How many gods are there?

Sweet. I could use the money.

Invalid assumption. Neither you nor Kalam can prove this statement, because nothing has ever been observed coming into existence.

I'm inclined to suspect that this assumption is true, but an assumption cannot be used as a proof.

Invalid assumption. It may have had a beginning. It may have always existed. This statement cannot be validated yet.

Again, I suspect this assumption to be true, but it remains an unproven assumption.

Without both statements 1 and 2 being demonstrated valid, there is nothing to justify statement 3.

Ah, the big one. Why? Why is it necessarily a god?

Even if the statements 1, 2 and 3 all are proven to be true, statement 4 is still invalid. If we can demonstrate that the universe has a cause for its existence, couldn't the cause just as easily be impersonal natural forces?

Statement 4 is an unfounded statement of faith.

With all 4 statements of logic prior to this one being either unfounded, unproven, or statements of faith, there is no logical reason to assume statement 5 is correct.

I'll take that thousand dollars now. Australian dollars please. No American dollars.

(Patent pending)

 

​

Maybe because many are no longer alone with their own thoughts, we're out of touch and unable to hear that "still small voice".
But have an insurmountable problem or get cast into prison and "WHO ya gonna call?"
I've met some people who went through the 12 steps to sobriety from one addiction or the other. And almost invariably those who started out using a substitute for their "higher power" just so they could get through the program ended up believing in some version of Christianity.
Something about being able to nail every nagging detail to the cross and leave it their for Him to deal with, makes for a very inviting philosophy.
Anyway, works for me!
*That Time magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835309,00.html
Over the years books have been written and lately I think Peter Jennings did a piece. Wonder if he was searching?
*I'm afraid of the super collider. I waffle between poo-pooing my own thoughts as superstitious wives tales to thinking no don't mess with Mother nature or father God.
*But the human body is interesting in that everything man has invented is there as a pattern. Lungs are like high/low pressure zones on a weather map, heart is a pump with a separate electrical system that-get this-works off minute chemical charges our framework is a masterpiece right down to the big toe and opposable thumbs.
course the platypus is a wonderment. But Robin Williams tells us God was stoned at the time so that takes care of that.

 

Me too, but myself and others have already destroyed the KCA here.

Kindly continue the discussion of the KCA there.

 

Sorry the KCA is an integral part of my belief system. That's like telling an atheist; 'kindly please do not mention that you are an unbeliever, because we have already debated atheism in another thread'. This is the second time I have commented about that, so I hope you will not mention it again. I was actually answering another member who was claiming that there was zero evidence for (An) Gods existence, so my replies were on topic and relevant to this debate.

Oh well please tell me who was the judge that claimed the KCA was destroyed? (The KCA so no thanks is still debated by professional academics and has never been defeated). IN ADDITION (CAPS SO BECAUSE YOU HAVE MISSED THIS THREE TIMES NOW) THIS IS HOW THE KCA APPLIES TO THIS TOPIC AND TO ANSWER ANOTHER MEMBERS CLAIM IN THIS THREAD SAYING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF 'GOD'. So I will continue to bring up the KCA where its applicable Please stop derailing this thread by setting yourself up as judge jury and moderator.

Ra'h

 

Another thing that begins to exist is a virtual particle. There are many things that begin to exist. Even this thread or this reply is something that began to exist (it did not exist until I created it). So its an accepted fact that things begin to exist. If you get an erection that is something that begins did not exist before.

I don't claim the KCA is proof my friend I claim the KCA like other things are evdiences. Proving the existence of an intangible being that exists in an in-assessable dimension is much like proving someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with circumstantial evidence alone. I have never ever ever claimed I had proof of Gods existence, only so much evidence a reasonable rational sentient being (we humans) would agree that its much more reasonable to beleive in God than not.

According to the overwhelmingly accepted theory in science the Big Bang tells us the universe began about 14.7 billion years ago. I have to say again I find it highly amusing that until theists and educated men that beleive in God began developing theories that dovetailed with the Big Bang it was the darling of science. Now secular science is trying every trick in the book to distance themselves from the theory. Its sickening really.

Again there is not 100% proof for anything even this existence. However there is enough evidence to support it fully. The entire theory of Evolution has not been proven, however its accepted as near fact by the scientific community. The only difference and reason that its so whole heartily accepted by secular science is that it has no theistic implications.

