Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
54 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (4 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,231 Year: 4,343/6,534 Month: 557/900 Week: 81/182 Day: 15/38 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
ICANT
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 271 of 308 (518481)
08-06-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Straggler
08-06-2009 5:49 AM


Re: "Before"
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

ICANT if time itself began at T=0 how can there be a "before"?

Time did not begin at T=0.

What you are refering to as time is not time. You are refering to the distance from today back to where inapplicable mathematics, define a ultra-dense, ultra-hot state.

So man devises a way to measure that distance and calls it time.

Straggler writes:

Can you define "before" in a sense that is independent of time existing?

Well actually there is no before.

There is no after.

There is only now.

Time does not exist, as it is a man made tool.

Time has been studied for over 2500 years (by our way of caculating time) and we are no closer now to having an answer to the question, 'What is time'?

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 268 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 5:49 AM Straggler has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by cavediver, posted 08-06-2009 10:11 AM ICANT has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 272 of 308 (518488)
08-06-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by ICANT
08-06-2009 9:56 AM


Re: "Before"
Well actually there is no before.

There is no after.

There is only now.

Time does not exist, as it is a man made tool.

Time has been studied for over 2500 years (by our way of caculating time) and we are no closer now to having an answer to the question, 'What is time'?

ICANT, what is the point of asking questions and having people spend time trying to answer them if you are simply going to insert your own ideas into the conversation as "obvious" facts, when they are unfounded and largely incorrect?

The question "what is time?" has many answers, depending on the context, and we have a hell of better idea of the nature of the various times now than we did 120 years ago. If you are simply going to parrot idiocies such as "we have no idea what time is", as other cranks and know-it-alls often state that "we have no idea what gravity is", then participating in this subject is useless and a waste of everyone's time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 9:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 10:42 AM cavediver has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 273 of 308 (518489)
08-06-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
08-06-2009 6:16 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

You seem to be implying that it would be impossible for something to begin to exist without cause? Yes? On what basis do you make that conclusion?

Yes.

For most of my life I built things.

I have an amazing computer program that I draw houses with. I can place anything in and around the house even down to the silverware.
I then download the current day prices of all items that have been placed in the drawing and the program will give me to the penny cost of all items. If all work is to be done by piecework it gives me the total cost of the item.

I then purchase said items and build the house.

Many years ago it was not that way. We had to cut the trees down and have them sawed into the material to build the house out of.

Prior to that they just used the trees.

If you go back far enough you will find people used caves to live in.

If you go back far enough you get a ultra-dense, ultra-hot state which is inapplicable mathematics.

There has been a cause for everything from that now until this present now.

Why should that now be exempt from a cause?

BTW what difference does anything I think matter? My thinking will not change, what or why any thing 'is'.

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 269 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 6:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 11:32 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 281 by Phage0070, posted 08-06-2009 1:20 PM ICANT has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 274 of 308 (518496)
08-06-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by cavediver
08-06-2009 10:11 AM


Re: "Before"
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

The question "what is time?" has many answers,

Many answers does not sound like we are getting close to an answer.

Zeno, Plao, Spinoza and McTaggart all said time is nothing because it does not exist.

Aristole said: "time is the measure of change".

Newton argued very specifically that time and space are an infinitely large container for all events, and that the container exists with or without the events.

Kant said, "said time and space are forms that the mind projects upon the external things-in-themselves."

Some physicists argue that both space and time are the product of some more basic micro-substrate.

Nobody can agree what that substrate is.

Some say space is basic and time is not.

In 2004, after winning the Nobel Prize in physics, David Gross expressed this viewpoint:

"Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

cavediver writes:

a waste of everyone's time.

Yea like the time I wasted researching and making sure of what of what I was trying to say in Re: Rational & More Rational (Message 259).

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 272 by cavediver, posted 08-06-2009 10:11 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by cavediver, posted 08-06-2009 12:38 PM ICANT has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 275 of 308 (518512)
08-06-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by lyx2no
08-06-2009 8:24 AM


Re: Trivial Footing
lyx2no writes:

Down.

And just where would down be from the Hubble Space Telescope?

Would that be toward earth?

So let me rephrase the question.

Taking earth as down and the Hubble looking away from the earth at 180°

In the 96 minute orbit around the earth the Hubble is able to take pictures from a 360° view from the earth. Correct me if this is wrong.

Is there anywhere in that 360° view that the Hubble Space Telescope can not see 10 to 20 billion light years away?

If the Hubble was rotated from that plane to view 90° to it's left or right would it still be able to see 10 to 20 billion light year away.

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 270 by lyx2no, posted 08-06-2009 8:24 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by lyx2no, posted 08-06-2009 2:40 PM ICANT has taken no action

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 276 of 308 (518515)
08-06-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by ICANT
08-06-2009 10:14 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
ICANT what answer will satisfy you?

