Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 301 of 308 (518789)
08-08-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Phage0070
08-08-2009 3:26 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Phage,
The shouting is getting ridiculous. It reminds me of a 3 year old having a temper tantrum. What is your problem?
Phage0700 writes:
ICANT writes:
'IF' the universe began to exist it had a cause for its existence.
You still do not have any reason to make this assumption. You have never observed anything being created from nothing by a cause, so you have no reason to assume it happens that way.
Why do you refuse to address this point?
Better question is why don't you address any point?
Do you see the first word in the statement?
"If"
So did the universe have a beginning? Many scientist say it did. What say ye?
Now if the universe began, did it begin from preexisting materials.
If it began to exist from preexisting materials.
Where did those preexisting materials come from?
Why did the universe begin 13.7 billion years ago instead of 100 billion years ago.
If it began to exist what caused it to begin to exist?
Back to my house, How long would I have to wait for my house to begin to exist where I could cook dinner, take a bath and go to bed in my house from the materials that was delivered to my property.
I am well aware that all the materials for my house existed on my property after they were delivered but I could not cook dinner, take a bath and go to bed in those materials.
Would I ever be able to cook dinner, take a bath and go to bed in my house without the house having a cause to exist?
Same thing goes for the universe.
If at some point in the past all materials for the universe existed.
Why does the universe exist today?
You are suggesting it does not have to have a reason for its existence.
Somebody said, the universe is its own cause.
That is just as stupid as me saying those materials on my property caused my house to begin to exist where I could cook dinner, take a bath and go to bed in my house.
So to answer your accusation, "You still do not have any reason to make this assumption."
To think otherwise is illogical.
'No thing' can produce itself, even if all the materials exist.
Your assertion, "You have never observed anything being created from nothing by a cause," Is very true.
However I have seen many things being created from preexisting materials.
Your final assertion, "so you have no reason to assume it happens that way."
I have never assumed 'some thing' was created by a cause from 'no thing'
I have and do maintain that the universe has always existed in some form. Just not as we see it today. How many times I got to repeat that?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Phage0070, posted 08-08-2009 3:26 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Admin, posted 08-08-2009 10:23 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 306 by Phage0070, posted 08-08-2009 11:55 AM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 302 of 308 (518791)
08-08-2009 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by ICANT
08-08-2009 2:06 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
A woman walks up to a gas station and says to the attendant, "I've stopped about three miles up the road and can't get going again. Can you pick me up and bring me into your garage?" And the attendant says to her, "No you're not, you're right across my counter. The garage is right through that door: You can walk just fine."
Do you see what happened there? The lady was talking with a precision that should have been more then adequate for the situation, but neglected to take into account that she might be talking to someone too stupid to not be a pseudo-pedantic ass.
You see, when Steven Hawking said that all the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever but that it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago, he was talking with a precision that should have been more then adequate for the situation, but neglected to take into account that he might be talking to you.
Were SH talking about the KCA he'd very likely tighten up his usage of the words "existed", "forever", and "beginning", because the precise meaning of these words becomes very important when talking about "existed", "forever", and "beginning".
Edited by Admin, : Fix punctuation and grammar.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2009 2:06 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by cavediver, posted 08-08-2009 9:58 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 303 of 308 (518795)
08-08-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by lyx2no
08-08-2009 9:35 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Well, you've just put that far better than I could ever manage. You're grandfather would be rather proud
I guess I should add a few comments about the other "quotes" that ICANT has unearthed:
quote:
Tom Parisi says: once upon a time, there was no time or space
Stupid statement for hopefully obvious reasons. Tom Parisi? "Tom Parisi, NIU Office of Public Affairs" Hmmm...
quote:
Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan: The Big Bang theory states that the Universe began when primordial mass exploded.
Similarly stupid - Dr. van der Pluijm, Professor of Geology and of the Environment
quote:
Janna Levin, DAMTP: The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something.
Written in a pop-sci layman book, but even so, she needs her ass kicking for such sloppy text.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by lyx2no, posted 08-08-2009 9:35 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 304 of 308 (518799)
08-08-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by ICANT
08-08-2009 8:41 AM