Premises one and two are as true as you will find in the real world.

Saying the cause is not part of the KCA. Well it is in some renditions. However again what can cause a life giving universe (against all odds) to begin to exist? I can make the case that God is the best answer. Its meets the requirements of Occam's razor because God is the most simple answer. Additionally besides the KCA there are many other evdiences of Gods existence.

Yes it sure could. However there are absoultely no scientific theories that can support that claim that do not have serious I would say fatal problems. However if I hated the concept of God that is what I would claim. Its the best defensible position to take. However the only thing I am attempting to rebut is the atheist mantra that there is no rational evidence to support the existence of God. That is a supreme lie.

No faith is not supported by evidence. My claim is supported by evidence.

If that were true you would be correct but I have shown or will show that all four statements were valid etc.

You have not earned it when you do you will have your money. If I tried to pass off those rebuttals to a professional christian apologists like Craig he would tear me apart in a debate. But thanks for your thoughts and reply.

Ra'h

 

Ha great post. I beleive we are kindred souls that beleive essentially the same thing but arrived at truth by different paths. I do envy those that have pure enough faith that faith alone is enough. Perhaps today I could beleive on faith alone but it took a long time for that to happen.

Ra'h

 

Our observable universe began about 14.7 billion years ago. We don't know precisely what existed before that, but common sense (and observation) tells us that it wouldn't have been literally nothing - since the concept of "nothing" has pretty much no meaning scientifically anyway.

As for everything supposedly having a cause; firstly, if you really believe that, then what caused your God?

Secondly, why assume that anyway? Why assume that reality ALWAYS has to operate in some sort of totally linear, x+y=z way?

Thirdly, it doesn't actually appear to be true anyway. Virtual particles are continually blinking themselves in & out of existence all around us all the time (and were presumably doing so prior to the Big Bang too), and do so totally without any sort of apparent causation whatsoever.

So "everything has a cause" simply doesn't seem to describe the real world, as contrary as that may perhaps seem to our extremely limited perceptions & intuitions.

 

If god can be eternal, why can't the Universe be eternal?

 

With apologies to stroll.

So what? That doesnt mean all things had an beginning.

You are trying to apply the rules that exist within the universe to the universe itself.

Take this set, for instance:

X ∈ {2, 4, 8, 16, 32...}

It can be seen that within the set, each number is equal to the number previous to it, multiplied by 2.

Imagine the universe is the set, and all the numbers within it represents the matter in the universe. Imagine the laws that govern the set (i.e, multiplying by 2 each time), are akin to our laws of physics. Each number is contingent upon the number before it, and all numbers follow the same laws.

If someone were to "exist" within the set, they might deduce that the laws that govern the numbers within the set could apply to the set itself. Of course, this is wrong. The set is just an unchanging collection of data. The collection of data is never doubled.

Similarly, applying to laws of physics (which govern the matter in the universe) to the universe itself (which is a set of all matter), could certainly be a mistake resulting from a lack of perspective.

I hope that made some sense.

(Apologies to any mathematicians who might be groaning at my crude use of maths - feel free to correct any mistakes should you find them)

It is intended to be a logical proof, much like a mathematical proof.

If all premises are true, then the conclusion must, by the grace of logic, be true. However, in this case, the premises can not be demonstrated to be true.

I'm not distancing myself from the Big Bang theory. The theory states that the expansion of a singularity resulted in the universe we have now. We do not know if the singularity existed in a state of timelessness or if the singularity was the result of a previous collapsing universe, or any of hundreds of other possibilities. The current iteration of our universe began with the big bang, but beyond that is an unknown.

Did time even exist before the big bang? We dont know.

Is our universe merely the latest in an infinite cycle of bangs and crunches? We dont know. If true, though, it could hardly be said that the universe started with the big bang - it merely looped.

Is our universe merely a small part of a grander metaverse? We dont know.

To say that "the universe had a cause" is a premature statement at best.

Well, you can prove things mathematically.

Yes, but we arent dealing with the real world. We are dealing with the entire universe. We cannot presume that the laws that govern nature within universes apply to universes themselves.

Even if it does not reach the conclusion that the cause was God, you certainly are using it to justify that position.

Saying "its a god" is not a valid position when your real position should be stated as "I dont know".

