Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 181 of 308 (518087)
08-03-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by onifre
08-03-2009 10:54 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Oni,
onifre writes:
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.
But there is no space and time for the point to exist until the universe exists as they are contained in the universe.
So you have a self sustaining, self producing, universe in an absence of 'any thing'.
But the standard BBT has a universe that has a beginning.
If it begins to exist it has a cause for its existence.
According to Einstein his biggest blunder was introducing a fudge factor to keep the universe from having a beginning because he believed it was eternal self-existent, instead GR proves the universe is not a cause.
onifre writes:
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").
What part of eternal do you not understand?
Eternity is just one great big NOW.
It has no past, and No future.
It is NOW.
There is no one second from NOW in either direction.

"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 message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by onifre, posted 08-03-2009 10:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:46 AM ICANT has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 182 of 308 (518088)
08-03-2009 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ICANT
08-03-2009 6:51 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
ICANT writes:
Are you saying the universe did not exist in Hawking's imaginary time?
No. He is saying that the universe has existed for all of time.
If there was no time, no space, no matter, no energy, no gravity, no universe there was 'no thing'.
There has never been a time that that was the case.
That would be a total absence of 'any thing'
But there has never been a time when there was.
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.
Even if your fist assumpyion were correct, how do you know this? What is your evidence for that?
But the first order of business would be to provide a place for them to exist.
Huh?
Proposition 1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Unfounded assertion. And wrong.
Either the universe has always existed or it began to exist.
It has existed for all of time.
Do you or 'any body' have an alternative?
There is no need for an alternative, the universe has existed for all of time.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2009 6:51 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 12:36 AM Huntard has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 183 of 308 (518094)
08-04-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Phage0070
08-03-2009 11:20 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Phage,
Phage0700 writes:
Why? Explain how you know this. Point to an example that tells you it must be so.
Can you?
The alternative is to believe that whatever began to exist came into being from an absence of 'any thing' for no reason or cause.
I have never seen anything self generate from an absence of 'any thing' and from everything I have read neither has anyone else.
In fact Einstein's GR proved Instead of being self-existent, the universe is not 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 message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Phage0070, posted 08-03-2009 11:20 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Phage0070, posted 08-04-2009 2:05 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 184 of 308 (518097)
08-04-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Phage0070
08-03-2009 11:18 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Phage,
Phage0700 writes:
but you do not have one shred of evidence to suggest that the universe did not simply begin on its own.
Do you have one shred of evidence it caused itself to begin to exist?
According to Einstein GR will disagree with you.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Phage0070, posted 08-03-2009 11:18 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:49 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 185 of 308 (518100)
08-04-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Huntard
08-03-2009 11:56 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes:
Even if your fist assumpyion were correct, how do you know this? What is your evidence for that?
My first assumption is that the universe has always existed in some form.
My second assumption is that God put it together in the form we see it today.
How do I know this? God gave me a manual that tells me so.
I believe it that settles it.
Now would you like to discuss the propositions put forth in the OP?
quote:
1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence
2... The universe began to exist.
3... Therefore the universe had a cause to exist.
If you have any argument against #1 or #2 please present it.
I have presented arguments as to why the universe had a beginning.
I have presented arguments as to why the universe could not generate or create itself.
And I don't even believe the universe had a beginning.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2009 11:56 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:58 AM ICANT has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 186 of 308 (518104)
08-04-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
08-03-2009 11:52 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
But there is no space and time for the point to exist until the universe exists as they are contained in the universe.
You are not making sense, ICANT. It may be best for you to read this stuff and try to understand it before you try to present an argument against it.
The universe IS space and time. The universe IS existance. It makes no sense to point to a moment in time where there is no universe, since time is a property of the universe. The 2 cannot exist independent of the other.
If there is no spacial dimension or time dimension there can't be a "where" for something to exist in.
So you have a self sustaining, self producing, universe in an absence of 'any thing'.
FFS ICANT, if you have the "absence of anything" you don't have a self sustaining UNIVERSE because to describe it as a universe gives it SPACIAL PROPERTIES. Nor can you point to a time at any point in history where there is an "absence of anything," the universe IS.
