God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Meh. As you showed, it still has it's problems. The whole form of the arguement is flawed in itself.Both points #1 and #2 are pretty much impossible to show to be true anyway. "Everything has a ______ (cause/beginning/North...whatever)". How can you verify such a thing? "Everything"?? Who knows everything? We can't even see most of the universe. Any arguement that starts as juvenile as that is only bound for failure.

Hello RCH, While physics may be a favored past time of mine, I am no expert. So I must differ to some of our expert posters in this field. I believe at this time there are many unexplained aspects of the quantum world. However I agree with the idea that, they do have a cause, which may be merely unknown at this point. I disagree; I believe it strengthens the argument. It may destroy the ability to inject a supernatural cause for the answer. However considering that all past arguments for natural processes, once favored God/s as the answer. Those were shown to be incorrect. I believe that this will eventually be the case for this very same argument. The problem is that the answer ends up with either.
1. The argument having to apply to the cause. i.e. if God is the cause, then what caused God? Or as Huntard says, turtles all the way down. Or,
2. Special pleading, on the unknowns of a supernatural entity. You have to inject unknowns on the ability of an unknown entity. Which if we were to be totally honest, we could just apply to the conditions of the universe, and that would be a valid answer to the argument as well.
These are the only two answers I continue to come up with, to the outcome of the argument. However if we insert that there may be valid natural causes to the beginning of the universe. Then the answer is. We simply do not know what caused the universe to unfold. The problem I see with this. Is that the KCA does not naturally point to a supernatural entity. That is merely your favored answer to the argument. However, with that answer you run into the problems that I brought up earlier.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Yes, that's what I intended.However, I should admit that I am simply taking subbie's word for it. I don't really know much about quantum stuffs and such.I do know, however, that claiming "everything has a cause" is certainly naive. How can some people think that "all I've ever seen in my life" is somehow a representation of everything in the entire universe?

RevCrossHugger writes;

quote:

---

First that the universe began to exist means that time as defined by physics began to exist as well. Now I am claiming this because its big bang cosmology. There are some theories that say time existed ”before’ the big bang and others that say quantum loop gravity etc allows an out for a universe that begins to exist. However both I and Craig rely on Big Bang cosmology that tells us time began to exist about 14B years ago shortly after T-0 (time zero or the when the big bang ”banged’ so to speak).

---

I cringed as I read my original post , its difficult to read. I must of been tired when I wrote it! My apologizes to the members who suffered through it.Anyway~PaulK writes;

quote:

---

Time could not "begin to exist" "shortly after T-0" - it must exist AT T-0. Also, since we have no information about anything prior to the Big Bang any version of the KCA which assumes that will also fail.

---

Well, not so fast Paul. First the reason I said shortly after T-0 is that our physics only allow us a glimpse close (albeit very close) to time zero. Secondly I feel you are incorrect that we can not at least make logical and reasonable assumptions to what happed before/or outside time the big bang

quote:

---

No, it does not help. All it does is present the way Craig attempts to escape the infinite regress. However, even this does not work.

---

Hmm’ I came to the same conclusion as Dr Craig? Wonderful !

quote:

---

Since time itself must always exist (by definition), seen from "outside" it, too is "eternal" (there are arguments involving other time dimensions but the same argument may be applied to them, necessitating an infinite regress).

---

First, I do not agree that time must always existed. That is a theory and a theory that has no empirical evidence to back it up. There are many different 'timeless' theories so, do you have a source for that information? According to the prevailing scientific theory (Big Bang cosmology) time was created 'in' the BB. That means that time did not exist at some point, but the 'cause' did exist sans time via deductive logic of the KCA.I am aware of some of the theories that presuppose that time has always existed but they are not well supported. So forgive me I support Big Bang cosmology that tells that spacetime was created ”in’ the big bang.

quote:

---

I will attempt to explain again. When we are talking about a beginning we usually mean a transition from a state where the object in question does not exist to one where it does - and it is that transition that requires a cause (ignoring the question of causation at the Quantum level). However, if the object exists at the very first instant of time there is no such transition.

---

Why ? Just because an object exists at the “very first instant of time “ does not give it a special privilege. The universe did not exist then it did. So we should agree that by definition it (the universe) began to exist ”with time or in time or parallel to time.” (just trying to find the most accurate wording).Of course science can not even say anything happened at the “very first instant of time"because our physics break down “at t=10-43 seconds*“straight away after the Big Bang (t=0). So your statement is faulty or speculation with no evidence to support it (due to the mentioned break down of physics). It was an interesting rebuttal but with all due respect upon close examination it fails.BTW I think the lower case t for time is the accurate usage and apologize for the mistake. An upper case T usually represents intuitive time to physicists, I had them reversed and am surprised that no one noticed the blunder!

quote:

---

And if there is no such transition we need nothing to cause the transition. So, given that we are speaking of something different from our usual ideas of "beginnings" should we still call it a "beginning" ?

---

Yes. For reasons elucidated above.

quote:

---

And if we do, surely we must call into question the idea that such a "beginning" requires a cause - since we are missing the very element that a cause is invoked to explain.

