God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Hi Oni, Actually refering to time is nonsensical.Time does not exist real or otherwise.There is only now, which is existence which is eternity as far as I am concerned.God gave man the sun and the moon and set up a clock out of them for the benefit of mankind. Genesis 1:14-16Man constructed a calandar and a clock on the rotations of the sun and the moon.There is only existence with a speck marked of in it we call time for our benefit.But chasing these rabbits has nothing to do with the OP.Explain to me how something can begin to exist without a cause.Maybe after you or someone has explained that to me I can begin to understand the BBT.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."

Err, this is the conclusion of the KCA. You can't just assume it because you happen to think that it makes sense oh dear, you really haven't quite grasped the issue...

Hi Straggler, No and it doesn't look like we will ever get to the point RCH presents his case.There is no mention of God or any eternal existence in either of the three propositions.You guys keep arguing what you think he means or is getting at rather than argue what is written down in the OP.The OP says:

quote:

---

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.

---

I see no mention of God. He does mention that he is going to provide this as evidence for God. I for one would like to see where he is going.Now can you show me how that something that begins to exist can exist without a cause.cavediver single handedly shot down every uncaused begins to exist example that has been presented so far. I think his statement covers anything else that anyone could come up with.In Message 128

quote:

---

We have yet to experience anything that "begins to exist" so to claim that all things A such that A "begins to exist", implies A "has a cause for its existence" is simply making propositions about fairies' wings.

​

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.

---

"We have yet to experience anything that "begins to exist"."Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form,"The proposition does not cover those.The only thing it covers is 'any thing' that begins to exist.So again I ask can you explain how 'any thing' can begin to exist without a cause?I am not even saying there is something that could begin to exist.But according to the Standard BBT and Stephen Hawking the universe and time had its beginning in the Big Bang.Thus confirming proposition #2. The universe had a beginning.And leading us to proposition #3. Therefore the universe had a cause to exist.This argument is based on the Standard Big Bang Theory.Not the EvC modified version.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."

Hi cavediver,I thought by now I would be getting the silent treatment instead of the laughs. Then by all means please explain how that 'some thing' that does not exist can 'begin to exist' without a cause. Then nail some handles on the proposition by explaining the following.How does 'some thing' begin to exist from 'no thing'?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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?

Let's not get philosophical about this and confuse the issue completely.Real time, as Hawking mentions, is in reference to the forward time the you experience. This time we experience is a property of the spacial dimensions that we also experience. From that we can understand that without any spacial dimensions, forward time that you experience cannot exist, since it is a property of the spacial dimensions. That is why it is refered to as spacetime.Without losing focus on what the above is implying about time being a property of space, lets answer this: If we start to work our way back from now, back to 15 By ago, our spacial dimensions are described in terms of smooth curved space - using GR to describe the geometry of these curved spacial dimensions. However, if we continue working our way backwards, we reach a point so small were there are no more spacial dimensions that can be described by GR; general relativity breaks down. Since, as explained in the above paragraph, we know that time is a property of space, if there are no spacial dimensions there is no time dimension, either.Therefore, before the expasion, when there are no spacial dimensions, time in the forward direction that we experience, does not exist. So no point in time for a beginning can be assigned. The BB is the moment of expasion and thus is refered to as the "beginning" of space and the "beginning" of the forward time (or real time, as Hawking refers to it) that we experience, that carries with it the properties of "beginning" and "end."The expasion, (the BB), is a change from one state to another, called spontaneous symmetry breaking. Thus the BB is not the "beginning" of everything. It is only the beginning of our 3 dimension space, and because we know that time is a property of space, it is also refered to as the "beginning" of time, but time as in the forward time that we experience. What Hawking called real time.There is also no need for an outside cause to this expasion since it is the break in symmetry from one state to the other. The state being refered to pre-expasion, or pre-BB, is ultramicroscopic (Plank's length) and obeys the laws of QM, which incorporates the uncertainty principle, and thus the notion of left-right, front-back, up-down and before and after lose all their meaning, as we experience them.I hope I have explained it the right way. Cave?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Hi Oni, You do understand that I view time as a temporary segment in eternity for the benefit of mankind.There is only existence. I will agree that time as you and I know it had a beginning and it is determined by how long it takes the earth to rotate on it axis and that days are getting longer. Thus more time in a day because the earth is slowing down. The things I mentioned have nothing to do with the inflationary period and would have to have preceeded it for them to produce the universe. The proposition does not have anything about time in it. Well no.I believe in eternity, eternal existence.Then I believe there is a speck in eternal existence we call time because we constructed time. Time is man made.Now will you address the question, how can 'some thing' begin to exist without a cause from 'no 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."