Moderator Request
Hi ICANT,
I'm afraid I'm going to have to request that you stop posting to this thread. If I'm actually stepping in where no intervention was desired then the other participants can make appeals for me to rescind this request at Report discussion problems here: No.2.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2009 8:41 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2009 11:25 AM Admin has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 305 of 308 (518801)
08-08-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Admin
08-08-2009 10:23 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Hi Percy,
In Message 294 you made this statement:
Admin writes:
I appreciate the effort you're making to understand current views regarding the birth of the universe, but you're again causing considerable frustration. Unless you can figure out how to give other participants the impression that you're working constructively with them to reach a common understanding, I'm going to again have to request that your withdraw from a Big Bang thread (which I know wasn't exactly the original topic here, but it's close enough unless someone expresses a strong interest in re-engaging the Kalam Cosmological Argument).
In [msg299] I tried to explain a position to Straggler and get back to the OP.
I restated the OP.
I gave an example of why I would believe the statement in #1 to be true.
I then presented what eight scientist had to say about #2.
I don't see where any of that discussion could be considered not discussing the OP, or against the guidelines.
At the end I did ask two question that could probably be considered off topic but I believe them to be pertinent to the discussion as they directly affect #2.
Now I will admit in Message 301 I totally went way off topic when I asked Phage0700 what his problem was.
But considering all the insults and derogatory remarks made to and about me in this thread I think it should be understandable. I saw no prior intervention.
The rest of the message was an attempt to discuss the KCA cosmological argument which no one here seems to have any desire to do.
Now kind sir would you be so kind as to point out the exact arguments that is off topic in the two posts since your request to stick to the topic.
That way in the future maybe I can avoid making those mistakes if I can resist the tempting bait that everyone keeps putting in front of me.
Thanks in advance.
God Bless,
I do realize by posting this message I have broken a guideline and disobeyed an Admin's request.
and will accept whatever punishment is prescribed.
But I wanted this message posted here in this thread and not someplace else in the forum.

"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 message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Admin, posted 08-08-2009 10:23 AM Admin has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 308 (518802)
08-08-2009 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by ICANT
08-08-2009 8:41 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
ICANT writes:
The shouting is getting ridiculous. It reminds me of a 3 year old having a temper tantrum. What is your problem?
(Sigh) If only it were shouting that put you on the same level...
ICANT writes:
Do you see the first word in the statement?
"If"
Do you see the implicit "Then"?
"IF the universe began to exist (THEN) it had a cause for its existence."
I am not challenging the IF, I am challenging the THEN. I have *told* you this.
ICANT writes:
If it began to exist what caused it to begin to exist?
On what basis do you make the assumption that things which begin to exist require causes?
Will you address it this time? What are we at, number 5?
ICANT writes:
So to answer your accusation, "You still do not have any reason to make this assumption."
To think otherwise is illogical.
'No thing' can produce itself, even if all the materials exist.
And what if the materials don't exist? Give me a reason why it is illogical.
Oh, and mountains produce themselves. Planets too. Stars, etc... certainly there are plenty of things that can produce themselves if all the materials exist. Beaches for example... do you think cave men spent the first parts of their development making vast quantities of sand?
ICANT writes:
Your assertion, "You have never observed anything being created from nothing by a cause," Is very true.
However I have seen many things being created from preexisting materials.
I almost seemed like you were going somewhere with this, but it sort of stalled out where you explain where the concepts are somewhat related to each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2009 8:41 AM ICANT has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 307 of 308 (532122)
10-21-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Jack
07-31-2009 8:28 AM


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.
Is quantum tunneling what you are talking about as a possible explanation for the beginning of the cosmos?
My understanding at this point is that it has been theorized in quantum mechanics that virtual particles can pop into existence from nothingness provided they are converted back into nothingness before the human observer can possibly detect their appearance. This typically means that the particles so produced must disappear in less than a quintillionth of a second.
I think astrophysicist Paul Davies appealed to the suggestion that the entire cosmos could have popped into existence. However, if I am not mistaken, quantum tunneling calls for this massive universe to disappear back into nothingness in less than 10 to the minus 103 seconds ( a decimal point and 102 zeros before the 1).
The age of the universe is much longer than that of course! So can any theorized quantum tunneling causing the poping into existence of the universe be realistic ?
Hugh Ross argues that the argument against God's creating because of quantum mechanics can be turned against itself.
"Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities with finite intervals of time. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a specific quantum event will occur. This means that if the time interval is zero, the probability for that quantum event occuring is also zero. Because time began when the universe was created, the time interval is zero, eliminating quantum tunneling as a possible candidate to be the creator of the cosmos."
One proponent of quantum tunneling, British astrophysicist Paul Davies supposedly, according to Ross, deserves credit for on going revisions of his position. In his 1984 book "Superforce", he argues that the law of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenius design." And in a latter book "The Cosmic Blueprint" Davies posed the question:
"If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?"
He concludes that we have "powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all."
Maybe he was moving in the direction of theism. These observations I read in "The Creator and the Cosmos" by astrophysicist Hugh Ross on pages 97,98 under the chapter heading "A Modern Day Goliath".
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 07-31-2009 8:28 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Ronken 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 5
From: China
Joined: 09-02-2011


Message 308 of 308 (631760)
09-02-2011 10:22 PM


Spammer
This is supposed to prove your deity exists, eh?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spam links deleted.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024