But the standard BBT has a universe that has a beginning.
Lets see if you can see where you're misunderstanding, what is the BBT describing? The beginning of our universe, right? How many spacial dimensions does our universe have? 3, right?
So if the universe has 3 spacial dimensions, it can be said that the BB is the beginning of 3 dimensional space, right?
A property of 3 spacial dimensions is forward (real) time, right?
SO, if we can say that the BB is the beginning of 3 spacial dimensions, AND, forward time as we experience is a property of the 3 spacial dimensions, it can be said that the BB is the beginning of 3 spacial dimensions (space/universe) and forward time.
That is what is meant by the "beginning" of space and time - the beginning of 3 space/1 time - in the BBT.
Have you understood that so far?
If it begins to exist it has a cause for its existence.
If you mean the universe, do you mean that 3-dimensional space begins to exist due to some unknown cause?
Is this cause outside of space and time? Where would it be then?
Can this cause, since it doesn't rely on spacial dimensions or time, exist in a quantum field?
What part of eternal do you not understand?
It's a religous term that is meaningless.
If you're saying that the universe is eternal in some form, then describe that form. The universe that we exist in with 3-dimensional space is finite, it has a beginning. It existed in a quantum state before that, that is undescribable, yet. But it is not defined as a UNIVERSE.
So what are you saying is eternal, the universe, the 3-dimensional universe? Or simply the quantum state from which the universe emerged from?
If it's the quantum state, then that is not the universe, so you can't continue to say "the universe has always existed in some form." There is the universe described by GR, then there is a quantum state described by QM. The transion between the 2 is known as the BB. The transition is the birth of our 3-dimensional universe, thus the beginning of space and time. Is there any reason why you believe this transition from one form to the other needs a cause outside of itself?
If I can explain how it happens naturally will you see no reason to invoke any need for a causal agent?
Eternity is just one great big NOW.
It has no past, and No future.
It is NOW.
There is no one second from NOW in either direction.
Roughly translated you are describing a quantum state. Is that what you're saying is eternal, some kind of quantum state? Note: this quantum state cannot be refered to as "the universe" because the universe has dimensional space, the quantum state does not.
Is that what you're describing as being eternal, the quantum state from which the universe emerged?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2009 11:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 1:19 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 8:50 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 187 of 308 (518105)
08-04-2009 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
08-04-2009 12:20 AM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
According to Einstein GR will disagree with you.
Explain.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 12:20 AM ICANT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 188 of 308 (518106)
08-04-2009 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by ICANT
08-04-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
I have presented arguments as to why the universe had a beginning.
And your arguments are wrong.
You just don't understand the reasons why it's wrong because the explanations are above your head. It deosn't change the fact that you are wrong, though.
The OP has been refutted, many times over. You're just to stubborn to realize that.
I have presented arguments as to why the universe could not generate or create itself.
And you are wrong.
Don't you understand that? You can present any argument you want, if it's wrong it's wrong, and yours is wrong. Why? Because you have no idea what youre talking about when it comes to cosmology, GR, the BB, QM, or anything of that nature. It would be impossible for someone with such limited knowledge in these fields to argue intelligently, thus you have shiwn repeatedly.
The greatest theoretical physicist are still trying to figure these questions out, and here you come and say you just showed how it was wrong? Come on now, ICANT, really ask yourself if you understand any of this.
You're arguement have been refutted, you are just to stubborn and lack too much knowledge to see where your mistakes are.
And I don't even believe the universe had a beginning.
Then you have not learned a thing debating this subject in 2+ years, and have proven to be a waste of time. Are you satisfied knowing that?
- 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 12:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 10:16 AM onifre has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 189 of 308 (518109)
08-04-2009 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by onifre
08-04-2009 12:46 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Oni,
onifre writes:
Roughly translated you are describing a quantum state. Is that what you're saying is eternal, some kind of quantum state? Note: this quantum state cannot be refered to as "the universe" because the universe has dimensional space, the quantum state does not.
