|
Author
|
Topic: God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
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: 1.7
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 196 of 308 (518161)
08-04-2009 10:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 188 by onifre
08-04-2009 12:58 AM
|
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Oni,
onifre writes: And your arguments are wrong. Are you saying Stephen Hawking is wrong?
The Beginning of Time In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. Einstein's Gr requires the universe have a beginning. Because he believed it was static instead of dynamic as GR said he introduced the famous cosmological constant which he admitted later as being his biggest blunder. GR predicted there was a creation. Are both wrong? Concerning my arguments for the universe not being able to self=generate you said:
onifre writes: And you are wrong. Ok. Then present the evidence for self=generation.
onifre writes: 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 are claiming things for me that I have not claimed. I said I had presented evidence that the universe had a beginning. Will you deny that the universe had a beginning? I said I had presented evidence that the universe was not self-generating. You don't like my evidence OK. Present your evidence that it is self=generating. And yes I know there are a lot of people trying to figure out how the universe got here. We have all kinds of exotic hypothesis trying to prove how the universe began. The truth is Science stops at T=10 -43. Anything prior to T=10 -43 is pure speculation, musings of man or religious.
onifre writes: 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? Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and you have yours. But answer me this question. Why have I wasted my time simply because I don't believe the universe had a beginning. There are some very educated men trying to prove the universe is eternal into the past. That way they don't have to deal with the universe having a beginning. If it is not eternal, HOW DID IT BEGIN? Then if you are talking about me wasting your time that is something else. I did not force any of your fingers to type one word therefore I did not waste one second of your time, or anyone else who has responded. 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 188 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:58 AM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 205 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:35 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 197 of 308 (518163)
08-04-2009 10:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 190 by Michamus
08-04-2009 1:42 AM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Mich,
Michamus writes: 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). Clarify your definition of beginning. The OP says:
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.
Begins to exist implys it did not exist. I am not concerned with what Stephen Hawking believes. I am no mind reader and do not know the thoughts of his mind. I do know he said: "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." He said the universe and time had a beginning about 15 billion years ago. The paper is still published on his website. This is the last paragraph and there is no correction added to the end of the paper. Therefore I conclude he still believes the universe had a beginning as stated. Now what part of his words do I not understand? 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 190 by Michamus, posted 08-04-2009 1:42 AM | | Michamus has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 198 of 308 (518165)
08-04-2009 10:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 193 by Straggler
08-04-2009 2:51 AM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: Evading the question ICANT. I do not know what RCH will present if anything. Therefore I can not comit one way or the other. He is not putting forth an eternal universe. That is my belief based on Genesis 1:1 So lets wait until we get to the next phase of the good Reverend's presentation before we speculate about it.
Straggler writes: 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. Did I miss your message where you presented your arguments proving these:
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.
Wrong? If I did would you please point me to it. If it doesn't exist would you see if you could force it into existence, and present it or quit blabbering. 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 193 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2009 2:51 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 201 of 308 (518173)
08-04-2009 11:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 173 by subbie
08-03-2009 9:24 PM
|
|
Re: Trying a new tack
Hi subbie, Lets try your new tack, and see if we can nail down something with it. First let's get one thing straight. I am not arguing for the KCA. I am arguing that Gr requires the universe have a beginning and Stephen Hawking stated the universe and time had a beginning in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.
subbie writes: 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? These are the words of Stephen Hawking:
quote:
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.
I understand that to say: "the universe has not existed forever". Since the universe exists today it had to begin to exist.
quote:
2... The universe began to exist.
I am presuaded that Stephen Hawking said: "the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,". I conclude Stephen Hawking said the universe and time began to exist. He further states: in the Big Bang. Did Stephen Hawking say: "the universe has not existed forever"? Did Stephen Hawking say: "the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,"? Stephen Hawking's words agree with and confirm proposition #2. Your rebutal of proposition #1. from Message 3 subbi writes: In case you rankle at my rejection of your premises, this link provides a description of an phenomenon called "quantum fluctuation" wherein particles appear in a vacuum without any cause. Rebutal of your rebutal. From Message 87 cavediver writes: 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. Seems your virtual-particles is mearly a change of form. They did not begin to exist as you put forth to slay proposition #1.
subbie writes: 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? Where has it been claimed that the BBT is evidence supporting the existence of God? RCH did say "I adopted the cosmological arguments to provide evidence for the existence of God." these are the arguments:
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.
