Problems with both Creationism and Evolution

There are some pretty big problems with the kalam argument (there is an argument for a personal cause which has yet to be raised here, which is especially bad).Here's one. Given that time is finite, if something existed from the very start of time can we say that it definitely did or did not have a beginning from that information alone ? If we need more information to decide then what is it, and how does it apply to our universe ?The "from eternity" argument is in my view rather silly. What would it mean for our universe to exis "from eternity" and how can we tell that it did not ? (And don't forget that the kalam argument denies the possibility of an infinite past, so you cannot insist that "from eternity" demands an infinite past unless you wish to deny that ANYTHING - includign God - exists "from eternity").

No, "from Eternity" cannot mean "out of time", because if it did the claim that if the cause existed from eternity, the effect must also exist from eternity does not follow. After all producing the effect IS a change and therefore the move from cause to effect would be locked, given a changeless state.Moreover, on that reading how can a personal cause get around the issue ? If we assume an unchanging and non-temporal personal cause then the act of creation that is the immediate cause of the universe must also exist "from eternity" from which it would follow that we still come to the conclusion that the effect - our universe - would exist "from eternity".Having seen the more detailed version of the argument for a personal cause it seems quite clear that the idea is of a cause acting within time.

I see the argument - in your view - is (or amounts to) it is logically impossible, therefore God did it.I think a better view is to take time as a dimension - much like the spatial dimensions, as in modern physics.Then we can take some alternative possibilities. For instance in Stephen Hawking's no boundary condition theory the universe itself exists timelessly - time is a component of the universe.Or we can take Linde's "Eternal Inflation" in which our universe is one of many bubbles in a greater, infinite space-time. If we take time as a dimension we can even do away with the necessity to traverse an infinite past. Why should there be any need to do so if time is a dimension and any acausal event may happen at any point on the infinite continuum ?

But what you are retreating to is not the kalam argument at all. It's just "we don't know what did it so it might be God".Well I suppose it escapes all the problems of the kalam argument - the logical problems of the "from eternity" thing and the question I asked at the start. But it isn't much of an argument.Indeed if that is all we have to go on we cannto even say that it is a likely explanation.

I see some confusion here.Our mathematical models of reality break down at the singularity, mathematics itself does not.Likewise any valid description of the singularity must be logically consistent. Logic does not break down in the sense that conclusions cannot be deductively derived from premises about the singularity state - or that contradicitions could be true (however we would have to use very strict logic, since our intuitive ideas about reality are almost certainly not going to apply).This is not to say that logic or mathematics "exist" at the singularity - they are the products of minds, not aspects of reality. They do however exist now, and apply to out models and descriptions.

Well you gave me AN answer on the "from eternity" point which made the argument nonsensical. And moreover it is one that is contradicted by the website you refer to (and the answer that gives is pretty confused, too).However you misrepresent my argument, because as well as commenting on the "from eternity" point I also raised an important issue which you never addressed. The relationshp between the concept of beginning and a finite past. Even though I referred back to it in my last two posts you are now pretending that I did not say it. Let me put it simply - you cannot define MY strategy by the points YOU choose to address.And since you chose to leave a point which calls the idea that the universe had a beginning into question, you can't turn around and claim that you have successfully defended the argumen even so far as showing that our universe had a cause.Your version of the kalam argument is to set up a logical contradiction and then invoke God to get out of it, rather than looking at more plausible alternatives.

I assume that your answer to my question is that if we know something existed at the beginning of time then we can say that it definitely did have a beginning (obviously we cannot say that anythign existed prior to the beginnign of time).It follows from that answer that everything has a beginning - and therefore requires a cause. Including God. The only way to escape this is to change your answer or to reject the idea of a finite past.And no, I don't agree with your version of the kalam argument because it relies on assuming a logical impossiblity - therefore making it impossible even for God to get out of it. It would be like asking me to agree with 2+2 = 5.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-23-2003]

I see you weren't actually answering my question.
My question was completley general - and did not allow the use of additional information that was not explicitly stated.And indeed you are still refusing to answer the question. Indeed it seems thAt your argument now reduces to assuming that the universe had a beginning and assuming that God does not.As to your last comment you are just confusing yourself. Logical possibilities represent absolute impossibilities - and many Christians insist that it is ridiculous to demand that God should be capabble of logical impossibilities on that ground. (And they have good reason to fear the theological difficulties incurred by asserting otherwise - how do you think a theodicy can work if the idea that God can do even the logically impossible ?)If you wish to explain how God can do somethign that you have asserted cannot be done then be my guest. But as soon as you admit it can be done - even by God you destroy your own argument. As if there was a worthwhile argument there in the first place. "I'll assume that the universe can;t exist and that proves God created it" - well it's a rationalisation for the conclusion and nothing more