You obviously don't like the answers we are giving you. So what answer is there that I could possibly give that would make you go "ah an honest and believable answer from one of these science advocates at long long last"

Enlighten me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 10:14 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 277 of 308 (518519)
08-06-2009 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Straggler
08-06-2009 11:32 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

ICANT what answer will satisfy you?

I have a preconceived answer that I have had since I was 10 years old.

Nobody taught me that answer. I came to those conclusion after reading Genesis 1:1. Right or wrong that is what my answer is based upon.

Now everybody tells me that answer is wrong.

I ask for evidence that it could be another way. I get, "we don't know".

Yet everybody is positive I am wrong.

I gave you an example of me being able to build things in my lifetime.

Now if I went to the lumber store and to get the materials I needed to build a house.

I tell tell the man I need:
1800 Block He says sorry cement does not exist yet.

200 2 x 4's He says sorry trees don't exist yet.

I would get the feeling I was not going to build that house.

So since for my entire life there has always been a cause for everything I come in contact with why should you expect me to accept an uncaused 'some thing' to begin to exist.

Give me some hard evidence that it can happen.

I will not accept by faith that 'some thing' which did not exist began to exist without a cause.

That is like me trying to get you to accept that God exists. You want hard evidence that He does exist. You will not accept by faith that He does exist.

I hope this lets you see the position that I am in.

Problem.

OP proposition #1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

It don't exist. It begins to exist. Why? It had a cause. (I can accept that regardless of the cause).

Your position.

Proposition #1 is wrong. Anything that begins to exist does not have a cause for its existence.

It didn't exist. It begins to exist. Why? No reason it just exists. (I can't accept that as I have a lot of follow up why questions.)

Correct me if I misrepresented your position.

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 276 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 11:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Phage0070, posted 08-06-2009 1:28 PM ICANT has taken no action
 Message 284 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 308 (518521)
08-06-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
08-06-2009 6:16 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Straggler writes:

On what basis do you make that conclusion? Lack of observation?


If that is the reason, then he must similarly conclude that it is impossible for something to begin to exist *with* a cause. Neither have been observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 6:16 AM Straggler has taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 279 of 308 (518522)
08-06-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ICANT
08-06-2009 10:42 AM


Re: "Before"
Many answers does not sound like we are getting close to an answer.

Oh great, just when like a complete twat I think you're actually going to engage in some sensible conversation, you devolve into your usual idiot self.

Th reason that there are several answers is because there are several different concepts that utilise the word "time".

Zeno, Plao, Spinoza and McTaggart all said time is nothing because it does not exist.

Yeah, and they knew fuck-all about time.

Aristole said: "time is the measure of change".

Yeah, and Aristotle knew fuck-all about time.

Newton argued very specifically that time and space are an infinitely large container for all events, and that the container exists with or without the events.

Yeah, and Newton knew little about time and space compared to what we know now.

Kant said, "said time and space are forms that the mind projects upon the external things-in-themselves."

Yeah, and Kant knew fuck-all about time and space.

Some physicists argue that both space and time are the product of some more basic micro-substrate.

Yes, we do. And so what? Does that fact mean that higher level concepts are utter unknowns. Does this mean we also do not understand the nature of atoms? molecules? rocks? monkeys?

Nobody can agree what that substrate is.

It has nothing to do with "agreeing". There are many ideas. They are all works in progress. Not all will be right. So? This is how science works and how it has always works.

quote:
"Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

Yes, David and I used to talk about this fifteen years ago. So what? That doesn't mean we don;t understand space-time. It means we don't yet have any firm ideas of what underlies space-time.

Your problem is that you read a statement like David's, and you think "ha ha, they haven't got a fucking clue - and so my idea is probably right"

The problem is straight from your own mouth - you had an idea, and you are convinced it is right. And the only way you will accept anything different is if a complete answer with proof is provided. Well, I'm sorry, that is not how it works. I would say that both you and Smooth Operator have unbelievable arrogance to think the way you do, but to be honest, I think it simply comes from being too stupid to realise otherwise. Which I guess is more forgivable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 10:42 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 280 of 308 (518533)
08-06-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by ICANT
08-05-2009 10:07 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
I stay confused.

Yep, and once again I think that's the way you are going to stay. I keep getting tempted back to answer your questions, and explain our understanding of space-time. But each time it devolves into you telling us how it is via your quote-mines, your mis-understandings, and your certainty that you are right and we are all wrong. I was just about to explain your confusion, when you came back with that "no-one understands time" idiocy. With that attitude, once again, I am outta here.