---

With all due respect, I don’t think you have made your case for that statement. Thanks for your friendly reply.*....(as per the web ie the first three min.) ,
; }> Edited by RevCrossHugger, : Grammar and syntax

---

God is Dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead-God"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

It is know that virtual particles are "real". They have measurable effects. And again, they are know to be real now and Higgs and the LHC has nothing to do with it. Your spouting nonsense.In either case, you need to learn to distinguish between insult and statement of fact. It matters not to me whether you respond to my posts or not, but are you saying you'll ignore reality if it isn't spoon fed you as you like it?

---

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

Stile wrote;

quote:

---

Yes, that's what I intended.
However, I should admit that I am simply taking subbie's word for it. I don't really know much about quantum stuffs and such.

---

With all due respect to stubbie sometimes I take what someone says as fact or near fact and sometimes I don’t. For example I take Hawking's word as fact most of the time when he is discussing quantum field equations. Not all the time as when he attempts to rid us of the BB model of cosmology!So you are welcome to allow trust anyone you wish, but forgive me if I question the authority of the source information (in this case a members opinion). Additionally, I asked for some specific examples. I will go back over the posts and check for requested information.

quote:

---

I do know, however, that claiming "everything has a cause" is certainly naive.

---

Well the correct statement is ; Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. So you are in error, not bad but an error nevertheless. Then when you claim that its an nave claim just does not make sense to me.

quote:

---

How can some people think that "all I've ever seen in my life" is somehow a representation of everything in the entire universe?

---

Again there is a quantifier that states what begins to exist has a cause for its existence. That said we know that by examples of causality and cause and effect this applies to everything (that we know in our history). With all due respect and in my opinion it's much more naive to think that nearly everything that begins to exist has no cause. No that's not worded very nicely but IMO the opposite is true. ~; {>Peace on earth for the unseen war rages on ~Edited by RevCrossHugger, : replacing missing quote tagsEdited by RevCrossHugger, : wrong name

---

God is Dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead-God"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

Ok, Now I want a bit more on the "infinite past" and how this gives us anything that exists without a cause but has a noninfinite past.

Hi NosyNed. I am not sure what you mean by an infinite past. I allowed that the past(time) began near T-0. The cause being independent of time ie atemoral or eternal if you wish did not begin to exist so solves the problem of infinite regression.Thanks for your reply

---

God is Dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead-God"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

lyx2no writes;

quote:

---

More Blubbering.

---

No (timely) response required.; {>

Stile writes;

quote:

---

Both points #1 and #2 are pretty much impossible to show to be true anyway. "Everything has a ______ (cause/beginning/North...whatever)". How can you verify such a thing? "Everything"?? Who knows everything? We can't even see most of the universe. Any arguement that starts as juvenile as that is only bound for failure.

---

The north analogy is not valid. Its attractive because its simple. Its simple yes, however its not accurate. Premise is easy to verify and fits the bill for a rational and reasonable statement. I asked for examples for anything that did not have an cause for its existence, where are they, that is any that I have not shown to be false. (I may of missed them because of the amount of replies I generate); {>That you think natural law is different in a part of the universe is incorrect demonstrates why your argument is ineffective. No examples to support your claims and that last statement does not help your argument against the KCA.Its time to go to the lake....

---

God is Dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead-God"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

How do you not see that the above reasoning also relieves the the problem of cause?

---

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

The good reverend appears to be ignoring messages of substance We can but try again... 1. Complete nonsense.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.The only possibility we have seen for something having a semblance of "begins to exist" is in the cosmological space-times of General Relativity (and related and expanded theories), of which a subset form the basis of Big Bang cosmology. These fall into two sets: those that have no-prior cause, and those that do. Those that do explicity break proposition 2.The KCA simply reveals an immense ignorance of modern physics - not surprising given that the KCA belongs to an age long ago...

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but how's this...Ever since SR and Minkowski, we have known that our Universe is based upon a four dimensional space, with a non-definite metric: one of the four dimensions appears with opposite sign to the other three in the space-time metric - usually this is the t-time dimension. This indefiniteness introduces a causal structure to space-time. Space-time "evolves" from past to future, always obeying causality: point p can only be affected by events in p's past light-cone and point p can only affect events in p's future light-cone.In a infinite past space-time, there are always past light cones, and no first cause external to the space-time is required.In the classical Big Bang scenario, past light cones all converge on the past singularity. Admittedly, this past singularity is the perfect point to posit God, fairies, the Illuminati, Paul Bunyan, etc.This is where Hartle and Hawking tried their hands at some early quantum cosmology. By looking at first order quantum corrections to the Big Bang, they found that you can remove the singularity and patch that part of the space-time with a Euclidean region of space. This is four-dimensional space with definite metric. It has no causal structure, and no cause and effect. It is like an elliptic differential equation (2OPDE)- it is solved by consistency with the surrounding boundary conditions, rather than evolving the solution as with the, e.g. the wave equation. There is thus no "beginning" to the Universe any more, just an initial time-less region from which springs our causality following space-time.In this case, the cause of the "beginning" of the Universe, if one is insisted upon, is the rest of the Universe. It matters not that happens to be forward in time of the beginning. As I have been saying here for the last four years, the Universe just IS

Thank you cavediver. I was one Plank distance away from invoking your post but didn't want to besmirch your name by associating it with such a pissy sort as myself.Love your answers to NN.Edited by lyx2no, : Correct a pronoun.

---

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

Actually, neither was I. However, I think I have as much answer as I need. I might have a tenuous grasp of what you are on about too but that might be my own self-evaluation fooling me.