends on the observer's reference frame.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 cavediver, Are you saying the universe did not exist in Hawking's imaginary time? If there was no time, no space, no matter, no energy, no gravity, no universe there was 'no thing'That would be a total absence of 'any thing'The only way you could get time, space, matter, energy, gravity and the universe out of a total absence of 'any thing' would be for 'some thing' to cause it to begin to exist.But the first order of business would be to provide a place for them to exist.Proposition 1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existenceEither the universe has always existed or it began to exist.Do you or 'any body' have an alternative?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 Phagge, It is not my supposition that the universe had a beginning.Do you ever read what I type?Take careful note: I believe the universe has always existed in some form.Proposition 1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existenceProposition 1 that we are supposed to be debating states 'any thing' that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.No one has rebutted the statement. IF you care to you could give it a try, or just wave your hands in the air.I can't rebutt it and no one in the past has either that I can find.I just don't believe the universe had a beginning so it really does not matter to me one way or the other.But this is a debate board. So I am trying to debate the #1 proposition and give the good RCH a rest from the barrage and banging he was getting.Now if you could just explain how 'some thing' could begin to exist from an absence of 'any thing' without a cause I would love to hear your idea.Enlighten us all.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."

You have not understood what "imaginary time" means, how can you use it to represent anything. Let alone a meangless thing like 'eternity'. You could have equally said "my eternity is equivilant to super duper time," it would have meant the exact same thing.Put it this way, if eternity is the same as imaginary time then 'eternity' doesn't exist, it represents absolutely nothing in reality. What!? I'm not even going to ask... No, this is wrong. Very wrong, but too wrong to explain again. Very good. That actually makes sense. It was billions of years before man saw the universe, too. Don't see anything to disagree with. Define "exist," give it a physcial property, a dimension. Explain what the 'anything' is refering to, just pick something, anything you want at random. And define where it will be existing in. That way I'll know if the laws of physcis apply or not.You can't just ask that without some description of the surrounding space it'll be existing in. If by universe you mean the 3-dimensional space we exist in, yes. If by time you are refering to the 1-dimensional, forward time that we experience, yes.- Oni

ICANT, do you understand that your "something" in that question is relevant to the "what can begin without a cause" question?If you're talking about day to day stuff, turning on a car, making a cake, breaking a window, yes, the laws of physics apply. A watch doesn't come into existance without someone making it. We get it.But this discussion is about the universe, so your blanket question doesn't apply in the general sense that you are asking it.It should ask, can the laws of physics arise from a non-dimensional, point?It isn't just, can something begin that doesn't need a cause? Because at that point we can begin the process of going back to see when the first something came from nothing; but we can't cause it needs a cause, so what caused it. This covers god as well. Who made god, and so forth. Infinite regression that you happen to stop at god, because due to a huge misunderstanding you feel it's the same as Hawking's imaginary time.So ask the question properly. Can the laws of the universe arise from a non-dimensional point that has no time dimension?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

So you are trying to convince me of a 6,000 year old earth?I have dozens of radiocarbon dates older than that. Care to explain how it is easy to get dates older than 6,000 years if the earth is only that old?On a different thread, of course. Pick one of the ones in Dating that deals with radiocarbon and have at it! I'm all ears.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I am rebutting it right here: You have no evidence, no experience, and no reason to conclude that.I am quite confident that you have never, ever ever ever ever, seen anything be created. You have seen things constructed from other things, but nothing at all has ever been created in your experience.So. You have no reason to conclude that things that come into existence need a cause.

Those here arguing in support of the KCA have placed a great deal of weight on the BBT as part of the premise that the universe began to exist. Several here have tried to argue that the BBT does not support this argument. It's quite clear to me that those using the BBT in support of the KCA have little understanding of the theory themselves, but instead rely on statements of others. For example, ICANT repeatedly quotes Stephen Hawking. It's also quite clear to me that those arguing for the KCA either refuse to understand or are incapable of understanding the objections to their positions raised here.In an effort to move the discussion past this point, I propose the following questions to KCA supporters:Can anyone arguing in support of the KCA find any evidence whatsoever suggesting that Stephen Hawking, or anyone else learned in physics, would agree that premise 2 follows from the BBT? Unless those arguing in support of the KCA can demonstrate a personal understanding of the BBT deep enough to find anything they say about the consequences of the BBT credible, they need to find someone else who does understand the BBT to make the connection for them.Can anyone arguing in support of the KCA find anyone learned in physics who actually believes that the big bang is evidence supporting the existence of god? It seems to me that if Stephen Hawking, or someone similarly educated, doesn't believe that the big bang is evidence that god exists, and KCA supporters offer nothing more in support of their arguments than quotes by other people, if those other people don't support the conclusions in the KCA, then KCA supporters have to look elsewhere for that support.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hi Oni, Sure I can ask.And you can wave your hands like you did. Exist=To have actual being; be real.Oni exists unless we are just an experiment of some aliens and are brains in a jar. 'any' 'thing'.But it does not exist as of yet.That is the what I want you to tell me how it whatever it might be could begin to exist. That is part of the problem of it whatever it might be beginning to exist as it has no existence to exist in. That is part of your problem of telling me how it could begin to exist as there is no laws covering it, it don't exist yet. So could you be so kind as to share with all of us the location this took place?Was it in space? Well no there was no space.
Was it in time? Well no there was no time.
Everything is contained in the universe.
There is no outside.
There is no before.
It just IS.Now if it began to exist, how did it begin to exist? Where did it begin to exist?Now the best answers to those two questions I have got in over two years is "we don't know".Re-Message 170I thought it was the same question just approached from opposite ends. I could be wrong. cavediver has already covered this in detail.All the things you mention above already exist in some form. All you can do is rearrange the ingredients. Why not?If as put forth that everything we see was contained in the ant sized universe at T=10^-43. (I was reading some of the old posts and found were Son Goku described the size that way to me.)There was and is absolutely 'no thing' outside
There is no space, no matter, no energy, no gravity, no time 'no thing' as it is all enclosed within the universe.There is no way that this universe can exist without 'some thing' supplying the materials and causing the universe to begin to exist.I am told it was a self contained universe.AKA Guth Hawking Instanton.I am told particles can appear in a vacuum so that could have been the source of the universe.The only problem with any of these is, where did they exist.There was no space.
There was no space-time.
Therefore there could be no vacuum.
Therefore there could be no universe.Big problem there is a universe.If it began to exist then the universe had a cause to begin.Now if it has always existed as I believe there is no problem as there is no need for a cause to exist.I am dumb arguing against my own cause.I should be arguing that the universe had a beginning so I could justify a need for my God. Oh well.If I am going to argue I have to argue what the Bible tells me is true. Why should I be concerned with the laws of physics they don't even apply at T=0. I never hear of a law without a law giver (maker).So I think I will stay with trying to get 'some one' really 'any one' to show me how 'some thing' can begin to exist when there is 'no thing', without a cause.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."

