Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 226 of 308 (518231)
08-04-2009 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
08-04-2009 4:31 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
I have defined eternity on several occasions.
Eternity is one great big now. No beginning and no end.
Time as you and I know it is just a speck in that Now.
The God of Genesis 1:1 views all of Now at the same time.
Hope to see you there.
OK. It's a date. What time shall we meet? Be punctual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 4:31 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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 228 of 308 (518234)
08-04-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by cavediver
08-01-2009 7:00 PM


Re: These "Things"
So whatever value it has at T=0, or T=-infinity, it has this value for all values of T.
Ok.
Actually, it's a bit more complex as you can have CC dominating or matter dominating, and this creates a different behaviour.
Is the difference in behaviour described as positive or negative gravitational acceleration?
When the universe began to expand, did that increase the matter energy density, creating negative pressure to the (v) energy density, which created negative gravitational acceleration, causing inflation?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2009 7:00 PM cavediver has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 229 of 308 (518241)
08-04-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Straggler
08-04-2009 4:27 PM


Re: The Bottom Line
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
And Einstein like all good scientists changed his theory when it disagreed with observation. Would you be willing to do the same?
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.
Straggler writes:
You can demand whatever you feel is necessary to convince you. You can accept explanations or not as is your indisputable personal right.
Explanation are not evidence.
Anything that has been presented concerning anything prior to T=10-43 is pure speculation. Speculaton is not evidence.
None of it carrys anymore weight than me saying God did it, I just don't know how He did it.
That is what all of you have been telling me. Let me sum it up.
I have been told the BBT starts at T=10-43 and explains pretty well how everything happned up till now. Well it turns out that inflation which is necessry to fix a lot of problems with the BBT is not an accepted theory yet. It is accepted that it is necessary. Ok lets say I swallow the BBT theory with all its problems.
Now I am told prior to T=10-43 'we don't know'.
Yet for the last 2 days + I have been told all kinds of things that has to be in the 'we don't know' area as if they were a scientific fact and it has been demanded that I accept it as fact like you guys do.
Well I am sorry I am still stuck on the explanation of 'we don't know'.
So you guys accept all this stuff by faith if you want to just count me out.
Don't get me wrong I have enjoyed the barrage of information. I have enjoyed all the wild speculation that has been put forth. And since I keep copies of everything it may be useful in the future.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2009 4:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2009 5:29 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 232 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2009 6:43 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 234 by cavediver, posted 08-05-2009 4:32 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 230 of 308 (518245)
08-04-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Michamus
08-04-2009 4:50 PM


Re: Inconsistent and Selective
Michamus writes:
Go ahead, completely misrepresent, and misunderstand Einstein
All I did was ask a question.
Do you care to answer it?
Apparantly not you could have done that with less typing.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Michamus, posted 08-04-2009 4:50 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Michamus, posted 08-04-2009 7:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 231 of 308 (518246)
08-04-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
08-04-2009 5:15 PM


Re: The Bottom Line
Explanation are not evidence.
Fine. But explanations that result in verified predictions are evidenced. That is what science is attempting to do. That is what science has a long and distinguished history of doing. That is where the cosmological models that you find so offensive are derived from. Observation. Evidence. Prediction. Verification.
Did we build the LHC because we want to test our current theories and modify them if necessary? Or did we build it to blindly ignore any results that don't fit with our current thinking?
Goddidit as an answer is a pointless dead end that "explains" everything whilst providing understanding of nothing. It has failed every test so far put to it. Why do you think it will fare any better with regard to these questions?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 5:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 232 of 308 (518262)
08-04-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
08-04-2009 5:15 PM


Re: The Bottom Line
I have been told the BBT starts at T=10-43 and explains pretty well how everything happned up till now. Well it turns out that inflation which is necessry to fix a lot of problems with the BBT is not an accepted theory yet. It is accepted that it is necessary. Ok lets say I swallow the BBT theory with all its problems.
The Big Bang did not start at T=10-43. That is merely our first glimpse into it. If an event happens at x.5/32 sec, and I have a movie camera that has a frame rate of 32 fps that doesn't mean the event started to happen when my first frame captured it.
Furthermore, that doesn't mean that we can't make some guesses prior to that. It is not likely that Eric idol played Arthur Ashe in death match mahjong during that time*. If you agree, then I hope that you can extend that to if one knows the physics well enough there are all kinds of things that can be eliminated as possibilities. Eliminate enough possibilities and you start being able to form a few, sketchy possibilities. Sketchy possibilities aren't much maybe, but it's more then pure speculation. One of the possibilities is that the Big Bang started at T=0. Just a guess?
Ok lets say I swallow the BBT theory with all its problems.
This is another place you keep running off even though you've been told you're running off. Inflation is a refinement of the BBT, not a patch. Say I'm working on the car. I develop an hypothesis that I'm having a spark problem in #3. I pull the plug and find that the side electrode is welded to the center electrode. Upon close examination I find that the occlusion is the end of a small, throttle spring that had broken off and was sucked into the cylinder. I now replace the spring and clear the plug. I didn't patch up an hypothesis with problems; I added a new insight.
And since I keep copies of everything it may be useful in the future.
Keeping it for the future would only be useful if you understood it. But every word said to you goes through an ICANT filter and gains a meaning that the presenter could never guess would be attributed to their words. And you'll still be saying the Big Bang started at T=10-43, and that inflation is a patch on a flawed theory come fall. Then you'll say something self depreciating to coax out yet another explanation for the ICANT filters.
Finally, let me return to this. You seem to have ignored it first time round.
lyx writes:
let us say we have an effect, when did the cause occur: before it or after it? If we are speaking about the creation of the Universe, which is synonymous with the creation of time, there was no before. That leaves two possibilities: the cause happened after the effect; or, the creation of the Universe was not an effect.
*Ridiculousness precludes one from mistaking the example as a point for discussion. Were I to give an example such as "The rate of inflation at T=10-36 limits negative, gravitation partial pressures to be expressed to T=10-57." you'd be demanding proof of that bit of nonsense. Don't allow the ridiculousness of an example blind you to the point.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 5:15 PM ICANT has not 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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 234 of 308 (518295)
08-05-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
08-04-2009 5:15 PM