"I dont know" is, far and away, the most easily defensible position you can take. For someone you prove you wrong, they must demonstrate that you do know, which is just balls-to-the-wall nutty.

I'm failing to see it.

They seem valid.

Maybe if the KCA had an "If" in front of every statement it would pass criticism.

 

Yeah, this about sums it up.

It is curious that some Christians feel the need to voice their obsession with 'proving' and 'disproving' their god in almost every thread here.

And the KCA is an abstract argument which doesn't endorse or reject any specific gods, it says nothing about the vengeful Christian God which supposedly punishes entire cities and nations for harbouring unbelievers, works miracles and answer prayers.

 

Sure there was.

Much like everything in religion gets altered to suit modern day needs and morals, except for the ones that even other religions look down on, like islam.

Not to mention the KCA is still begging the question and gives suppressed evidence.

Then there's the what if of, let's pretend for argument's sake that the KCA isn't bollocks, what makes you think it's your god? I'd wager your chances of being right are ... equal to everyone else of another religion who claims there is a god - leading back to, how many gods are there?

 

A virtual particle does not begin to exist. The "quantum foam" is not zero-energy. Any particle-pairs that pop out of it usurp some of that energy by the proportion E=MC^2.

Nothing is created in the process of the generation of virtual particles. Mutual annihilation, which occurs when a particle meets its anti-particle, also does not destroy anything.

No material actually begins to exist or ceases to exist in either instance.

Face it, your idea might be sort of cool if there were any examples of anything beginning to exist...but there are none.

 

"An erection begins to exist"??? It sprang into the universe from nothing? lols
And this is supposed to be evidence of the Christian god?

Oh dear, no platitude and misconception of philosophical concepts seems to be too cheap, poor KCA...
The original thread was better, but admittedly the blunders less bemusing.

 

Administrator/moderator please delete the reply above I accidentally posted the unedited version.

The edited version;

I refer you to cosmology/astronomy/ specifically Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) 101 Ms Triffid. According to the current accepted theory, i.e. the standard (hot) big bang model space-time (read as time) was created in the first three min of the Big Bang. As far as science is concerned there was no 'before' the universe begun to exist. However logic dictates that a universe cannot come from absolutely nothing! So to discover what happened before that road block where science can not go with its current set of tools, we, (including eminent mathematicians and logicians including theoretical physicists) must us* logic and other intangible tools. Hawkins, Godel, Einstein, and others use such intangible tools (non empirical or lab work etc) like math philosophy observation and other avenues of science etc for discovery.

*because science i.e. physics fail us as we go past the first three min to 'before' time or the big bang. Actually, to use the correct terminology we should say that the anything before the first three min. was outside of time. However for the sake of understanding this brief abstract/discussion we should use the term 'before' the BB or time). So only the tools of Modal and deductive logic as well as other tools of philosophy and science etc as employed by cosmological arguments can peer beyond the first three min (after the universe began to exist)* and what our current physics and pure empirical science can tell us what happened before the universe began to exist.

So I am not satisfied* with pure science that refuses to accept non lab evidence or intangible evidence. Their attempt to hide behind the tired old mantra 'if it’s not empirically testable it is meaningless' is a shortsighted and unproductive sixteenth century way of thinking. IMO that is a huge obstacle to discovery and a primary reason of why so-called modern science can not describe the origins of the universe. The various fields do not share information and are often confrontational. Examples abound and it’s a well-known problem.

* The atheist Hawkins and most theoretical physicists, including Einstein often reject empirical science and use logic math (even to the point of imaginary numbers and other fabrications) to discover what science can not. Valid Cosmological arguments use the same tools and must conform to strict rules to be valid, they are not some made up weasel worded fabrication, as some truly ignorant laypeople would have us believe.

