|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5352 days) Posts: 108 From: Eliz. TN USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) | |||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
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:
Pre1: The group of things capable of existing without a cause is 0[zero].
1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence
(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:
Pre2: X began to exist, (after that comma evidence is provided to demonstrate X indeed began, ig video of a child being born)
2... The universe began to exist.
(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:
Pre3: X had to have had a cause to exist.
3... Therefore the universe 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:
Con: The group of things capable of existing without a cause is at least 1. This thing is responsible for the cause of X.
God or the cause for the universe to begin to exist had no cause
(The conclusion invalidates Pre1, as such, this is a false argument).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
No, I think you completely misunderstand what Hawking defines the BBT as.
But does Stephen Hawking completely misunderstand the BBT also?
ICANT writes:
I think you should hold off on trying to do that until you understand what Stephen Hawking means when he says: 'the universe'.
Let me break Stephen's statement down.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
Sure. This is a fairly simple task. When I (or the BBT for that matter) use the term beginning, I am using this defintion:
Clarify your definition of beginning.
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:
Which is why premise 1 is false, or at least not evidenced.
Begins to exist implys it did not exist
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:
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?
I am not concerned with what Stephen Hawking believes.
ICANT writes:
Which I already explained quite well. (I even provided a source from the very same website you cited)
I do know he said:"The conclusion of this lecture... ICANT writes:
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.
Therefore I conclude he still believes the universe had a beginning as stated.
In all honesty though, I explained why the KCA fails to meet the requirements of proper logic in Message 126.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
ICANT writes:
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.
You speak for the BBT now, do you?
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:
I really don't think you understood what cavediver wrote (and neither does cavediver) seeing as you wrote this.
Actually cavediver explained this fairly well when he said it was just a rearranging of existing things.
ICANT writes:
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.
Hawking said: "the universe has not always existed".Hawking said: "the universe and time began in the Big Bang". ICANT writes:
They began to exist when the singularity expanded.
If they did not always exist then they had to begin to exist.
ICANT writes:
Really? Did you serious think I meant everyone but me when I used the word "WE"?
You don't have any that it did either.
ICANT writes:
Yes, it did begin to exist, ONCE THE SINGULARITY EXPANDED.
Hawking was convinced the universe began to exist. Einstein was convinced by GR that the universe began to exist.
ICANT writes:
The universe has not always existed... at one point there was a singularity... NOT a universe...
You see I am not convinced either as I believe it has always existed
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:
Well, no matter. Your opinion is of no consequence to the true nature of things.
So no you have not convinced me Hawking did not mean what he said
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Dupe Post
Edited by Michamus, : Dupe post... gotta love satellite internet
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
And all I did was predict accurately where that question was meant to lead, as demonstrated in the following:
All I did was ask a question.
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:
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.
Do you care to answer it?
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024