God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Most of this has been covered to some extent, but here is my take on the argument:1) This point has no data to support it. For example, name something that was created.Oh, that? That was constructed from fundamental particles and energy that already existed. You are confusing the changing and combination of things that already exist with creation; in essence you are being confused by your terms.2) This is quite a jump, from knowing that some things have a cause for their existence to suggesting that *all* things have a cause. This might be reasonable if the sample size were large enough, but even if we knew the cause of everything on Earth then our sample size would still be unreasonably small compared to the universe. Since we already established your sample size as precisely zero, the assumption is utterly unwarranted.3) Even were we to accept the first two statements, accepting this one does not lead us to a God. In fact, all it would suggest is that there was something that caused the Big Bang event. If we are to theorize an infinite chain of causation and, for reasons unfathomable assume that an infinite chain is impossible and thus theorize an "uncaused cause", Occam's Razor would suggest that uncaused cause simply happened. It would not be reasonable to assume a guiding intelligence behind it simply if there were an uncaused cause. Finally, even if we were to assume an intelligence guiding the event it is another unfounded jump to assume it is your specific version of God.

Is this concept, what is illustrated by the arrow of time being a pole running through a globe like structure produced by imaginary time?

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Are you trying to emulate The Impressive Clergyman? Any idea how long .05 of an hour is?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Why do you keep replying to my questions in posts to Parasomnium?I still don't see how you can reject uncaused beginnings on the basis of lack of observation of such events whilst also claiming the vaidity of eternal entities when equally no observation of anything eternal exists.Regardless of whether or not virtual articles are "caused" your wider argument seems inherently and internally inconsistent to me.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So what is to say that the KCA is correct in the first place? Why does anything need a cause? The same could be said for the possible existence of God. It is outside the concept of time.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi cat, If nothing needs a cause as implied please answer this post without moving a single muscle.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : correct quote

---

"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 post has always existed. It is eternal and external to time.

Hi cavediver, I have a few questions if you don't mind. I hope they make sense. With these 3 different constants, would that give 3 different models of how spacetime is expanding do to the original amount of vacuum density?In a past thread you said "The dark energy component could well decrease with expansion, such that gravitational attraction once again dominates, and the Universe could well collapse (given sufficient density.)" source - message 26. Does the possible decrease in expantion have to do with the 3 different CC?Do the different CC determine the fate of the universe?Can we be in a universe that has an infinite beginning but a finite end?- Oni

quote:

---

Well, not so fast Paul. First the reason I said shortly after T-0 is that our physics only allow us a glimpse close (albeit very close) to time zero.

---

Which is not what you said.

quote:

---

Secondly I feel you are incorrect that we can not at least make logical and reasonable assumptions to what happed before/or outside time the big bang

---

Your feeling is incorrect. The singularity masks all evidence of what - if anything came before. And those speculations that are made do not reveal any need for supernatural intervention.

quote:

---

Why ? Just because an object exists at the “very first instant of time “ does not give it a special privilege. The universe did not exist then it did.

---

If it exists at the very first instant of time it cannot be the case that "first it did not exist, then it did". As I have already pointed out more than once - there is no point before it exists (because that requires an earlier moment in time - before the first, which is impossible). The fact that you need to deny that it existed at the first instant of time only illustrates the strength of my point.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

If the Hawking/Hartle no boundary model turns out to be wrong, would the model that ends up being correct still have to solve the indefiniteness of the singularity? - Removing the need for a cause to the universe, no matter what?- Oni

Hi cavediver, How can that be?You told me and I quote, "In the standard classical big bang cosmology, T is larger than or equal to zero. T=0 is the singularity. As ever, there is no before." cavediver are you saying that the eternal universe I have been putting forth for the past 2+ years is a possibility?I believe it has always existed in some form but not necessarly as we see it today. I get my information from: Eternity has no beginning and no end, it is just one great big now. Therefore I can not figure out when 'In beginning' was.Time as you and I know it is just a speck in eternity.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."

No problem - and yes, they do When I say Cosmological Constant, I am refering to the original CC of General Relativity, and unsurprisingly, it is a constant So whatever value it has at T=0, or T=-infinity, it has this value for all values of T. That is why we only have three basic cases: 0, -ve , and +ve. Actually, it's a bit more complex as you can have CC dominating or matter dominating, and this creates a different behaviour. I'll get round to describing these tomorrow.When I mentioned "The dark energy component could well decrease with expansion", I am talking about a non-constant vacuum energy component. This is not the Cosmological Constant, but a similar energy density resulting from quantum field theory, string theory, or some other extension to normal GR. This gives an infinite variety of possible space-times, as the energy density's time dependence could be literally anything (obviously observations of our actual Universe reveal severe constraints to what this dependence can be.) Yes, we could.

This post is a man made item the universe isn't. There is a cause do to my ideas whereas the universe has no brain and exists regardless of whether er there is a cause or not. Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

cavediver writes

quote:

---

The only possibility we have seen for something having a semblance of "begins to exist" is in the cosmological space-times of General Relativity (and related and expanded theories), of which a subset form the basis of Big Bang cosmology. These fall into two sets: those that have no-prior cause, and those that do. Those that do explicity break proposition 2.

---

I am not going to argue the finer points of general relativity. I have already said that I use the most popular form of standard model big bang cosmology. That model uses the one universe explanation (this universe). We could make another argument and claim meta universes which could if proven true could harm the KCA. I too would like to know why you thing those that have a prior cause explicitly break premise # 2.; {>

---

God is Dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead-God"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

Cavediver writes

quote:

---

In this case, the cause of the "beginning" of the Universe, if one is insisted upon, is the rest of the Universe. It matters not that happens to be forward in time of the beginning. As I have been saying here for the last four years, the Universe just IS

---

Well I say that your beliefs are in the minority. Hawking hasn't done away with the big bang nor have you. I was wondering what you were talking about in your first post, now I know. You as I have said are in an minority. For this discussion I will only accept and discuss standard big bang cosmology.If you and the other members want to discuss other than the popular (among scientists) one universe (one space time) Big Bang cosmology please feel free. Or simply Google it because its been beat to death with the same result. No empirical data to support the conclusions.To say the universe just is is not very good science! Why is there something rather than nothing? Just because? I am afraid the FSM riding a pink unicorn is a better explanation than that.; }>

---

God is Dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead-God"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein