Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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)
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 126 of 308 (517859)
08-03-2009 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RevCrossHugger
07-31-2009 8:28 AM


Re: The turtle stops here> God <
Hi RevCrossHugger,
I've run into this argument many times. I have found the simplest way to demonstrate it's flaws is to break it down in it's simplest form.
RevCrossHugger writes:
1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence
Pre1: The group of things capable of existing without a cause is 0[zero].
(If the group of things capable of existing without a cause is not 0[zero] then Pre1 is false, and what you are considering may indeed exist without a cause in the absence of empirical evidence)
RevCrossHugger writes:
2... The universe began to exist.
Pre2: X began to exist, (after that comma evidence is provided to demonstrate X indeed began, ig video of a child being born)
(If no empirical evidence can be provided for X's beginning, then Pre2 is false, as X may indeed invalidate Pre1 and have come into existence without a cause, or have always existed.)
RevCrossHugger writes:
3... Therefore the universe had a cause to exist.
Pre3: X had to have had a cause to exist.
(Simply inserting therefor, does not make a premise a conclusion. This is indeed a premise, and has been properly labeled as such.)
RevCrossHugger writes:
God or the cause for the universe to begin to exist had no cause
Con: The group of things capable of existing without a cause is at least 1. This thing is responsible for the cause of X.
(The conclusion invalidates Pre1, as such, this is a false argument).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-31-2009 8:28 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 127 of 308 (517861)
08-03-2009 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
08-02-2009 8:08 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
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".
The BBT states that the BB was "a beginning for OUR universe". This is why there have been such hypotheses as the Big Crunch Theory tossed around as a solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2009 8:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2009 9:59 AM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 190 of 308 (518110)
08-04-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
08-03-2009 9:59 AM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
But does Stephen Hawking completely misunderstand the BBT also?
No, I think you completely misunderstand what Hawking defines the BBT as.
ICANT writes:
Let me break Stephen's statement down.
I think you should hold off on trying to do that until you understand what Stephen Hawking means when he says: 'the universe'.
Hawking is indeed referring to our universe as 'the universe'. It is 'the universe' to us, and as we know it.
An excellent example of how Hawking understands this to be 'a universe' is to look into his glossary under BB. You will notice a graphic below the definition that possesses the caption "A singularity expanding into a universe".
So Hawking is really saying 'The universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning, and will have an end'. This doesn't mean that he thinks the universe hasn't always existed in some form, or state, or that it will not expand upon reaching a certain state of contraction (ig. his Big Crunch Theory).
TTFN
Edited by Michamus, : dBCode fixed

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2009 9:59 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 10:31 AM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 199 of 308 (518167)
08-04-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by ICANT
08-04-2009 10:31 AM


