Kalam Cosmological argument

Why not? Why not? Why not? Why?

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This is rather vague and waffly. We use General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory to express ideas about the Universe coherently. No, not at all. The Universe does not have to be created, whether finite or infinite. And an infinite universe is quite possible. Big Bang is classical. Once quantum gravity effects have been accounted for (something yet to be done though I played my small part) we have no idea whether the universe will be shown to be temporally infinite or finite.There is no problem with infinite time. There is no one global time variable that ticks away, as you (or Craig) imagine it. There is just the entirety of time, and different beings experience different parts of it. You misunderstand. Probably becasue of my bad choice of the word "end" though I did hope at the time you wouldn't confuse the issue. The Big Bang describes one part of universe. It is not a "beginning" nor is it an "end". It is just one (rather special) part of the universe.Given our knowledge of General Relativity and theoretical physics, this cosmological argument is useless. Doesn't mean I don't believe in God, but this is no proof of His existence.

To say that the creator is seperate from the creation is not feasible, for if the creator were seperate from creation then creator cannot influence the creation. You cannot have a creator outside of creation also influence creation, for it is a self contradictory expression. To be able to influence something, a cause must be part of a system which it is in.Much like if I were to look at a spring mass system inside of a glass box. Since i cannot physically influence the spring mass system, i cannot enact any change in it.However, if i were able to influence a change in the spring mass system, what could occur is that I impart an energy into the spring mass system however a corresponding energy change occurs within myself.Same goes for the creator if the creator were to influence the universe, a successive energy change were to occur in the creator equivalent to the energy change he imparted into the universe. Thus a creator is not 'changeless' in fact by the very 'action' or 'cause' he starts he would 'change'.

no sorry that does not work ..
if creator totally seperate .. then this means no interaction .. no interaction means no cause ... no event
if the creator has potential the realisation of the potential .. ie creation ,is a change ..potential .. to action .. to effect again a sequence therefore time bound .if there is no change then the universe has always been there , it has no point of creation then time is infinite , BUT if it was created X billion yrs or 6k yrs ago it has a start point , therefore a change occured .. any creator , by deff , must be involed , therefore a change involing the creator occurs , thus the creator is part of a change ... [qs]Time isn't infinite because space and time are conjoined. One doesn't exist without the other, and because space had a finite beginning, then so did time. Therefore, the point still stands.[\qs]now you are happy to plead a case that the creator is timeless and spaceless .. odd arrangement this must be .then why will you not allow a case for time to be spaceless .. if the creator wants it so is it beyond the creators powers ???

I don't find that at all convincing.Computer scientists are capable of creating virtual worlds and of influencing those virtual worlds, while they themselves are not part of the virtual worlds they create.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

That's a similar claim to the one made by Discreet Label in Message 33. I don't agree, as I indicated in Message 35.Let me explain the problem differently.You say "if creator totally seperate .. then this means no interaction". That's arguably correct if we are talking about the concept of "interact" that exists within the universe. But a creator outside the universe could have ways of manipulating that universe, ways that don't count as "interaction" in the sense of the word that applies within the universe. The effect of actions of the external creator would be seen by those inside the universe as uncaused events.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Precisely. I was getting round to making exactly the same point.This situation also describes in a perfect way the difference between physical and metaphysical.

Neither of those happen without a cause. Everything has a cause. You don't need to ascribe some wholly divine attribute to it. Just recognize that anything that happens is only because something else has inacted upon it. That is a textbook defintion of "cause." Something causes the effect. The effect doesn't just come about all on its own, even if we are incapable of discerning the cause.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Can you tell us what the cause would be for either of those effects?TTFN,WK

n_j is correct in that they are still caused. They are simply elements of the complexities of interacting quantum fields, including those excitations of the fields that make up the observer(s).Think of a single 1cm high wavelet on the Atlantic. No one in their right mind would attempt to determine a causal chain of events that led to that wavelet at that place at that time with those characteristics... but that does not mean that the causal chain does not exist.

Please see message 40 for a reply. Thanks!

quote:

---

Matter can't exist without space

---

Because where is matter going to go? How can matter exist apart from the space it displaces?

quote:

---

and space can't exist without time.

---

Becasue time and space are conjoined. They are the same exact thing. One doesn't exist without the other. Gravity creates the dimension of time for matter. And its the First Law that recognizes energy conservation. Matter requires the strict observance of the order of cause and effect. Its an intrinsic law. And we see that energy connects to matter, and matter connects to space, and space connects to time. They only exist in relation to one another. I mean, I don't know how much deeper I can assign meaning to it.
Time cannot possibly be infinite,

quote:

---

therefore, it had a beginning.

---

Because an actual infinite does not exist in the physical universe. If you can add to it, then it isn't infinite. As well, observation takes us back to the beginning of time. Have you read my previous posts or are you just playing the Devil's Advocate? I've been going over all of this in great detail. I don't know what else to say, other than, the universe had a definite beginning. Every astrophysicist knows this. I'm not sure why I'm being challenged on it.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I didn't say that they weren't caused, I asked if he could tell us what the cause was. Simply because one is prepared to accept that the universe must have some 'first' cause does not neccessitate being able to identify such a cause any more than in the cases of radiaoactive decay or the generation of virtual particles.I wasn't trying to reiterate Ramoss's point, I was trying to see why 'but we don't know what it is' is an acceptable ascription of cause for some things but not for others.TTFN,WK

nwr I disagree.The virtual world they create are not seperate from them since these creations {programs} obey the same rules of order that the creator {computer scientist} does{otherwise gibberish would be effective as a computer program}. Now I can agree to the embedding of a computer scientist within the realm of his/her creation,{in the sense that the software is modeled as an approximation of the world of the creator} however I cannot see the possibility of a software creator that is seperate from that creation.That is unless you can present a virtual world that runs without a program to at least begin the virtual world.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Yeah, I know. It was more for the viewers' benefit and I was just being lazy replying to your post rather than digging for Ramoss's