God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Mr Jack writes

quote:

---

The rev writes (mine) ; (1) We have a vast experience of causes and effects. As such, it is rational to believe the first premise of the Cosmological Argument on our own experience alone.

​

Mr Jack; "Wrong on both counts. We have considerable evidence of uncaused events have a look at quantum mechanics and radioactive decay - and assuming that because everything in the set has a property that set also has that property commits the logical fallacy of composition."

---

I think you are incorrect ; ) All quantum effects have cause for their counter intuitive effect. I think you may be confusing random effect for cause and effect. Quantum events have cause for every effect. Say a virtual particle pops into existence, that particles twin is the cause for the effect of the emerged particle. Radioactivity? That is a random series of events, however each particle has a cause to decay into another element for example U to Pb or more accurately 238U decays into 206Pb. You struggled to find two examples can you come up with perhaps 10? Maybe out of ten we could find one that does not have a cause for its effect, but I highly doubt it. So there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples of cause and effect in our universe, vs. ? That is the reason its rational /reasonable to assume that everything has a cause and effect relationship.

quote:

---

1. We observe something coming from nothing all the time.

---

I asked for 10 true examples to offset hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples that support cause and effect. I wasn't being mean and only suggested ten as a means to show that the my claim was more rational than yours.

quote:

---

2. If the universe does indeed "begin" it is meaningless to talk about that beginning as a change, or having a cause. Without time you can have change, and you cannot have causes, and time is part of the universe.

---

While it may sound grossly counter intuitive to say that cause and effect does not require time, it is an accurate claim. Physicists do not look at time in the same way as most laypeople. In reality an egg should break as easily as it ”un-breaks’. Physical processes at the microscopic level are thought to be either entirely or mostly time symmetric, which means that the theoretical statements which describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed. So cause and effect is not time dependent. With all due respect I don’t think you have supported your rebuttal very well.; }>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

You are peddling religious belief, not science.You are mandating a beginning for everything, but not your chosen deity--that's the one exception. And for that you have no evidence.Sorry, that's religious apologetics. And it is not a proof of anything.(I prefer turtles myself. Its a better story.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hunter writes;

quote:

---

You have evidence that things can exist "outisde" of time? Can things exist north of the northpole too?

---

Ha ha! I have an answer for you. First a couple of cosmologists and theoretical scientists have proposed a way for a universe to pinch off this one but that violates my dependence on the BB to describe temporal events! The answer is (drum roll please?); The KCA being a valid cosmological argument relies of deductive reasoning.If the argument is logically sound the argument demands that a 'cause' for the universe to begin to exist. It follows that this cause is atemporal ie outside time if not before time (for reasons given that is not an accurate statement). So the only logical and rational choice we have is that the cause is atemporal and therefore outside time.: }>

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

Will someone hold my hand and tell me how to use the reply to post feature. When I use the reply tag, I get a blank screen just like in gen reply tag. Either something is wrong (again) with my browser or what am I doing wrong? Maybe I have the wrong options selected in my control panel? This forum is different than every other site I have encountered. Thanks; {>

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

Really? reasoning based on no evidence at all? But the argument ISN'T logically sound. The premises are flawed. No, it doesn't. That's just your preference. It could very well be within time that the cause of the universe lies (hey, if pure speculation is allowed, I can say this.) But that isn't the only logical and rational choice we have. The universe was caused by some event somewhere in the future. There. Now what? Are you going to assert that that just can't be?Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.

---

I hunt for the truth

I feel like I may be detecting a air of frustration among a couple of members here. I hope I am mistaken because what usually happens next is the teasing and then name calling etc. Of course I could be wrong. However if I am right wouldn't it be better to agree to disagree rather than get angry? I hope I am incorrect, but if not I am sure we as adults could solve issues before it gets personal. Thanks in advance for your consideraton.:{>

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

Use the small "reply" buttons on the bottom right of the posts you want to reply to.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

REV wrote; "God or the cause for the universe to begin to exist had no cause so the turtle stops with god saving us from the 'paradox' or problem of infinite regression."

​

Blues Cat writes ; "So where is the evidence that that god or the cause had no cause? Blind Faith??"

---

I already replied to that several times but will briefly do it again ; ). The cause/God existed outside/before time. Therefore according to the premise saying ; “anything that BEGINS TO EXIST (caps for emphasis only) has a cause for its existence.” The cause/God did not begin to exist, he was eternal according , and therefore does not violate the logical of the premises.

quote:

---

We can't see any thing before the Big Bang, so we do not know what happened one second before the expansion, thus how can we know that god or some other entity existed before it?