* The first three min was a famous book well known to freshman college types seeking a job in the field of astrophysics

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html

I have already answered that just a post or two ago. This is why I love the gentle logic and elegance of the first three premises. They form the core logical syllogism of the KCA. It’s why I use the KCA in its modern form as a benchmark in my belief of a creator God/GID (a term I coined five years ago meaning God the Intelligent Designer) For the logical syllogism of the KCA. If skeptical atheists could just lower their guard for a half hour, perhaps pour a glass of wine (I prefer peach snapps or brandy) and fire up a ...ummmm'...a cigar containing ones own choice of filler, and after reading and at least knowing the basics of the KCA give it some pure thought, I am sure an person of average intelligence and the ability to think outside the box could understand the simple logical trueness of this evergreen ‘theory’. Anyway, to answer your question you only have to read and understand this premise. What 'begins to exist' must have a cause of its existence. Since God was the cause that caused the universe to begin and time was created in the big bang, God must be atemporal ! Which fits in with the attributes of God, which is an entity that is by definition eternal? Additionally this entity or cause created a universe that was capable of creating sentient life against nearly impossible odds (of being created by natural means)

It doesn't have to operate in a linear way. However, the most rational reasonable answer is as per the conclusion of the KCA. The KCA does not rule out anything nor does it prove anything, it simply lends evidence to support the existence of God. Along with the other well-known evidences, I believe the cumulative weight of these evidences is an argument that does prove just in a legal trial, beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.

Your claim is not supported by according currently accepted theory. Nothing existed before the BB. Absolutely nothing according to contemporary currently accepted theory. Of course, there are all kinds of other theories of beginnings that use quantum gravity and various other non-empirically supported theories to explain how the universe began (or didn’t but simply continued to expand then contract forever). Nevertheless, I would rather use the BB theory that is supported by a nearly overwhelming amount of empirical evidence to tell me what happened AFTER the universe began to exist.

With all due respect, I must disagree. Take even a photon. It may be a wave before you measure or observe it. However, when you measure/observe it the 'wave function' collapses and it becomes either a particle or wave. Your act of observation causes either a particle or wave to begin to exist. The examples are legion.

Thanks for your reply Ms Triffid.

Ra'h

 

I use the empirically tested scientific version of events when possible. The mainly accepted version of how the universe began and progressed was the hot Big Bang Model. (kind of running the universe backwards like a clock). When we look at a star we are not seeing that star as it is right now, we are seeing it as it was. If the star is a few thousand light years away we see as it was then. (and we can see some of those with the naked eye, the most distant naked eye star we can see is 4075 light years away!) So we are seeing the fartheres star as it was 4075 years ago! If ET existed and they were looking at us from their star and would see the earth they would see the pyramids being built! They would not see our modern world! Strange indeed. So we are really looking back in time when we see the stars. I digress~

Anyway, there is no scientific explanation for God. Nothing we know is eternal, even though logic tells us something must have existed before time was created in the Big Bang, so what is eternal (because it was atemporal ie not effected by time or eternal) and existed 'before' the Big Bang created the universe? What can create time and a universe? Science tells us that nothing existed 'before' the big bang so this entity or thing must be outside of science, and the only thing that satisfactorily fits that definition is 'God'. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying its a 100% certian thing that I am correct and those that do not agree with me are wrong.

No I am saying that the KCA and theism works for me! It's the most reasonable rational explanation and is how I navigate through reality. I could not force myself to beleive the atheist paradigm, because to me it does not make sense. However to each his own, those that can not believe must beleive as an atheist or some other theory. The universe needs atheists as well as theists to run. One could no more pull a gear out of clock or pull a atheist out of the universe and expect it to run properly. Still I fear for the souls of atheists.

Ra'h

 

With all due respect name something that does not have a cause to begin to exist. I did not say all things had a beginning, I said all things that begin to exist has a CAUSE for its existence.

The universe is the real world. What, you don't you think stars are real?

I sure can and I do not know of one respected scientist who claims that the physical laws that exist in this part of the universe do not work all across the universe! Where do you learn that stuff? I am sure its not in school! If a star turns H into He in our sun what do you think goes on in the core of similar stars that we observe a million light years away? I will say that sometimes in theoretical physics fudges must be made, an example is inflation (where the universe supposedly expanded faster than light) have been called on to make a theory work but these are fabrications and not been empirically tested. So your claims are not supported by any science I know of!

You haven't read my replies. Please show where I used the KCA to claim that God was the only explanation for how the universe began? BTW, any valid cosmological argument (which the KCA passes muster with flying colors) is an argument for the existence of God! If you do not like that (and most fundy atheist apologists abhor it) you must invalidate the argument. So far no one has been able to do that. Not in the history of the thousand year old argument and certainly not in its current modern form ie as per Craig.

