|
Author
|
Topic: God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
Message 65 of 308 (517442)
07-31-2009 9:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
07-30-2009 7:46 PM
|
|
Re Particles
Hi subbie,
subbie writes: particles appear in a vacuum without any cause. Are these virtual particles? Such as gluons, which randomly pop into existence and disappear again. Or pairs of virtual quarks and antiquarks which appear and transform a proton into an exotic particle. But isn't this just math calculations? 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 3 by subbie, posted 07-30-2009 7:46 PM | | subbie has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi cat,
bluescat48 writes: Why does anything need a cause? 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 message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by bluescat48, posted 08-01-2009 5:02 PM | | bluescat48 has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 101 of 308 (517576)
08-01-2009 6:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 88 by cavediver
08-01-2009 11:42 AM
|
|
Re: More please sir
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: Space-time "evolves" from past to future, 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 writes: 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  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:
Genesis 1:1 In beginning created God the heaven and the earth. 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 88 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2009 11:42 AM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi cat,
Bluescat48 writes: 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. So as far as you are concerned the only thing covered by the anything of the statement "1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence" is the universe. Is that correct? The KCA statement only states that the Universe began to exist. The universe is one thing of the any thing. 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."
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi cat,
Bluescat48 writes: The point is whether the universe ever "began to exist." If all the matter & energy was there prior to the big bang then how does the universe begin to exist. We cannot say whether it began or not since we cannot see anything prior to the big bang. The standard BBT requires a beginning of everything. cavediver does not use the standard model as he immediately goes to the Hartley Hawking no boundary universe according to his own words to Son Goku. Stephen Hawking made the following statement in a lecture.
Hawking lecture writes: The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Source Scroll down to the last paragraph. Even though Stephen Hawking put forth the no boundry universe model the Standard BBT model is the accepted model. This is the model that the KCA and the good RCH is following in their argument. It is a sound argument. It just seems everybody is all up in arms trying to prove the statement wrong. First you have to change the Standard BBT to incorporate cavedivers argument to dent the statement. But the KCA and the good RCH are wrong because the Standard BB theory is wrong. As you and everyone else here that know me know that I believe the universe and earth has always existed in some form. I am persuaded science will come to that conclusion in the future. This is the position I have held for the past 60 years after reading Genesis 1:1 as a 10 year old. I would still like to know how the 'anything' in the statement can be confined to the universe when it says any thing. Could you please explain. 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."
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: Are we supposed to assume that eternal entities "external to time" exist as some sort of solution to this "problem"? Why? Why Not? Lets chase this rabbit one more time. The Standard BBT requires the universe to have a beginning as well as time, space, matter, energy and gravity. If everything is contained in the universe as you and others here have tried to pound into my head we have 2 choices. Either the universe has always existed, as I believe. OR The universe had a beginning as Stephen Hawking said and the Standard BBT requires. Again if 'every thing' is contained inside the universe, time, space, matter, energy and gravity. That means that 'no thing' exists outside the universe. Therefore if the universe did not exist then 'no thing' existed. There was no space for a vacuum or 'any thing' to exist in as there was 'no thing'. Now when you get to the point you can grasp what 'no thing' is you will understand the problem. Now the real problem is the universe exists. What kind of a solution do you propose. Don't start with the zero energy instanton universe as there was 'no thing' for the instanton to exist in as there was no space vacuum, 'no thing'. Now if the universe had a beginning 'some one' or 'some thing' had to cause it to begin. If the Standard BBT is correct the argument from Message 1 stands.
RevCrossHugger writes: The most simple form of the modern KCA ie per Dr Craig is as follows; 1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence 2... The universe began to exist. 3... Therefore the universe had a cause to exist.
Why do you think all the religious folk jumped on the Standard BBT bandwagon? 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 118 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 4:38 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 129 of 308 (517915)
08-03-2009 9:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by onifre
08-02-2009 11:27 PM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Oni,
onifre writes: You're problem is in the "requires the universe to have a beginning" There's no a priori requirement. You are introducing this requirement because you are misunderstand what GR is saying about the early conditions and do not understand the current big bang model(s). But the good Reverend and the KCA is not discussing the current BBT models held on EvC by you, cavediver and others. The Standard BBT is what is being discussed. The man that proved there was a singularity at T=0, that there is a breakdown of GR says everything had a beginning about 15 billion years ago. Source Scroll down to the last paragraph. Is Stephen Hawking wrong? You are correct when you say I don't understand GR. That is the reason I take Stephen's word for it. So why do I have to understand it?
onifre writes: I refer you back to cavediver's Message 68, Message 74 and Message 88. Specifically This:
quote:
Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field. This includes the much mentioned virtual-particles/pair-creation. The only thing that "begins to exist" is our terminology for the new form.
