God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

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

So because nothing uncaused has been observed to "begin" you conclude that nothing can "begin" that is uncaused*? Yes?(Ignoring for the moment that this may not actually be true) Have you ever observed anything that is eternal? Following the same logic you apply to your first premise above, is it rational to conclude that eternal things exist? Or not? Well we agree on that at least. But I am not interested in certainty. I am interested in the claimed rationality of your flawed conclusions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Have You Ever Observed Anything That Is Eternal?

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.

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

And.....?Are we supposed to assume that eternal entities "external to time" exist as some sort of solution to this "problem"? Why?I still fail to see how one can conclude that uncaused beginnings are impossible, based on lack of observation of such things, whilst simultaneously advocating eternal entities that are equally unobserved as a logical alternative.It is inconsistent and selective.

ICANT
I will leave others to explain the finer points of BB theory to you. However it still seems to me that the argument under discussion is internally inconsistent.How can one reject the idea of uncaused beginnings on the basis of these not having been observed without also rejecting the equally unobserved existence of eternal entities that are able to provide a first cause?On what basis is the "uncaused" rejected whilst the eternal is accepted within the argument? Not parsimony that is for sure.

How can one reject the idea of uncaused beginnings on the basis of these not having been observed without also rejecting the equally unobserved existence of eternal entities that are able to provide a first cause? I didn't say you had. But is it not implicit in the KCA as presented that an eternal uncaused entity is somehow the only solution to the "problem" at hand?

And what is the form of this "cause" ICANT? Does the suggested form of the cause only have attributes that have been observed?If it has attributes that have not been observed (e.g. eternal existence) then this should logically be rejected on the same basis that you reject uncaused events (i.e. lack of observation). To do otherwise would be logically inconsistent. No?

Evading the question ICANT. And when he does I assume that, being the shining beacon of consistency and reason that you indisputably are, you will insist that we reject all notions of unobserved phenomenon equally? That you will apply the same flawed reasoning to "eternal" that you have to "cause". Right? Well actually yes it does. Because you either end up with "causes" (AKA turtles) all the way down OR you end up advocating concepts that are as equally unobserved as the events you are rejecting on the basis of not having been observed.Regardless of how wrong it is in terms of modern BB cosmology the argument falls under the weight of it's own flawed internal assumptions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ICANT All I am attempting to ascertain here is whether or not YOU are consistent in your approach to the question at hand.Do you agree that if we are to discount "uncaused beginnings" on the basis of these not having been observed (as you do) then we must also discount any alternative explanation that relies on equally unobserved phenomenon? To do otherwise would be logically inconsistent. No?Why are you so determined to evade answering that particular question?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I may as well ask before ICANT does.1) "Where" does this quantum field exist?
2) What caused this quantum field to exist?Feel free to completely ignore this if you don't think this is helpful or if you don't think this is going in the direction ICANT is ultimately aiming at.

The bottom line here is that ICANT does not want to know how space and time emerged from a quantum field. He doesn't want to know about symmetry breaking, fundamental forces, vibrating strings or anything else.He wants to know what caused the "beach ball" to exist. If there is a precursor to "the beachball" of any sort then he wants to know what caused "that" to exist. If there is any precursor to the precursor of "the beachball" (e.g. laws that allowed the precursor to the beachball to exist) then he wants to know what caused those to exist. And so on.I don't want to ruin anyones fun here. In particular I don't want to stop Cavediver answering the sort of questions you are asking because I for one want to know the answers. But talking GR, QFT or anything else that simply leads to "but what caused that to exist" with ICANT is just going to lead to head banging frustration on your part and "why won't you just admit that you need a first cause" frustration on his. As far as he is concerned you are simply denying a role for God and no amount of physics is ever going to persuade him otherwise.

Dude we have all been there with ICANT. At my level of understanding I think there is a lot to be gained from trying to explain these things to others as best I can. It clarifies my own thinking and allows me to realise just how much of what I thought I knew I am actually still trying to grasp. My guess is that you are at a similar level of understanding (if anything I would say your posts suggest that you are a bit advanced of me) so I guess the same roughly applies to you. Also whether ICANT appreciates your efforts or not others will. It isn't wasted time. Even if it is wasted on ICANT.Anyway I thought your explanations to ICANT were pretty good. I enjoyed reading them. And your ongoing Q and A session with Cavediver is something I will be following.

I doubt that! Forever is for all of time. I guess you need to define "eternity" without reference to "time" if you want to go down that route........