Hi Straggler, Why ask me this question? Maybe we will get to the point the good reverend will explain it to us in another 2 or 3 hunderd posts.I believe the universe has always existed in some form.That still does not take anything away from the KCA argument.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."

Hi Oni, This work you are talking about is done by man's thinking and math is it not.That still don't have anything to do with the propositions put forth by RCH in the OP.1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existenceIt makes no difference how you slice it and dice it IF the universe began to exist it required a cause to exist. IF it did not begin to exist then it did not require a cause to exist.I believe it has existed eternaly in some form.So what is the Problem?The problem is you are trying to explain how the universe could come to begin to exist 15 bya without a cause, when it did not exist. I wish you lots of luck with that one as you need it.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."

Then you are not talking about anything in cosmology, described by Hawking or otherwise, or anything related to any theory that describes our universe.I do not know what "time as a temporal segment for the benefit of man" means. I thought this discussion was about the BBT, and time as described by cosmology. If you are going to intoduce a relgious definition then this is no longer a scientific discussion. No, it is not, at all, and you have not understood what time as a dimension means. I can understand cavedivers frustration. You don't seem to read to understand and ask questions accordingly, you just seem eager to prove something about your belief by picking and choosing certain scientific terminologies that you think you understand. ICANT, please try to understand. If it refers to a moment when it "began," then it has everything to do with time in the forward direction that we all experience. These are just religious wordings that describe absolutely nothing about reality.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

The only way this (a relationship between the beginning of time and the rotational speed of the earth) could be true is if the earth was ca. 6,000 years old and was created at the same time as the rest of the universe.As all evidence shows the earth is much older than this, and the universe a couple of times older than that, your statement flies in the face of rationality. The rotation of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of time.Seriously, where do you come up with these ideas?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Now you're going to start acting like a dick when all I'm trying to do is help? Wtf, dude? What does that mean? There is observational evidence for everything I have stated, just ask me to show you proof for specific things and I will. I just don't know what you're grasping or not, so I don't know what you need help with. I explained it. The 3 dimensional universe that we are in was caused by the break in symmetry from it's quantum state, which lead to the expasion of space and the introduction of time, as we experience it.I wrote this in the post you quoted. I thought your next question would be, what caused the symmetry to break? Which would have meant that you at least read and understood what was being explained. The 3-dimensional universe that we are in did begin to exist, it expanded from a quantum state. Quantum states are too small to have describable spacial dimensions, and thus is not a universe by any known description. However, to change from it's quantum state to the dimensional space described by GR, it did not need an outside causal agent, as I described it, spontaneous symmetry breaking. This is a reslut of quantum fluctuations when compressed to ultamicroscopic scales (sort of, but in greater detail). Ok, I'll bite. In what form? Describe it in the same way that it is described today, using dimensions. Are you saying that the universe existed without any dimensions? How can it be a universe if it has no dimensions?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

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.

After all this time, you still don't get it. The Universe has never not existed. It exists for all time. Even if that time is finite in extent. Oh FFS, how many times? It doesn't. There has never been 'no thing'. There has always been 'some thing', whether there is an earliest time or not.

Hi Oni, Sure I am. My eternity is equlivant to imaginary time.My time for the benefit of man would be equal to the real time of the BBT. Which did not really start counting until man observed it and set up a measuring system. Other than that things just existed. Why should I. Time is a product of the universe. It is not something outside of the universe. Why would it have to begin in time.All the exotic hypothesis to get around the universe having a beginning has to begin in imaginary time.So whats the problem?You say time began in the BB but it was billions of so called years until man experienced it. Time will tell. Pun intended.Now we are not going to get anywhere with a discussion of time so how about discussing the OP.

quote:

---

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.

---

1. Can any thing begin to exist without a cause?
2. Did the universe and time have their beginning in the Big Bang?Two simple questions, can/will you answer them for me?Those two questions is what this thread is supposed to be about.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."