My position is that the universe has always existed in some form. This is what Genesis 1:1 tells me. You and I have agreed on this point in the past. So I don't have a problem with what cavediver says. It is just the opposite of what Stephen Hawking and others say about the Standard BBT. Stephen Hawking did say: "the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago" Source If my understanding of what Stephen Hawking said is wrong please present the correct view. 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 124 by onifre, posted 08-02-2009 11:27 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 136 by onifre, posted 08-03-2009 10:52 AM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 130 of 308 (517916)
08-03-2009 9:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by Phage0070
08-02-2009 11:29 PM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Phage,
Phage0070 writes: Why? Name one applicable example of your experience in the matter of things coming into existence. This message. It did not exist 5 minutes ago. 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 125 by Phage0070, posted 08-02-2009 11:29 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 131 of 308 (517917)
08-03-2009 9:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by Michamus
08-03-2009 12:58 AM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Mich,
Michamus writes: You have completely misunderstood the BBT and the nature of the universe. The BBT does not say that the BB was "a beginning of THE universe". That is very possible with my peanut understanding as cavediver put it. But does Stephen Hawking completely misunderstand the BBT also?
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source Scroll down to the last paragraph. Let me break Stephen's statement down. The universe had not existed forever. Conclusion since the universe is here it began to exist. The universe, and time itself. Conclusion universe and time began to exist. Had a beginning in the Big Bang. Conclusion, the universe had a beginning in the BB not after and not before. Please point out where my conclusions are wrong. 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 127 by Michamus, posted 08-03-2009 12:58 AM | | Michamus has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 134 of 308 (517922)
08-03-2009 10:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by cavediver
08-03-2009 3:24 AM
|
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi cavediver, I am sorry that I am such a pain in the...But I am still trying to learn and that is kinda rough at 70.
cavediver writes: Rubbish - I demolish the argument without even mentioning the Big Bang. It falls apart immediately:
quote:
1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence
Complete nonsense. It is kinda hard to demolish the argument without even mentioning the Big Bang when the argument is about the Big Bang. Did the universe begin to exist?
quote:
the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.
Is Stephen Hawking wrong when he says: "the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." You have emphatically stated there is no before T=0. That means there is 'no thing' prior. But you also state: "Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field." cavediver which is it. Is there 'no thing' prior to T=0? OR Has 'all things' existed eternally? They either existed eternally or they began to exist. You can't have it both ways. 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 128 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2009 3:24 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 135 of 308 (517923)
08-03-2009 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by Phage0070
08-03-2009 10:12 AM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Phage, Did you get the message I sent you between # 130 and this one? 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 133 by Phage0070, posted 08-03-2009 10:12 AM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 137 of 308 (517926)
08-03-2009 10:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 132 by NosyNed
08-03-2009 10:05 AM
|
|
Re: definitions
Hi Ned,
NoseyNed writes: Both Michamus and Hawking are right but not talking about the same thing.
I am rather confused as usual please explain in detail how they both can be correct. 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 132 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2009 10:05 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2009 12:28 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 139 of 308 (517934)
08-03-2009 11:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
08-03-2009 10:52 AM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Oni,
onifre writes: However, we follows with:
quote:
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
The word I added the red color to is the problem. Stephen Hawking concluded that:
quote:
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.
Do I misunderstand the conclusion that Stephen Hawking came to when I take it to say the universe and time had a beginning? Stephen Hawking proposed his no-bountry hypothesis to get around the universe having a beginning. But being an honest man he had concluded that the universe and time had a beginning. Can you name any noted scientist other than Hartley, and Hawking who subscribe to the no-boundry hypothesis? I know several posters here at EvC do.
"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 136 by onifre, posted 08-03-2009 10:52 AM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 147 by onifre, posted 08-03-2009 2:08 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 141 of 308 (517938)
08-03-2009 11:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by Phage0070
08-03-2009 10:56 AM
|
|
Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi Phage,
Phage0700 writes: ICANT writes: Did you get the message I sent you between # 130 and this one?
No. I don't understand why not you had all the components.
Phage0700 writes: Every component of it existed, down to the electrons that make it up on your computer, mine, the server, etc. Even the chemicals in my brain existed before and after the message was posted. Message 133 I'll leave it up to you to figure out why you didn't get the message. 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 138 by Phage0070, posted 08-03-2009 10:56 AM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 145 of 308 (517949)
08-03-2009 1:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
08-03-2009 11:39 AM
|
|
Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: I demolish proposition 1. The argument fails with out it. Proposition 1 does not mention the Big Bang. All very simple... I do not know of anything that ever began to exist, that did not exist in some form prior to it's present form. Proposition 1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Now because I don't know or believe 'any thing' began to exist that had not existed in some form does not mean that is so. Hawking states the universe and time had a beginning in the Big Bang. IF the universe and time had a beginning in the Big Bang there had to be a cause. (Why do you think so many religious people jumped on the BBT bandwagon when it was proposed?) If it was an instanton or some other God particle, two branes colliding or whatever there was a cause or it would not exist. In other words if it did not exist. It had to begin to exist. So your lack of knowledge of something beginning to exist does not demolish the proposition. Although neither one of us believe that the proposition has any bearing on 'any thing' that exists today.
cavediver writes: What you still haven't learnt is that neither Hawking nor I deal in absolutes But you do deal in absolutes when it serves your purpose. Case in point. Proposition 1 Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
cavediver writes: But you also state: "Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field." Yes, exactly. You say everything exists. Then you emphatically say you have demolished proposition 1 because you don't know of anything that ever began to exist. That is an absolute. The proposition is that everything that began to exist had a cause. If 'no thing' ever began to exist it does not change the proposition, nor does it demolish the proposition. Because 'IF' 'any thing' ever began to exist it would have to have a cause. 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 140 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2009 11:39 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2