God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Hi Oni, Are you saying Stephen Hawking is wrong? Einstein's Gr requires the universe have a beginning. Because he believed it was static instead of dynamic as GR said he introduced the famous cosmological constant which he admitted later as being his biggest blunder. GR predicted there was a creation.Are both wrong?Concerning my arguments for the universe not being able to self=generate you said: Ok.Then present the evidence for self=generation. You are claiming things for me that I have not claimed.I said I had presented evidence that the universe had a beginning.Will you deny that the universe had a beginning?I said I had presented evidence that the universe was not self-generating.You don't like my evidence OK.Present your evidence that it is self=generating.And yes I know there are a lot of people trying to figure out how the universe got here. We have all kinds of exotic hypothesis trying to prove how the universe began.The truth is Science stops at T=10^-43.Anything prior to T=10^-43 is pure speculation, musings of man or religious. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and you have yours.But answer me this question.Why have I wasted my time simply because I don't believe the universe had a beginning. There are some very educated men trying to prove the universe is eternal into the past. That way they don't have to deal with the universe having a beginning.If it is not eternal, HOW DID IT BEGIN?Then if you are talking about me wasting your time that is something else.I did not force any of your fingers to type one word therefore I did not waste one second of your time, or anyone else who has responded.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 Mich, Clarify your definition of beginning.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.

---

Begins to exist implys it did not exist.I am not concerned with what Stephen Hawking believes. I am no mind reader and do not know the thoughts of his mind.I do know he said:
"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."He said the universe and time had a beginning about 15 billion years ago.The paper is still published on his website. This is the last paragraph and there is no correction added to the end of the paper.
Therefore I conclude he still believes the universe had a beginning as stated.Now what part of his words do I not understand?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, I do not know what RCH will present if anything.Therefore I can not comit one way or the other.He is not putting forth an eternal universe.That is my belief based on Genesis 1:1So lets wait until we get to the next phase of the good Reverend's presentation before we speculate about it. Did I miss your message where you presented your arguments proving these:

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.

---

Wrong?If I did would you please point me to it.If it doesn't exist would you see if you could force it into existence, and present it or quit blabbering.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 ICANT, 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. 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. 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? Which I already explained quite well. (I even provided a source from the very same website you cited) 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.

ICANT All I am attempting to ascertain here is whether or not YOU are consistent in your approach to the question at hand.Do you agree that if we are to discount "uncaused beginnings" on the basis of these not having been observed (as you do) then we must also discount any alternative explanation that relies on equally unobserved phenomenon? To do otherwise would be logically inconsistent. No?Why are you so determined to evade answering that particular question?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi subbie,Lets try your new tack, and see if we can nail down something with it.First let's get one thing straight.I am not arguing for the KCA.I am arguing that Gr requires the universe have a beginning and
Stephen Hawking stated the universe and time had a beginning in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago. These are the words of Stephen Hawking:

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.

---

I understand that to say: "the universe has not existed forever".Since the universe exists today it had to begin to exist.

quote:

---

2... The universe began to exist.

---

I am presuaded that Stephen Hawking said: "the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,".I conclude Stephen Hawking said the universe and time began to exist.He further states: in the Big Bang.Did Stephen Hawking say: "the universe has not existed forever"?Did Stephen Hawking say: "the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,"?Stephen Hawking's words agree with and confirm proposition #2.Your rebutal of proposition #1. from Message 3Rebutal of your rebutal. From Message 87Seems your virtual-particles is mearly a change of form.They did not begin to exist as you put forth to slay proposition #1. Where has it been claimed that the BBT is evidence supporting the existence of God?RCH did say "I adopted the cosmological arguments to provide evidence for the existence of God." these are the arguments:

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.

---

We have yet to get to the point where RCH makes an argument that these:

quote:

---

cosmological arguments is an logical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God from empirical information about the universe, and other means.

---

It is kinda hard to cross the bridge before you get to it.subbie do you have anything further to present to demolish premise 1 or 2?Now would be a nice time to do so.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, this question doesn't make any sense, primarily because as ever you are using terms that are outside your understanding. Wrong. Meaningless. These quotes demonstrate that yet again your understanding is so below par for this topic that it is a complete waste of time. I tried to stretch your mind beyond this primitive thinking in the days when I still had some measure of patience. But you spent all your time arguing and very little time listening and learning. The Universe never 'began' to exist. It has always existed. Even if that is only for a finite amount of time.