Re: The Bottom Line
When his bad math was exposed he then changed his theory to match observations.
There was no 'bad math' in the slightest. The cosmological constant is a perfect and necessary part of General Relativity. All Einstein did was pick a value for the CC that gave the Einstein Static Universe, because like most others at the time, he believed the Universe was static. Observational evidence from Hubble is what demonstrated his 'error' - the reason he regarded it as such a huge blunder was because he could have made the prediction that the Universe was either expanding or collapsing had he not been so blinded by the convention that the Universe was static.
Yet for the last 2 days + I have been told all kinds of things that has to be in the 'we don't know' area as if they were a scientific fact and it has been demanded that I accept it as fact like you guys do.
You really have lost sight of what is being discussed here. We have a claim that the KCA is a sound argument. All I need to demonstrate that the argument is not sound is to point out uncertainty within its assumptions. There are many possibilities, most of which I haven't touched on in this thread. I have no idea which are correct. But that is not important for this current discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 5:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 235 of 308 (518297)
08-05-2009 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by ICANT
08-04-2009 1:03 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
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.
Does this bring us full circle to the less than pea sized expanding universe at T=10-43?
No, the beach ball is the enire 4d Universe, Big Bang and Big Crunch and everything in between. Pick a point as the BB. This is T=0. T=10-43 is a tiny circle around the T=0 point. We do not have the technology yet to describe what is happening inside that circle. Everything outside this circle is understandable with our present physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 1:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2009 11:56 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 236 of 308 (518298)
08-05-2009 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by ICANT
08-04-2009 1:13 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
The universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is only 15 billion or so years.
For standard Big Bang cosmology, I couldn't have put it better myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2009 1:13 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 237 of 308 (518300)
08-05-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by onifre
08-04-2009 1:34 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
So the smallest point of this "fabric" is what string theory is trying to explain?
No, string theory is trying to explain all of it, from the smallest point, to the entire space-time.
The BB is just one point on the beach-ball.
And that point would be the break in symmetry from which the 3- forces emerged? (excluding gravity, for now)
The symmetry would be broken a little way out from the point.
If there was no symmetry breaking, there would just be the ball - symmetry breaking results in the separate fields delaminating from the ball itself, and forming the 'layers of paint'.
If I can put it in my words to better understand it, the point has no cause because it is a function of the "beach ball" to break symmetry?
No - the lack of cause has nothing to do with symmetry. The point is just one part of the whole ball. It has no more cause than any other point on the ball.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by onifre, posted 08-04-2009 1:34 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2009 7:37 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 241 by onifre, posted 08-05-2009 11:37 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 247 by onifre, posted 08-05-2009 12:56 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 238 of 308 (518318)
08-05-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by cavediver
08-05-2009 5:23 AM


Cause
No - the lack of cause has nothing to do with symmetry. The point is just one part of the whole ball. It has no more cause than any other point on the ball.
Returning to my role as ICANT in disguise....
From a cosmologists point of view is there any point even speculating as to what "caused" the "ball" to exist such that there are any "points" at all? Does this question take us into the realm of the esoteric (such as colliding branes or whatever) or is it scientifically worthless random guessing?
This is where I think ICANT is trying to get to. Even if his obsession with T=10^-43 obscures this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by cavediver, posted 08-05-2009 5:23 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by cavediver, posted 08-05-2009 7:57 AM Straggler has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 239 of 308 (518319)
08-05-2009 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Straggler
08-05-2009 7:37 AM


Re: Cause
rom a cosmologists point of view is there any point even speculating as to what "caused" the "ball" to exist such that there are any "points" at all?
The one question which we will always ask is "why is there something rather than nothing?" - this is the fundemental question. If I were God, I would still be asking this question
Sure, we may well explain our 4d Universe from the perspective of string/M-theory, loop quantum gravity, etc, but it still leaves the above question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2009 7:37 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Parasomnium, posted 08-05-2009 8:26 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2009 11:57 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 240 of 308 (518323)
08-05-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by cavediver
08-05-2009 7:57 AM


Re: Cause
cavediver writes:
If I were God
Well, that's one theory out of the window...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by cavediver, posted 08-05-2009 7:57 AM cavediver 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