if not God then who/what?

Need I say the magic word? Yeah? OK ... OPINIONS.

 

Define time without making any reference to change.

No, just explaining the assumptions behind my argument.

 

So definitions are now opinions? Got it.

 

The way you use it, everything anyone believes is just an opinion.

 

I have no idea where the singularity came from. But it seems to me that whatever anyone might answer the question "where did god come from" with, could also answer "where did the singularity come from".

 

Oh yes, I don't deny that there are plenty of claims on paper that God is eternal. Some of them have even been claimed to have been written by God in some sense. But those are only claims made by humans. I repeat, then: As far as I can tell, there has been no declaration from God about her being eternal.

It certainly is a tired argument. I'd be tired as well if I was so gosh darn effective that people kept using me so much! I would of course disagree that infinite regress is solved by spirituality, seeing as there is no evidence of spirits actually existing; by the Bible, seeing as I think it's little more than a book of parables; or by the likes of the KCA, seeing as how I am pretty sure they themselves have been comprehensively disproven.

 

God. God is everlasting.

Cool.. Then you are openly admitting that all you have are "assumptions" and an opinionated explanation. Then based on your assumptions, your argument, for all intents and purposses, is empty.

 

Well, they are man-made.. Same credibility that you and others give to the Bible.

- - - Updated - - -

That seems to be OK. However, there are a lot of scientists who will probably not give favor to your comment.

- - - Updated - - -

Good answer... I like that one... NOTE: Just because I like that one does not mean that it is a fact.

 

Got it. So when you trot out definitions, they are of no relevance, because they are merely YOUR opinion.

 

Well, that is your interpretation, however, your interpretation is highly suspect of probable error. You are a member of the flawed humans and your intellect like that of all other humans (myself included) is flawed. So beware ... you might get challenged...

 

Another empty definition since you appear to apply it to everything.

We all make assumptions and the only empty arguments are ones that don't admit theirs.

 

First of all, the KCA itself does not even attempt to show that the universe had a beginning. In fact, KCA assumes the universe had a beginning, as one of its propositions. The page you link to even admits as such when it refers to 'supporting arguments', ie not the KCA but additional arguments.

Nonetheless, I am happy to include those additional arguments in the discussion. The first one is basically the good old Grand Hotel, an excellent mind game. However, I believe Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel merely illustrates the counter-intuitive nature of infinity, it does not in any way demonstrate its impossibility. Essentially this "paradox" is just a fun and wordy way of saying "infinity +1 = infinity", and the author's main complaint about that is that "to his mind" it is incredible. Well, sorry, but incredulity is not the best argument.

Note however that I am not denying that the universe had a beginning - merely saying that there is not yet any convincing reason to rule out the possibility that it is eternal. Similarly, of course, I don't entirely rule out the possibility of something coming from nothing, especially since "nothing" is exceptionally hard to define, let alone identify, in the real world.

On the other hand, why does nobody apply the KCA to god himself?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. God began to exist.
2.1 if you believe that the infinite cannot be real, then the length of time which God has existed cannot be infinite.
2.2 if God has not existed for infinite time, then there must be a point where god began to exist.
3. Therefore, God has a cause of her existence.

No doubt some people will find a way to contort out of that, while claiming that it somehow has to still apply to the universe. But the bottom line is, whatever way you slice it, it always... always always always boils down to special pleading.

 

I do my best to not submit arguments, though my comments are sometimes interpreted as 'arguments'. What assumptions have I made? Be specific.

 

Yes, you've made your opinion clear already.

If it could ever be proven to my satisfaction that something did indeed cause the universe to exist, I would indeed seriously consider the possibility that it was some kind of god. But that's a really, seriously big 'if'.

 

What definition of 'exist' are you using?

 

Where shall we start?

"God is beyond the intellectual capacity of man to fully comprehend."
"The infallible Word of God declares that God is eternal."
"God is everlasting."

 

you just move the goalpost though, now the answer would be God came from absolutely nothing and created everything

which is more logical, a god popping into existence from nothing or energy that eventually evolved into all we know today?

.

 

Well, now that you have taken that positive step forward by labeling them as "assumptions", then show PROOF that they are assumptions.

 

scientists think they can create a universe in the lab... if true, that could mean our "creator" is just some guy or gal in another universe wearing a lab coat

 

In each case, you've assumed that God exists without providing PROOF that it does. Care to try?

 

What definition are you using for 'existence'?

 

Your statement above is presumptuous in stating that I have assumed anything. Hello pot.

 

Bahaha that IS as hominem. Their world view is not their argument it is a characteristic of their person ie irrelevant to the validity of their argument.

 

You are asking someone to prove that your statements are false? Ever heard of an Onus Probandi fallacy?

 

Show proof of claim highlighted above.