Wrong! see my quote to you above as well as the replies to Triffid and the other member (above). If the KCA and other ontological arguments did not exist, still other evdiences exist to support the existence of an GID or God the intelligent designer.

With all due respect, 'I don't know' is old tired, and near totally ignorant thinking. Why have an argument for the existence of God, remember that's what a cosmological argument is, if you are going to claim immutable and near total ignorance? I have said that a hundred times if I have said it once. I have said this a hundred times if I have said it once too; To destroy or even cast suspicion on the KCA as a valid argument you must harm the argument by in validating a premise or all the premises. AGAIN FOR THE N'TH TIME; SO FAR THAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ON THE PROFESSIONAL DEBATE CIRCUIT AND CERTAINLY NOT HERE. Additionally PLEASE, see my replies above. I have only repeated what I have said previously. The fact is there is a reason the KCA remains today. Its a brilliant and good, nearly unbeatable argument that lends evidence for the existence of God.

What if every scientist said well I don't know? We would still be treating syphilis with mercury.

Ha ha the KCA has already passed a thousand years of academic review and philosophic scrutiny debate and arguments by far greater minds than is represented here! It is taught to every philosophy student as well as in other courses. So forgive me if I do not worry if it passes your muster with all due respect.

Nevertheless, I think that you are not being malicious and are genuinely confused by my not so great skills as a author in trying to describe the KCA and why its a very good argument. I have not reviewed this vid but it comes recommended by a friend, I do not know if its pro KCA or con KCA but maybe you should check it and other resources out. Its not good to have a closed mind. I was an atheist for six years before I converted first dabbling in Paganism/wicca then Buddhism then eastern mysticism then and finally for the last ten years to Open theism Christianity and earning a MA in comparative religions. Let me know if you watch the vid? I run this computer on safe mode for security reasons meaning I have no sound!

kalam cosmological argument part 5

6 min - Apr 15, 2010 - Uploaded by djchrist15
More on premise two.
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsDFc8ZhI44[/ame]

Ra'h

 

K7 I think I answered all your concerns in the above replies. So no rebuttal nor reply will be forthcoming unless you call my attention to something I missed.

Ra'h

 

I cant, but then again, I dont know all things that have begun to exist.

With all due respect, name everything that began to exist, and what caused it.

The "real world" is a part of the universe, not the other way around.

Remember the set:

X ∈ {2, 4, 8, 16, 32...}

The observable "real world" might consist of the numbers 2, 4, 8 and 16. From this, one could generalise from observation the laws that govern the set, and use this information to determine any number in any possible position within the set, from 32 all the way to infinity.

Similarly, our observation of physical laws have allowed us to determine the nature of distant galaxies, and exactly how things work there. These laws are fully generalisable within the universe, and we can establish the mechanics of all matter no matter where it is within the universe.

It is important to remember, though, that the laws that govern the "matter" within the set (i.e. multiplying by two), do not apply to the set (you never double the number of sets you have). Similarly, we cannot infer that the processes that govern matter within the universe can be applied to the universe itself.

You are still confusing the universe itself with things in the universe. The two are not one and the same.

Please refer to above for clarification.

It doesnt matter whether you are using it as evidence for god or not, it's still fallacious.

Are you offering money to debunk them, too?

No its not. Its the foundation of progress. If you dont know, you are in a position to find out.

So far you have not demonstrated an understanding of the difference between "the universe" and "everything in the universe". I think I understand you perfectly fine.

I imagine they would start experimenting to find out.

If it doesnt pass one muster, it fails, no matter how many previous musters it has passed.

I watched it, there's really nothing new in it.

It makes a few mistakes, notably calling a singularity "nothing".

It essentially boils down to "the universe had an origin point, therefore it had a cause".

 

It seems to me that you are using empirically tested scientific version of events when it is convenient to your beliefs, and ignoring them when it isn't.

The visible universe is roughly 15 Billion Light years wide. Just the Milky way alone is 120,000 light years wide. Where does your "4075" number for the "furthest star"?

When the "Big Bang" happened, the matter was already there, it just expanded. Matter is eternal, thoughts are not.

I'm saying KCA is complete crap. Theism, while i don't agree with it, doesn't have to make assumptions as ignorant as the ones put forth by KCA. The KCA doesn't work for you, you work for it. The people that think KCA is a scientific theory have been enslaved by a thought.