Call it whatever you want to call it.
I am describing eternity in which the universe in which we reside exists in.
The universe has always existed in this eternal now in some form.
There is a segment in that eternal now that time as you and I think we know it exists.
The universe is getting very disordered and is in need of repairs which will necessitate a new heaven and earth coming into existence when the present one melts with fervent heat.
I will answer the rest of this post later, must sleep.
God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:46 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Phage0070, posted 08-04-2009 2:09 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 190 of 308 (518110)
08-04-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
08-03-2009 9:59 AM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
But does Stephen Hawking completely misunderstand the BBT also?
No, I think you completely misunderstand what Hawking defines the BBT as.
ICANT writes:
Let me break Stephen's statement down.
I think you should hold off on trying to do that until you understand what Stephen Hawking means when he says: 'the universe'.
Hawking is indeed referring to our universe as 'the universe'. It is 'the universe' to us, and as we know it.
An excellent example of how Hawking understands this to be 'a universe' is to look into his glossary under BB. You will notice a graphic below the definition that possesses the caption "A singularity expanding into a universe".
So Hawking is really saying 'The universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning, and will have an end'. This doesn't mean that he thinks the universe hasn't always existed in some form, or state, or that it will not expand upon reaching a certain state of contraction (ig. his Big Crunch Theory).
TTFN
Edited by Michamus, : dBCode fixed

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2009 9:59 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 10:31 AM Michamus has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 308 (518111)
08-04-2009 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by ICANT
08-04-2009 12:11 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
ICANT writes:
I have never seen anything self generate from an absence of 'any thing' and from everything I have read neither has anyone else.
Right, and nobody has seen anything actually created from nothing by a cause either. We have precisely zero data on the subject, so what makes you decide one is vastly more likely than the other? Perhaps some of the famous "subjective evidence" I hear so much about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 12:11 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 308 (518112)
08-04-2009 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by ICANT
08-04-2009 1:19 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
ICANT writes:
The universe has always existed in this eternal now in some form.
I will agree that, by definition, for the duration that our current concept of time existed the universe also existed. Beyond that... well, we would have to use different terms, and I don't have enough data to tell what they might be.
ICANT writes:
The universe is getting very disordered and is in need of repairs which will necessitate a new heaven and earth coming into existence when the present one melts with fervent heat.
Whew, can you dial back the crazy a little? It is a little startling all at once like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 1:19 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 193 of 308 (518113)
08-04-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by ICANT
08-03-2009 4:22 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Evading the question ICANT.
Straggler writes:
And what is the form of this "cause" ICANT? Does the suggested form of the cause only have attributes that have been observed?
If it has attributes that have not been observed (e.g. eternal existence) then this should logically be rejected on the same basis that you reject uncaused events (i.e. lack of observation). To do otherwise would be logically inconsistent. No?
Why ask me this question? Maybe we will get to the point the good reverend will explain it to us in another 2 or 3 hunderd posts.
And when he does I assume that, being the shining beacon of consistency and reason that you indisputably are, you will insist that we reject all notions of unobserved phenomenon equally? That you will apply the same flawed reasoning to "eternal" that you have to "cause". Right?
That still does not take anything away from the KCA argument.
Well actually yes it does. Because you either end up with "causes" (AKA turtles) all the way down OR you end up advocating concepts that are as equally unobserved as the events you are rejecting on the basis of not having been observed.
Regardless of how wrong it is in terms of modern BB cosmology the argument falls under the weight of it's own flawed internal assumptions.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2009 4:22 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 10:52 AM Straggler has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 194 of 308 (518118)
08-04-2009 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by RevCrossHugger
07-31-2009 8:16 AM


God exists?
Dear RevCrossHugger
As usual, I haven't had time to read all the posts, so apologise if I repeat any previous replies:
You are right that there may have been a cause for the Big Bang, but you are wrong to imply that your answer is in any way scientific. Scientists are carrying our experiments to try and work out what happened at the time of the Big Bang. Your approach is simply to shoe-horn "God" in as an answer. Therefore, you are already pre-supposing the existence of God (whatever that is), which does NOT prove the existence of God.