This to me sums up the reason your question makes absolutely no sense. You want me to tell you how "something" that you can't describe, can't even imagine, you don't even know what it is, can begin to exist? ICANT, what do you want me to describe to you that is coming into existance? How do you not understand that this makes your question nonsensical?I started talking to you about this by simply refering you to one of cavedivers early post that reveal the nonsense in the question right off the bat. And we come back to it again: Message 68

quote:

---

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.

---

- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Hi Phage, If you will present something as evidence to refute the argument I might ask for your credintials.Since you are just screaming and hand waving I will just wave back.You do know that the KCA is a modified version of Aristotle's own account of actuality vs. potentiality don't you. Well if you didn't you do now.I can find no reference to anyone that has ever refuted any version of the argument if it was worded properly.Betrand Russel raised questions about the first cause as some of the posters here has.But raising questions is not refuting. I sure have no reason to conclude that things can begin to exist by themselves out of an absence of 'any thing'.I pastor a church.So lets say I decided to start a new church in a different location.Two or three of us get together and buy a piece of property.We then take a years vacation and when we come back there is a building on our property up to the belting. We decide to take another years vacation and when we get back there is a completed furnished buildings with the keys hanging in the lock on our lot. Exactly what we needed to start having services.Do you think I could convince you that those materials just gathered together and formed that building furnishings and all to be exactly what we needed.I didn't think so, eventhough all the material were available.Well with the universe there was no materials available as there was 'no thing' that existed. So if the universe began to exist 'some thing' had to cause it to begin to exist.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."

Describe this universe, the one that has always existed. Describe it physcially, what does it look like? Does it have dimensions, how many, does it have a time dimension? If it doesn't have any of these then what does it look like? Is it in a quantum state? Describe this state.Give me something, anything, anything at all to describe this universe that has always existed. Since you don't understand the concept of what 3-dimensional space means, how it is described in relativity, what hapens at Plank length, there is no reason to answer this...again. Re-read all of the past post, the answers are there. How can you seriously make statements like these having had these conversations for over 2 years now?"Something supplying the materials?" - Supplying them from where? And, begin to exist where?Your questions make no sense. A quantum state, from which our 3-dimensional state changed from, are not describable in spacial dimensions that we recognize. This is the problem; there is no "where" in QM.When we use the term "where" we are describeing a point in space and time. More specifically, we are describing a 3-dimensional space at a point in 1-dimensional forward time.Quantum states do not exibit these dimensional properties, ergo there is no "where." Remember I stated in the other post, the concepts of - forward/backward, up/down, left/right, before/after - have no meaning. It exists, but not in any way that would make sense to us. (NOw calm down before you say "Ahah, that's what I meant by always existing"). It is not existance as we understand it, it has no time dimension that has forward progression, it is as close to nothing as we can possibly describe, but yet itstill IS.To go from this quantum state that I just described, to the 3-dimensional universe with the time property, is what I was explaining to you by spontaneous symmetry breaking. There is no NEED for an outside agent to cause anything to happen, it is a natural function of this qunatum state to break symmetry. NO CAUSE NEEDED. 'No one' will answer 'this' because it makes absolutely 'no sense'. And 'you' don't seem to want to 'understand' why it's 'nonsense'.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Hi Oni, How true, How true.But a lot of things exist.If they did begin to exist they would require a cause to exist.That is the whole argument.Now if they did not begin to exist but always existed they would require no cause to exist.But you and I could come up with a lot better arguments against the universe being eternal than we can against proposition 1 of the OP.That is one of the reasons Einstein gave up on an eternal universe.My eternal universe is indefensable.But I have to believe it because that is what Genesis 1:1 tells me.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 don't care. I really don't care in the slightest who said it, they don't have any evidence or experience to back up such a claim.Oh, and by the way... Aristotle was freekin' wrong on a LOT of stuff! These are two completely unrelated concepts. With the church it was constructed from materials that already existed. With the universe the materials themselves did not exist.You have a wealth of experience and accounts that tell you that churches do not simply construct themselves, but you do not have one shred of evidence to suggest that the universe did not simply begin on its own. If you can point to a single thing in the universe that was actually created, and that you know the source of, then you might have a point. But, you cannot.

Why? Explain how you know this. Point to an example that tells you it must be so.Can you?