Inconsistent and Selective
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
Clarify your definition of beginning.
Sure. This is a fairly simple task. When I (or the BBT for that matter) use the term beginning, I am using this defintion:
beginning
- noun
an act or circumstance of entering upon an action or state
(the beginning of hostilities )
An excellent example of a beginning would be when a person marries. They are still the same person, but they have had a new beginning, in that they have entered upon an action.
When beginning is being used in the BBT it isn't talking about creation, it is talking about a new beginning.
ICANT writes:
Begins to exist implys it did not exist
Which is why premise 1 is false, or at least not evidenced.
We have no direct knowledge on whether the universe had not existed prior to the BB.
We do know that OUR universe began about 15BY ago though, from a singularity, and that time as we know it came into existence as well.
Since time did not exist prior to shortly after the big bang (whatever the heck that means) causality as we know it did not exist either. It is pretty hard to apply the laws of physics to such a state, when they do not exist in such a state.
ICANT writes:
I am not concerned with what Stephen Hawking believes.
Then why did you quote his article? It seemed to me you wanted to make it seem as though Hawking supported a spontaneously created universe. Once I properly demonstrated that is obviously not what he thinks, you suddenly become disinterested in him as an authority on the BBT?
ICANT writes:
I do know he said:
"The conclusion of this lecture...
Which I already explained quite well. (I even provided a source from the very same website you cited)
ICANT writes:
Therefore I conclude he still believes the universe had a beginning as stated.
Which would be expected from someone unfamiliar with the terminology associated with higher cosmology, and the meaning of Hawking's terminology. This is why I provided the source to his own glossary stating that he clearly does not thing the BBT entails the CREATION of the universe, and that it has indeed existed in a prior state to what it presently exists as.
In all honesty though, I explained why the KCA fails to meet the requirements of proper logic in Message 126.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 10:31 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 12:45 PM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 215 of 308 (518203)
08-04-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ICANT
08-04-2009 12:45 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
ICANT writes:
You speak for the BBT now, do you?
This statement does not make sense. No one speaks for the BBT... as the BBT doesn't speak, think, or communicate in any way. The BBT is a conceptualization our minds have created in an attempt to better understand the nature of transition from singularity to universe.
Also, condescending statements typically are detrimental to one's argument. It is usually viewed in such a way so as to make one seem of "little intellectual substance". I really don't think that is what your intent is though, as I am sure you are an intelligent person.
ICANT writes:
Actually cavediver explained this fairly well when he said it was just a rearranging of existing things.
I really don't think you understood what cavediver wrote (and neither does cavediver) seeing as you wrote this.
ICANT writes:
Hawking said: "the universe has not always existed".
Hawking said: "the universe and time began in the Big Bang".
Yes, he did. What he was clearly saying though was "the universe has not always existed, at one point there was a singularity". If you took the time to do the research, and actually try and comprehend what he was saying, you would have known that though.
ICANT writes:
If they did not always exist then they had to begin to exist.
They began to exist when the singularity expanded.
ICANT writes:
You don't have any that it did either.
Really? Did you serious think I meant everyone but me when I used the word "WE"?
ICANT writes:
Hawking was convinced the universe began to exist.
Einstein was convinced by GR that the universe began to exist.
Yes, it did begin to exist, ONCE THE SINGULARITY EXPANDED.
ICANT writes:
You see I am not convinced either as I believe it has always existed
The universe has not always existed... at one point there was a singularity... NOT a universe...
What you are saying is ludicrous...
Have I always existed? No.
Have the elements I am composed of always existed? No, but they sure have existed a heck of a lot longer than I have.
Does this mean that because these elements have existed for millions of years longer than I have, that I have always existed in some form? No, of course not.
ICANT writes:
So no you have not convinced me Hawking did not mean what he said
Well, no matter. Your opinion is of no consequence to the true nature of things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 12:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 3:56 PM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 216 of 308 (518204)
08-04-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ICANT
08-04-2009 12:45 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Dupe Post
Edited by Michamus, : Dupe post... gotta love satellite internet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 12:45 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 227 of 308 (518232)
08-04-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by ICANT
08-04-2009 3:56 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Go ahead, completely misrepresent, and misunderstand Einstein now that you have finished with Hawking. All this being done in the name of some wacky concept you came up with when you were 10 years old, and haven't changed since.
Edited by Michamus, : edited for clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 3:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 5:21 PM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 233 of 308 (518263)
08-04-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by ICANT
08-04-2009 5:21 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
All I did was ask a question.
And all I did was predict accurately where that question was meant to lead, as demonstrated in the following:
ICANT writes:
Actually he modified the theory to fit his beliefs that was the CC the biggest blunder of his life. Because he believed in a static universe. That is a universe that extends into infinity backwards.
When his bad math was exposed he then changed his theory to match observations. A universe that had to be created one that began to exist.
He then sought to figure out how God did it.
ICANT writes:
Do you care to answer it?
Actually, yes, I do care... It has come to the point where I have lost patience in your games. All this really is to you is a "I'm smarter than you because I know the truth. This isn't ICANT trying to learn, this is ICANT trying to ram his misconceptions and false conclusions down others throats until they either throw their hands in the air, or act in a less "civil" manner.
Fortunately ICANT, it really isn't too late for you to really learn, and open your eyes. Sadly though, the odds are against you, which is one of the blessings of mortality. Old superstitions die, while new knowledge grows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 5:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024