Yes, it is one and the same. To use the word 'universe' is to describe spacetime with it's 4-D properties. Where's the confusion? This sentence makes no sense. The pea size universe is what exists, it makes no sense to ask where it exists, because it is the "where" in your question. Kinda get it? The infinitely small point, sub-Plank length, is what exists. It however can't be described in terms of spacial dimensions, so for all intended purposes it is nothing by our definition. I know this is hard for you to conceptuatize and that has been your problem. You are unwilling to break from conventional notions of spacial dimensions that make up what we call existance. In other words, this infinitely small point can exist and still be described as 'nothing'. Kinda get it? And this again is a misunderstanding on your part.GR explains spacetime up to a certain scale. In other words, the 4-D universe that we exist in is understood geometrically down to a certain scale, known as Plank's constant. So, using GR, cosmologist have a description of the universe untill we get to a point so small that the equations in GR can't define the space anymore.That is the point, bellow Plank's constant, were the laws of QM take over. So now this infinitely small point is described using the laws of QM. What this means is that cosmologist can describe the universe geometrically using GR untill Plank's constant T=10-43, and beyond that point it is described by QFT.Here's where a unifying theory would combine both the equations of GR and QFT, that would explain how the 4 fundamental forces emerge from this quantum state at the point of the BB, at T=10-43. These forces are what expanded to create our 4-D universe an thus is the "beginning" of spacetime, but NOT the beginning of everthing. This is what cavediver was getting at about it changing from one state to another. You do understand that at T=0 we're still dealing with an infintely small scale, right? The scientific theory that describes how this infintely small scale acts is QFT. Yes, but how? That is what I'm trying to get at. The how of that question. Which I answered above. Ok. Ok. At a point before T=10-43, because, if you haven't understood this yet, T=10-43 is describing an infintely small point. So small that the equations in GR can't explain it, BUT, QFT does. So to understand conditions prior to T=10-43 we need to understand QFT.- OniEdited 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

I may as well ask before ICANT does.1) "Where" does this quantum field exist?
2) What caused this quantum field to exist?Feel free to completely ignore this if you don't think this is helpful or if you don't think this is going in the direction ICANT is ultimately aiming at.

No, it simply describes the universe down to a certain size, after that QM describes it.You are still misunderstanding what is meant by "begin." You are trying to rationalize it using human concepts of time. It does not mean begin as in a starting point, it means begin as in able to be described spacially.Kinda get it? How would you describe a quantum field? Would you give it properties such as space and time? No, of course not. Therefore it is not the 4-D universe that we are in, it is smaller and lacks spacial dimensions. If space and time define existance, then something lacking the space and time functions cannot be defined equally as existance, but is described as an infinte point. From that emerges the properties of spacial dimensions, spontaneously. It simply changes states.Kinda get it? Then what does QM deal with if not a point smaller than what is described at T=10-45? This is why you don't make sense. Science deals with scales smaller than what is described at T=10-45. I linked in the other QFT, read it and ask questions. Don't just assume you "get it." What you are failing to understand is that T=10-45 is describing a SIZE. Beyond that size GR breaks down and QM takes over describing conditions smaller than T=10-45 with laws like the uncertainty principle, etc.- 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

Question 1, the "where," is simple. It is the "where."However, question 2, I would really be stepping way out of what I have some knowledge on. I'm comfortable talking about GR and cosmolgy to that point, even though I'm quite sure I don't fully grasp it myself, but explaining quantum fields is not something I'm familiar with. I just know that the universe can be described spacially using GR up untill Plank's constant, which happens to be T=10-45, beyond that infinitely small point it is described by QM and laws like the uncertainty principle, etc.Perhaps cavediver can explain how these fields exist free of spacial dimensions and how they emerge. And where I may be mistaken.- Oni

Hi Michmus, You speak for the BBT now, do you?Actually cavediver explained this fairly well when he said it was just a rearranging of existing things.Therein lies the problem of you explaining what Hawking said to me.Hawking said: "the universe has not always existed".
Hawking said: "the universe and time began in the Big Bang".If they did not always exist then they had to begin to exist.Because they exist now, is the evidence for them beginning to exist.So no you haven't explained what Hawking said.So if you want to explain what Hawking meant please use his words and do so.I know of his instanton a self generating universe hypothesis which he and Guth put forth. Which is still at the starting gate. Don't you wish?Hawking did not say anything about a new beginning.He said: "has not always existed"Especially when as far as we know 'no thing' existed prior to T=10^-43. You don't have any that it did either.You will not have direct evidence for either prior to T=10^-43 as it was 1 trillion degrees kevin according to Son Goku.Hawking was convinced the universe began to exist.Einstein was convinced by GR that the universe began to exist.So I can't help it if you are not convinced.You see I am not convinced either as I believe it has always existed, just like Einstein believed before GR and even inserted a fudge factor to keep it that way until exposed.So no you have not convinced me Hawking did not mean what he said. He might have changed his mind later but he did not add a foot note explaining what he meant at the end of the lecture.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."

They don't. In a standard 4d (semi-classical) General Relatvity, everything that exists is the Universe. Space-time and the quantum fields are part of the same "fabric". Think of space-time as a beach-ball, and the quantum fields as layers of paint on the beach-ball.The BB is just one point on the beach-ball. That point has no cause other than the actual existence of the beach-ball itself.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Hi Oni, But there is no QG theory yet.I started to say, but that has nothing to do with the beginning to exist of the Op.On further review I guess it does get down to the nitty gritty of the issue.I see you don't have a clue to where is either.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,Quick question no debate. Does this bring us full circle to the less than pea sized expanding universe at T=10^-43?Thanks,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."