We have yet to get to the point where RCH makes an argument that these:
quote:
cosmological arguments is an logical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God from empirical information about the universe, and other means.
It is kinda hard to cross the bridge before you get to it. subbie do you have anything further to present to demolish premise 1 or 2? Now would be a nice time to do so. 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 173 by subbie, posted 08-03-2009 9:24 PM | | subbie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 258 by subbie, posted 08-05-2009 6:31 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 207 of 308 (518181)
08-04-2009 12:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 199 by Michamus
08-04-2009 11:03 AM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Michmus,
Michmus writes: Sure. This is a fairly simple task. When I (or the BBT for that matter) use the term beginning, I am using this defintion: beginning - noun an act or circumstance of entering upon an action or state (the beginning of hostilities ) An excellent example of a beginning would be when a person marries. They are still the same person, but they have had a new beginning, in that they have entered upon an action. You speak for the BBT now, do you? Actually cavediver explained this fairly well when he said it was just a rearranging of existing things. Therein lies the problem of you explaining what Hawking said to me. Hawking said: "the universe has not always existed". Hawking said: "the universe and time began in the Big Bang". If they did not always exist then they had to begin to exist. Because they exist now, is the evidence for them beginning to exist. So no you haven't explained what Hawking said. So if you want to explain what Hawking meant please use his words and do so. I know of his instanton a self generating universe hypothesis which he and Guth put forth. Which is still at the starting gate.
Michamus writes: When beginning is being used in the BBT it isn't talking about creation, it is talking about a new beginning. Don't you wish? Hawking did not say anything about a new beginning. He said: "has not always existed" Especially when as far as we know 'no thing' existed prior to T=10 -43.
Michmamus writes: We have no direct knowledge on whether the universe had not existed prior to the BB. You don't have any that it did either. You will not have direct evidence for either prior to T=10 -43 as it was 1 trillion degrees kevin according to Son Goku. Hawking was convinced the universe began to exist. Einstein was convinced by GR that the universe began to exist. So I can't help it if you are not convinced. You see I am not convinced either as I believe it has always existed, just like Einstein believed before GR and even inserted a fudge factor to keep it that way until exposed. So no you have not convinced me Hawking did not mean what he said. He might have changed his mind later but he did not add a foot note explaining what he meant at the end of the lecture. 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 199 by Michamus, posted 08-04-2009 11:03 AM | | Michamus has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 209 of 308 (518184)
08-04-2009 12:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by onifre
08-04-2009 12:35 PM
|
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Oni,
onifre writes: What you are failing to understand is that T=10-45 is describing a SIZE. Beyond that size GR breaks down and QM takes over describing conditions smaller than T=10-45 with laws like the uncertainty principle, etc. But there is no QG theory yet. I started to say, but that has nothing to do with the beginning to exist of the Op. On further review I guess it does get down to the nitty gritty of the issue. I see you don't have a clue to where is either. 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 205 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 12:35 PM | | onifre has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 210 of 308 (518185)
08-04-2009 1:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 208 by cavediver
08-04-2009 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi cavediver, Quick question no debate.
cavediver writes: The BB is just one point on the beach-ball. That point has no cause other than the actual existence of the beach-ball itself. Does this bring us full circle to the less than pea sized expanding universe at T=10 -43? Thanks, 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 208 by cavediver, posted 08-04-2009 12:49 PM | | cavediver has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 211 of 308 (518186)
08-04-2009 1:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 202 by cavediver
08-04-2009 11:51 AM
|
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: The Universe never 'began' to exist. It has always existed. Even if that is only for a finite amount of time. I give up. The universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is only 15 billion or so years. I truly have no concept of what eternity (forever) is if that be the case. 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 202 by cavediver, posted 08-04-2009 11:51 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 219 of 308 (518217)
08-04-2009 3:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by Michamus
08-04-2009 3:02 PM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Question
Michamus writes: Yes, it did begin to exist, ONCE THE SINGULARITY EXPANDED. How long did Einstein believe the universe had existed prior to GR? 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 215 by Michamus, posted 08-04-2009 3:02 PM | | Michamus has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2