Over two years you have completely failed to understand what has been shown you. We have tried to explain the various analogies, and what each represents, but you insist on interpreting everything through the way you think things work, and you are doomed to failure. Others here have picked up an immense knowledge through both what I and Son Goku have written, and what they have read from other sources. It's fantastic to see how much has been learnt. In the same time, you have not. It is not because you are intellectually challenged. It is not because you are seventy (my grandfather is ninety and is my gardener.) It is because you are exceptionally stubborn and you are inextricably wedded to your own ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2009 10:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 08-07-2009 12:09 AM cavediver has taken no action

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 308 (518535)
08-06-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by ICANT
08-06-2009 10:14 AM


Re: Rational & More Rational
ICANT writes:

For most of my life I built things.
...
Why should that now be exempt from a cause?


You are confusing building things with "making" things. For an analogy, you are confusing finger-painting with making paint. Or perhaps being an interior designer who rearranges furniture and such into a "new" room.

You may have bought a fork for a house, but have you ever made a fork? That was made from metal, lets say Iron. The iron was made from electron, protons, and neutrons through other processes. It keeps on going back in a similar manner.

You have never observed anything actually being made, simply rearranged.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 10:14 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 308 (518537)
08-06-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ICANT
08-06-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
ICANT writes:

I have a preconceived answer that I have had since I was 10 years old.

Nobody taught me that answer. I came to those conclusion after reading Genesis 1:1. Right or wrong that is what my answer is based upon.

Now everybody tells me that answer is wrong.


Does it really surprise you that a 10 year old with approximately zero scientific knowledge (judging from your current performance) reading a fictional book of myth written by primitive humans 2000+ years behind current knowledge, ends up coming to a "gut" conclusion that is incorrect? Does it surprise you that people consider you dumber than a fence post for hanging on to this concept for no particular reason?

ICANT writes:

So since for my entire life there has always been a cause for everything I come in contact with why should you expect me to accept an uncaused 'some thing' to begin to exist.


You are comparing apples to oranges. There has always been a cause for everything you have come into contact with, but you have never seen *anything* created! Only rearranged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 12:12 PM ICANT has taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 283 of 308 (518555)
08-06-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by ICANT
08-06-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Trivial Footing
So, out of 300 nicely chosen words you found one of them: down.

Oh well.

Would that be toward earth?

Yes.

In the 96 minute orbit around the earth the Hubble is able to take pictures from a 360� view from the earth. Correct me if this is wrong.

Is there anywhere in that 360� view that the Hubble Space Telescope can not see 10 to 20 billion light years away?

If the Hubble was rotated from that plane to view 90� to it's left or right would it still be able to see 10 to 20 billion light year away.

And this was well answered in the sentence before "down". To whit:

ICANT writes:

Is there any direction that the Hubble Space Telescope can look in and not see 10 to 20 billion light years out into space?

lyx writes:

No. The real Universe is viewed in 3D. It is the beach ball model that is viewed in 2D.

Not that "down" doesn't also answer the question.

You pulled four words out of my post before the one under discussion. Was the rest a waste of time? I guess you've confirmed my statement about your not trying to learn. There's always that.


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 275 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 11:27 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 284 of 308 (518563)
08-06-2009 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ICANT
08-06-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Straggler writes:

ICANT what answer will satisfy you?

You obviously don't like the answers we are giving you. So what answer is there that I could possibly give that would make you go "ah an honest and believable answer from one of these science advocates at long long last"

Enlighten me.

ICANT writes:

I have a preconceived answer that I have had since I was 10 years old. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

ICANT I don't need your life story. I just want to know what answer it is that you think can be given from a physically evidenced science point of view that you will consider believable and honest.

Am I right in assuming that you consider the answers that you have been given to date to be unbelievable and/or evasive/dishonest? You certainly don't seem satisfied with them. Otherwise you would not keep pursuing this with us.

I am trying to get to the heart of your 2+ year point here. Beachballs, raisin cakes, 2D, 4D, T=10^-43 etc. etc. are all a distraction from what I believe you are really getting at. What is your underlying point in a nutshell?

What science based physically evidenced answer could I give you that you would consider believable and honest?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 12:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by ICANT, posted 08-06-2009 6:29 PM Straggler has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 285 of 308 (518603)
08-06-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Straggler
08-06-2009 2:53 PM


Re: Rational & More Rational
Hi Straggler,

In Re: Rational & More Rational (Message 276) you asked.

"ICANT what answer will satisfy you?"

I answered in Re: Rational & More Rational (Message 277)

"So since for my entire life there has always been a cause for everything I come in contact with why should you expect me to accept an uncaused 'some thing' to begin to exist.

Give me some hard evidence that it can happen."

Straggler writes:

ICANT I don't need your life story. I just want to know what answer it is that you think can be given from a physically evidenced science point of view that you will consider believable and honest.

So give me some hard evidence that 'some thing' that begins to exist does not have a cause for its existence.

To clarify begins to exist. = It has never existed but all of a sudden it begins to exist.

Do you have anything to offer as evidence?
Can I assume I stated your position correctly concerning #1?
As you did not correct me,or was that an oversite?

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 284 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 2:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2009 6:49 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 287 by Rahvin, posted 08-06-2009 7:05 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022