Kalam Cosmological argument

This is what I find so puzzling about your position... I agree with the bold statement. But at the same time it means to me that the whole discussion is, and will always remain, completely meaningless.What purpose does it serve to postulate 'a' Creator, if you acknowledge at the same time that nothing more can be known about it? It is a complete waste of time that is going nowhere. It looks like nothing more than a sign of insecurity, to me.Now, I can live with it. I would say many scientists have this concept that there might well be 'something' at the origin of all and everything. Something that is, and will always be, out of their reach. But I bet they reserve that 'answer' not for the question that they are tackling right now, but always for the question lying behind that one. And that's how it should be. The trouble starts once you apply the Creator as answer to your current questions. That's when things come to a stand still. That's when the Middle Ages rear their ugly head.Annafan

I really don't see that necessity. To me it looks more like a ... desire. A desire of which I fail to recognise the satisfaction.The particular conclusion that there 'must be something cognizant at the origin' sounds terribly... limited to me. Ordinary. Seriously lacking in imagination and creativity. Not in any way deserving the label 'answer'. Not even deserving the role of temporary placeholder for questions we don't know the answer for, yet. It is... an empty box. Fashionably painted on the outside, maybe. But empty INside, and we KNOW it. Would you like to get such a box as Christmas present? I'm not that great at analogies, but all your reasoning about how there must be a beginning, how something can not come from nothing, and all that... It makes me think about that ant that walks and walks and walks and walks... It never falls off the edge or never sees an edge. And it writes down in its Bible that its world is of unlimited size, goes on forever. It can not be doubted, and questioning it is inconceivable. Then the camera zooms out, and shows the ant living on a - perfectly limited - sphere. A deeper level of knowledge it refused to consider, and refused to go after. Yet a conclusion that is beautiful in its elegance, and for that reason alone attractive and worthwhile. We can not research each and every claim seperately, obviously. But that does not mean that we can not, on some level, make rational decisions about those claims. Like, if related claims have proven that they "work" (yes, it can be that simple), or if the messenger has proven to consistently make claims that "worked", confidence is warranted without personally scrutinizing each and every detail.Confidence transitions into "faith" gradually, as experience and observation increasingly exposes things that DON'T work, or on the other hand doesn't expose anything pro or contra at all (indecisive). I appreciate that you tried so hard, but not really I think I understand "love" pretty well. There are very mundane explanations. You would use "analytical", "cold" explanations...I guess what it comes down to is that you have a problem with "unweaving the rainbow", while I would consider it a way to actually enrich the experience of watching it?I just don't like empty boxes, no matter how flashy they're painted on the outside

But here's the problem: as already mentioned by others, we really DON'T know about the singularity, and the conditions before a certain point in time in the life of the early universe in general, with any certainty. All science says is it has a pretty good idea up to some point, and beyond that we simply can't handle the physics yet. It is not a new situation in science. It happens all the time. And it is overcome all the time. We KNOW we can't handle that part with current physics. We also know that those physics are probably nevertheless out there somewhere. Yet you continue to use the inadequate ones, and claim next that you are nevertheless able to extrapolate beyond out current "horizon". (that's what it comes down to)You are so damn... eager to limit yourself to the science that we know right now. You are HAPPY that there's something unexplained, or something seemingly impossible results from an extrapolation of current physics beyond a certain point, so you can call in a "Creator". Yes, you embrace emerging scientific knowledge. But it seems you pretend to yourself each time that it "won't go further than that!". This while history shows that it definitely DOES keep going further, and that sometimes (General Relativity to name one example) seemingly unsolvable stumbling blocks get elegantly eliminated in totally unexpected ways.Again, I just can't see the value of that. Do you have a problem with the concept that at one point everything would be explained in a self-consistent way without need for anything external? That seems to be a general anxiety in those who oppose evolution. I never understood why. A construction with Creators looks so clumsy and "intermediary". A fear from "don't know yets"?I asked it before: what purpose does it serve? Let's say, hypothetically, that we get to a point that it is proven beyond any doubt that at the very very beginning of everything, there WAS indeed a conscious "entity". But also that it is impossible to know anything more about that conscious entity. And thus effectively any research stops right there.Then what? Does that bring comfort to you? Are you going to feel good because you can say "I told you so!"? In what way would we be better off?Of course, the hypothesis is just nonsense. I'd imagine the eventual conclusion will rather be that we get to a point where we can no longer intellectually handle what's going on. There will be a point where we should conclude that we are too dumb to work it out further. But that will be a limit of our thought capacity. Then we might work further on increasing that part . Of course. Plus that it is pretty obvious, evolutionary speaking, why something like 'love' can/should exist.Again: maybe this kind of explanation means to you that it loses somekind of "magic" properties, but not to me. Why should "love" only keep its value as long as it escapes rational understanding?Maybe a strange comparison, but think about this: we are perfectly able to rationally understand and acknowledge that lynching is not a good way to handle crime in a society. Yet it is very hard to eventually not have those desires when for example close relatives become victim of atrocious crimes. *Others* (or the Law) might need to hold you back at that point, even though you are just as rationally capable as they are.Likewise, people who rationally understand the "why" of love, are just as much slaves of it as others in the end