There is nothing reasonable or rational about it. What is the "Atheist paradigm"?

Now you are making sense.

Atheists don't believe anything about god. Atheism isn't about a belief, it's about a lack of a belief and nothing more. I don't believe that I have a soul. I don't believe anyone else does either. I would need evidence in order to believe it. There is none.

That is what we call an evidence based approach.

 

SORRY ALLEVIL AND ANY ONE THAT MIGHT READ THIS MESS, ITS UNEDITED BUT i MUST LEAVE IT AS SO.

I did, when I said anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. I would be happy to ask you to pick something and I will show cause. You know that this sites bandwidth limitation would not support such a thing but it would be possible.

It is you that have failed to understand that your examples do not help your argument. Don't believe me ask any one in authority you trust. Yes some fringe individuals have mused 'what if' physical processes in some distant part of the universe might be different (from here and now) but I do not see how that claim could be rational or reasonable or even have a way of checking it or how the process might work. Yes its possible but anything is possible. To claim such an extraordinary thing you must present some evidence. I might claim that God is behind every tree but without even a logical argument to lend evidence to the claim, its just a unsupported statement, the same as your highly unsupported speculations.

No they are precisely the same.

Still sets obey set law. Would mathematical law apply only here on earth? It might be different on the moon you know? Do you see how silly that sounds? You are not making any sense at all! What you can say is that the sets obey mathematical law. You are using sets and numbers as a model of reality, there is no matter within the set. However you must use mathematical law to carry out these conclusions and that is exactly the same way the universe works.

Wrong! The universe in whole does not obey natural law just as its components do. Why say that physical laws might be different across the universe why not across town. Or from one room of a house to another? If I accepted your idea as plausible or reasonable or rational we could not make sense of the world. Saying something may be possible does not make it true even if you have a model, and your model supports my argument not yours.

No, it is you that is confused and making quite unreasonable and unsupported assumptions. However the universe itself DOES FOLLOW NATURAL PHYSICAL LAW AS A WHOLE! THAT’S HOW WE HAVE MADE THOUSANDS OF VERIFIABLE PREDICTIONS. SO THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE DOES FOLLOW THE VERY SAME PHYSICAL LAWS AS A BIC LIGHTER DOES WHEN THE FLINT STARTS A CHEMICAL REACTION WE CALL A FLAME!!! (caps for emphasis only).

If you have a degree call your physics professor or even a high school general science teacher and please tell him the same thing you expressed to me. Maybe as a teacher he can point out why your thinking is in error. The universe is simply a system of interconnected events and so the universe is the same with the things in it. I am saying the universe is like a clock. However its not a gear inside the clock, nevertheless if you remove a gear the clock will not work properly. You are saying that perhaps not all clocks work the same, well they don’t. But they still are timepieces that use a system that uses natural law to measure and display what we call time. Your argument is not reasonable, at least not as far as science is concerned, it would however make wonderful science fiction. Do as I ask call a professor that holds at least a masters (not a smart friend) and ask him to describe why your idea does not work. The physical processes that work here work there as well.

It's valid and true. You have offered nothing tangible to validate your speculations.

First do not play another mans game. A man will not offer you something that you might win. I am 99 to the thousandth power % sure you can not invalidate the KCA. If you do and sell me the rights to it for a grand I would make a hundred times that amount with the copyright from your argument, and probably win the Nobel prize as well. Its a win win situation for me. Yes the KCA a moderate part of why I believe in God, but on a pie chart cut into ten pieces, it would not even be one piece (1/10th) of why I know god is real. My beliefs work out something like this; I believe in a sentient GID or God 50% being pure faith brought about by reading of the bible and religious texts revelation and life experiences. Around 10% is the KCA and other ontological/cosmological arguments. 30% is other evidences such as Penroses (a atheist/or skeptic and other highly learned mens comments on a finely tuned universe etc and other evidences. The other evidences that have forced me to believer in God and totally reject atheism as worse than even a pagan belief are best described in this book. I just bought it but it covers topics I am already aware of. The remaining 10% of why I believe is a near death experience that I had, where I saw the light as they say.

