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.

Find a *single* post that you want to reply to. Press the reply button, respond, and post. Rinse, and repeat. It is really that simple.Don't reply to the Admin message, simply comply as it requests. Seriously, he can figure out if you are following his request, he figured out when you were not.You were asked not to reply to the message, and yet you did it twice. I would suggest being less concerned with God and more concerned with being unable to comply with simple requests.

External and atemporal do not indicate a god. Occam's Razor suggests that it would simply indicate something that is atemporal and/or external. In order to suggest the existence of a god you have a lot further to go, and one would suspect you are highly biased at this point. You accuse him of trying to confuse the issue, but not necessarily being wrong, and regardless simply not applying to the topic. However, you do this without actually reading his reply. That is... tricky, considering our knowledge of how things work. Of course you may psychically dismiss this reply as well... So you think our criticism of the concept comes from us disliking logic and not understanding the concept. And you think your lack of English skill puts you at a disadvantage... We don't like the concept because it is basically pure imagination, without any indication that it relates to reality.

Why? Name one applicable example of your experience in the matter of things coming into existence.

No, it did. 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. Nothing about it was anything more than pushing already existing elements around; unless of course you can name something.Anything. Go ahead, try again.

No.

Oh, come on. Even you are not this stupid.Just because I don't happen to have them at a given time does not mean they do not exist. Presumably your noggin exists despite my knowledge of what may, or in this case may not, exist within it. Unless you are suggesting I have in my possession your brain and the capacity to decode that chemical information, your point is insultingly moronic.Furthermore I suspect that you didn't have anything meaningful to say anyway, so it is questionable if that theoretical post even existed anywhere.Edit: Ok, in retrospect you may not be trying to be intentionally dense, so let me elaborate. In my way of thinking the universe does not cease to exist and become recreated every time you blink. Things that you, and others, are unaware of still exist regardless of this ignorance. Imagination is only real in the sense of chemical interactions in our brains, and those can signify concepts that truly *cannot* exist. Imagination does not create anything; not only does it not exist, but the chemicals that make up the thought existed before the thought was a thought.Edited by Phage0070, : Hand-holding

I suspect this is the root of the issue, given that you are holding this belief without any particular evidence. (And in the face of prevailing scientific theory btw) Your THEN does not follow from your NOW IF. I am not debating your supposition that the universe had a beginning, I am pointing out that the conclusion that something caused it to begin is utterly unfounded. You have no data to support it other than your expectations of unrelated things.

I am rebutting it right here: You have no evidence, no experience, and no reason to conclude that.I am quite confident that you have never, ever ever ever ever, seen anything be created. You have seen things constructed from other things, but nothing at all has ever been created in your experience.So. You have no reason to conclude that things that come into existence need a cause.

I don't care. I really don't care in the slightest who said it, they don't have any evidence or experience to back up such a claim.Oh, and by the way... Aristotle was freekin' wrong on a LOT of stuff! These are two completely unrelated concepts. With the church it was constructed from materials that already existed. With the universe the materials themselves did not exist.You have a wealth of experience and accounts that tell you that churches do not simply construct themselves, but you do not have one shred of evidence to suggest that the universe did not simply begin on its own. If you can point to a single thing in the universe that was actually created, and that you know the source of, then you might have a point. But, you cannot.

Why? Explain how you know this. Point to an example that tells you it must be so.Can you?

Right, and nobody has seen anything actually created from nothing by a cause either. We have precisely zero data on the subject, so what makes you decide one is vastly more likely than the other? Perhaps some of the famous "subjective evidence" I hear so much about?

I will agree that, by definition, for the duration that our current concept of time existed the universe also existed. Beyond that... well, we would have to use different terms, and I don't have enough data to tell what they might be. Whew, can you dial back the crazy a little? It is a little startling all at once like that.

It depends on how you define "eternity". If you mean "for all time" and time is finite, then it just means for how long time was around. If you mean "infinite time" and time is finite... then I suppose "eternity" does not exist.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"Well... there is an infinite amount of nothing. The something that exists, assuming it is finite, is infinitely small in comparison. Assuming that "something" is possible, an arbitrary amount of it should end up existing.