---

By deductive reasoning/logic. A hallmark of all Valid cosmological arguments.Thanks for your reply~; {>

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

Stile writes ;

quote:

---

Huntard writes:

​

Can things exist north of the northpole too?

​

I will elucidate SPA for you (the Stile Planetary Arguement). It also proves God's existence.

​

1. Every point on the planet has something North of it.

​

2. The planet has a North Pole.

​

3. Therefore God exists as "everywhere" so that something is North of the North Pole.

​

I don't understand how this framing of the arguement is seen as laughable, yet if we switch to "time" instead of "North"... some people think it makes sense?

​

I'm going to stick with SPA, it's refreshing

​

Besides, I thought subbie pwned this thread in Message 3 when he provided:

​

quote:

---

a description of a phenomenon called "quantum fluctuation" wherein particles appear in a vacuum without any cause

---

​

Therefore showing how Premise 1 is false.

---

I responded to subbies reply and described why it was in error, or thought I did ! I am answering a lot of people so errors may happen!Quantum fluctuation (to get out of a universe that begins to exist) is not a validated theory. If the higgs boson is found at the LHC he may have a point, however until that happens the BB is the only theory with empirical evidence.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

Are you sure that this is true? How? Is it just "obvious"?

This is a statement for which there is no evidence. It is, in reality, an article of faith for various religions.Your argument is religious apologetics, nothing more.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Huntard writes:

​

Stile writes:

​

1. Every point on the planet has something North of it.

The point known as the north pole doesn't.

Yes, this is exactly what I attempted to point out with the "laughable" SPA.
You see how obvious and simple it is to destroy the SPA? It's the same with any cosmological arguement.
They all start with a premise that is known to be false:
- All things have a cause. (They don't as subbie has shown us).
- All things have a "before." (They don't as time has a beginning).

---

I agree with you about the laughable SPA,thanks for the levity! However the KCA and the other cosmological arguments are valid cosmological arguments that are debated in IVY league schools and professional debate circuits, additionally it hasn't been defeated yet only challenged.That said ~With all due respect to Mr Subbies authority, I refuted all of subbies claims. Unless subbie is the irrefutable expert to end all experts we will have to wait and see how this comes out!

quote:

---

Just as it is plainly obvious that it is possible to have a point on earth that has "no North," it is also possible to have a point in time that has "no before" as well as the possibility for having a thing for which there is "no cause."

---

Again think outside time instead of before time. Many scientists use the words before time in popular publications.

quote:

---

They all fall flat before they begin because they assume something that may be locally or naively true but certainly is not universally true.

---

Wrong they are demonstrable valid as I have shown. Please support your assumptions. The KCA has been around for a thousand years and not been defeated yet, so forgive me if I do not agree with your critique. It may be best if we simply agree to disagree.In any case thanks for your reply ~; }>

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

rueh writes;

quote:

---

What if we were to change the wording of the argument in order to remove the supernatural?
1...Anything that begins to exist has a natural cause for its existence.
2... The universe began to exist.
3... Therefore the universe had a natural cause to exist.

​

Are we still dealing with a false premise, or simply an unknown (at this time) cause?
I realize that Subbie demonstrated that part one is false because of quantum fluctuations; however there still could be an unknown cause for vacuum density fluctuations. Part two of the argument is, for me, the hardest part to address, since time and space is so intricately dependant on one another.

---

Well there is no false premise in the KCA, however we cant say as much as your reworded argument. Subbie failed in his attempt to prove premise one wrong and I provided the reason.Anyway, if you are claiming this is a syllogism it will even have more stringent requirements. So Lets just give it a better chance and review it as a simple non valid argument.Statement # 1 fails. We do not know that. Its an assumption.Statement # 2 passes its correct.Statement # 3 fails we don’t know that. Its an assumption.If you claimed this to be a logical syllogism it fails with a much greater authority. ; ); }>

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

I asked for evidence. You provided none. A curious refutation.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Yes, there is. You have no evidence for the two premises, you just assert they are true. No he didn't. You didn't provide a reason either. You state that EVERYTHING that begins to exist has a cause. Subbie provided you with an example of something that begins to exist, but for which there is no cause. You began talking around the issue. It is irrelevant if ALL other examples we have evidence of have a cause, you CANNOT say EVERYTHING has a cause. The same goes for KCA. It fails exactly like the KCA fails, you even said it in your refuting of point 1. We don't know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, that is an assumption.

---

I hunt for the truth