* [ame="http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833#reader_0802863833"]Amazon.com: New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (9780802863836): Robert J. Spitzer: Books[/ame]

Are you serious? I don’t know and don’t ask me to explain is the antipathy of progress. It’s a throw back to the church controlling everything. Its best to say I don’t know than to go against the authority of the church or the modern established secular scientific establishment. Bull.

They both obey the same physical laws and your ignorance of that fact ID’s you as a high school student or at best a college freshman. Or someone that has not been exposed to physics or cosmology or astronomy at all. That is not an insult its an observation. You do not even understand that your rather clumsy attempts to use set theory to defend your claims helps my argument far better than yours.

Not if they said I don’t know! They should say we will use every tool at our disposal and in reality they do. First they build an hypothesis then a theory then test it. Some things can not be tested yet by pure empirical methods, again you then use the tools at your disposal, and I have already stated what those are.

THE KCA HAS NEVER BEEN INVALIDATED. IF IT HAS PLEASE SHOW WHERE AND HOW.

As for the vid I read a review of it and its just description of basics. I suppose you would have to go to Craigs site where he has a popular section and an section for advanced readers. You could choose which was best for you. Anyway as I have said the KCA stands valid and unperturbed, as long as it’s a valid cosmological argument I will continue to use it as evidence for the existence of God. Of course I do not really have any concerns if an atheist supports or believes the conclusions of the KCA or even one of more than 50 evidences for the existence of God vs. ZERO evidence to support their paradigm. I simply have attempted to describe why I like the argument. It stands on its own merits without me saying anything about it or using it as a buttress of my beliefs. Neither will your or any naysayer comments here detract from the validity of the KCA I would wager.

We can agree to disagree, however, THERE HAS BEEN NO INVALIDATION OF THE KCA . So no thousand bucks to anyone yet. (I sure hope someone does invalidate the thing I wanna’ be rich and famous!)

Ra’h

 

To make that a true statement you should have said some atheists...etc etc. The disingenuous atheists that refuse to defend their paradigm still have one. That is they possess a godless paradigm and so must beleive that paradigm to form conclusions about reality.

The reason I say disingenuous atheists is the same reason that Craig uses the term to describe some atheists here is a excerpt from one of his lectures;

"But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)"

Read more at ;

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5631

Ra'h

 

Wrong. It may simply be a reorganization of already existing material...like EVERYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS EVER SEEN.

 

The KCA is fallacious thinking. No surprise...

 

Bloody hell this is getting long. I cut out a bit of content that didn't seem crucial to the discussion. Let me know if theres anything important I missed that I didnt address. Most of the dumped content was at the end.

Lets keep this focused.

Hey, it happens. Dont worry about it.

Oh, say, the universe?

I'm trying not to make any speculations, really.

The essence of the KCA is "if everything in the universe has a cause, the universe has a cause".

Lets reword it.

"If everything in the universe follows (Law A), the universe must follow (Law A)."

I contest this notion.

"If everything in the universe follows the law that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then the universe must neither have matter nor energy in it". It's silly, right?

When you bring in the kinds of ideas like:

• A singularity existing in a timeless state.
• Our universe among a metaverse
• A cyclical universe

Who is to say it must have had a beginning? Our observations suggest it had an origin point(the singularity), but that's not the same thing.

I'm not quite sure you are getting it.

Give the set a name. Lets call it "Universe".

Everything within Universe follows the same laws. In this case, there is a single law - doubling (Its a simple universe). It doesn't matter how much you apply the law to the data within the set, you never get:

2 x Universe

Additionally, the set still exists whether or not there are numbers in it. It just becomes an empty set.

The universe may still exist whether or not there is any matter in it. It could just be an empty universe.

Every part of the universe follows the same laws, to be sure. That's not what I'm getting at.

I'm not saying its true. For all I know, it's false (and quite probably it is false). I can say, however, that it is possible the universe does not require a cause simply because everything in it requires a cause.

Without an absolute level of certainty, the third statement:

"The universe has a cause of its existence."

Is, to some degree, an assumption.

I'm not saying it isnt.

Laws observed within the universe can be applied within the universe - no question.

But we aren't talking about things within the universe - we are talking about the kind of reality where time and space may not exist, or where universes could exist within other universes. It is premature to assume our laws can be generalised to this extent.

I will do so, if I remember to get around to it.

 

With the usual grain of salt.