There are 2 main problems with your proposition:
1) If, as you say, everything has a cause, then you need to explain what caused God.
2) You need to define what "God" is.
I have a particular issue with the 2nd problem. The word "God" MEANS something: it is understood by most people to be an intelligent entity of some sort, with certain characteristics shared by humans, that created the Universe, and is derived from Stone/Iron Age myths. (They have to be myths because there is no way people in the Stone/Iron Age could have had a better insight into what created the Universe than we do today with all our advanced technology and communications.) If the Big Bang were proven to be caused by some kind of non-intelligent physical force, you can't call that "God". You have to adopt a different word or phrase to describe the process that caused the Big Bang.
Even if some intelligent entity did create the Universe via the Big Bang, the chances of it being anything like the "God" of ancient myths - or even of more recent myths - is effectively zero. So to call the cause of the Universe "God" is still grossly misleading, unless you have any actual evidence to support your hypothesis that the creator resembles one of the many gods we have invented.
But then we still go back to the other issue: what caused the cause of the Big Bang? If something caused the creator of the universe, and something else created the creator of the creator, etc, etc, you can never call any of them "God" as we understand it because there would be no original creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-31-2009 8:16 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 195 of 308 (518146)
08-04-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by onifre
08-04-2009 12:46 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Oni,
Back to the meat of this post.
onifre writes:
The universe IS space and time. The universe IS existance. It makes no sense to point to a moment in time where there is no universe, since time is a property of the universe. The 2 cannot exist independent of the other.
Hold on there a minute. Please explain:
The universe is space and time.
The universe is existance.
You tell me in one breath the universe is space and time then turn around and tell me in the next breath that time is a property of the universe.
I understand the 2 can not exist independent of the other as I have been told by cavediver and Son Goku that everything is inside the universe. There is no outside.
onifre writes:
If there is no spacial dimension or time dimension there can't be a "where" for something to exist in.
I agree.
That is why I keep saying there was no place for the pea sized universe to exist.
onifre writes:
FFS ICANT, if you have the "absence of anything" you don't have a self sustaining UNIVERSE
That is my point 'no thing' exists.
onifre writes:
Nor can you point to a time at any point in history where there is an "absence of anything,"
Exactly because history does not exist until T=10-43 prior to that nothing is known except that Gr which is a place that all math breaks down.
There is nothing there but math and it is silent.
onifre writes:
the universe IS
If you are saying the universe exists today I agree.
If you are saying the universe existed at T=10-43 I would agree that is what the BBT claims.
If you are saying the universe exists at T=0 I would ask for the scientific theory that states such.
onifre writes:
Lets see if you can see where you're misunderstanding, what is the BBT describing? The beginning of our universe, right? How many spacial dimensions does our universe have? 3, right?
How can I misunderstand what the BBT says about the beginning of our universe?
It don't say anything about the beginning of our universe. It begins at T=10-43.
The complete universe is there and is about the size of an ant or a pea take your choice.
onifre writes:
So if the universe has 3 spacial dimensions, it can be said that the BB is the beginning of 3 dimensional space, right?
A property of 3 spacial dimensions is forward (real) time, right?
SO, if we can say that the BB is the beginning of 3 spacial dimensions, AND, forward time as we experience is a property of the 3 spacial dimensions, it can be said that the BB is the beginning of 3 spacial dimensions (space/universe) and forward time.
If you are saying these things began at or after T=10-43 I agree.
If you are saying they began prior to T=10-43 I will ask for supporting evidence.
onifre writes:
Have you understood that so far?
You be the judge according to the answers above.
onifre writes:
If you mean the universe, do you mean that 3-dimensional space begins to exist due to some unknown cause?
3-dimensional space does not exist until the universe exists at T=10-43.
onifre writes:
Is this cause outside of space and time? Where would it be then?
That is the question I have been asking for the past 2+ years.
onifre writes:
Can this cause, since it doesn't rely on spacial dimensions or time, exist in a quantum field?
Where would this quantum field 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:46 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:18 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024