The Kalam Cosmological Argument

You mean... kind of like "God?"

Actually, no. They're not.

You really should have read that list.

 

What is considered to be 'the end' of a singularity ? May sound like a stupid question but again, I'm not the scientist that Id like to be.

 

The moment of "explosion." At that moment, it is no longer infinitely dense, infinitely hot or dimensionless.

Therefore what was a singularity is one no longer.

 

No, not especially.

Then, in that case, you can say with certainty what the "landscape" was like before our universe sprang out of the singularity. Please do let us all know. You must have so much to tell.

 

Just stop right here. Scientists readily admit that they really do not know these answers for certain.

The answer they have no clue about is what existed prior to the Big Bang.

We just do not know.

Even if we establish that there was a "cause" this is not proof that God was the cause.

 

I agree totally.
Science does not know, nor do they pretend they do (Wong Kim Ark and his famous list of links, notwithstanding). The Big Bang presents a brick wall to science as we simply don't know, and cannot know, what happened before there was a universe. Physicist Sean Carroll says simply, before a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in St. Louis, "We just don't know."

There are lots of theories and conjecture
(for example http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4a.htm ....which must have made the list) but that's all it is.

That depends on the cause, I suppose. One could argue that the more we try to learn about the origins of our universe the more we are puzzled by what we find. 12 year old prodigy genius (with an IQ measured higher than Albert Einstein's) Jacob Barnett says the Big Bang theory is wrong because of the amount of carbon in the universe and the time it would take for it to fuse together.

 

Scientists are researching black holes and the cause of the big bang.

Wong only posted a few links to examples, for those with no clue whatsoever to get an idea.

Chosen ignorance is not something to brag about, Yosh.

 

Generally then?

Why would I need to know that? You certainly are in no better position to answer that same question about God, so why the double standard?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Because unless you use a double standard, my position is evidentially and reasonably superior to yours.

Mine does not violate the laws of nature. Yours does.

Mine does not require the ad hoc invention of a new class of being for which there is no evidence and no obvious need. Yours does.

There actually is evidence for a universe. There is no comparable evidence for a God.

 

No.

Because you've claimed to know things you obviously don't know and you've used your little list of speculative sites over and over again like a fig leaf to cover your silly claims.

Well, just for the most egregious example, you claim the universe is eternal (it isn't, and we've pinpointed, in relative terms, it's exact birth). And, of course you always deny it, but you've also claimed that the universe created itself.

If God didn't create the universe (and you seem to think this is perhaps the case...) and the universe has always been here (even though it hasn't), remembering that nothing comes from nothing,
how else does one account for the universe? It must have created the laws it operates under and it must have set them in motion and created the matter contained in the universe. There is no other explanation given your views on God.

When one uses reason and intelligence there is very good empirical evidence for God. And unless you believe the universe created itself (somehow, magically) there is most definitely a "need" for God. Or does your own existence not matter to you?

"Comparable" evidence for God?
The universe is evidence of God.

 

A one word response, and you even got that one wrong. It is exactly like God.

Liar. I have claimed to "know" only what I can support with evidence and reason. That which I cannot or do not know I have never claimed as proven or as established fact.

Evidence and reason. Those are our only tools. And of the two of us, only I actually have evidence from which to reason. This is why my proposal is evidential and reasonably superior to yours.

For me to claim the universe is eternal is no different from you claiming that God is eternal. Both concede completely that something must be eternal, but of course only my argument actually has evidence in its favor.

And again, it is a bald face, unadulterated liwe to claim we've "pinpointed" the universe's "exact birth." We have only generally identified the age of the Big Bang. There is no logical or evidence based argument that would allow anybody to assert it was the birth of the universe. Such a thing would be a violation of natural law.

And third, You are a bald faced liar when you assert I ever claimed the universe created itself. That would be a remarkably stupid thing to claim at the same time I assert the universe was never created at all.

You just did. I even highlighted the phrase where you accounted for it perfectly.

I must point out again that your argument here is the height of hypocritical double standard. Before you can even have the temerity to ask that question, you must answer it first for God. How do account for God?

Because the answer you give for God is identical to the one I give for the universe. The difference, again, is that I actually have evidence for a universe, while you have none for God.

It is stunning that you still seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that if something has always existed, it requires nothing to set it in motion. It has always been in motion.

It's not a difficult concept, especially since it is the same one you believe for God.

Except, of course, that I have evidence for a universe and you have no evidence of God.

Show me?

You have already conceded that the KCA logically can lead only to an infinite regress; an eternal universe. You have further conceded that you have no logical argument with which to get around that fact.

So... put your evidence where your mouth is? Where is there evidence for God?

There is a third option. My option. The only option I have ever argued in this forum.

The universe is eternal and uncreated.

Not according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You admitted that in post #52.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it but, no.

Your "evidence and reason" has never stopped you from pretending you know what the pre Big Bang scene-scape looked like.

There is nothing reasonable about claiming that the universe is eternal. In fact, it's downright stupid given all the evidence of the Big Bang singularity.

Before Big Bang...no universe.
After Big Bang...universe! It's that simple and I know I've posted this more than once to educate you. Stop being so disingenuous.

It certainly wasn't God and the universe is not eternal, so therefore that is the only option left.

Yes, but that's such a stupid assertion.

Did you forget to highlight the bit in parenthesis that negates what came before it in my sentence? Did you think I wouldn't notice?

But the essential difference is that you can't possibly claim the universe has always been here when we have evidence of the singularity through which it (the universe) burst into being. Only God is capable of such an act of creation. It's a literal one of a kind act of creation on the biggest scale imaginable. Good luck pretending it's no big deal.

It is more stunning that you would believe the universe has just always been around.
Nothing is eternal but God. There is nothing in nature that is un- caused, has no antecedent or is eternal.

You wouldn't be the first fool trying to compare God to something in nature.

The universe is the evidence. Everything that surrounds you is the evidence. The universe did not create itself. It cannot create itself. There logically and empirically must be a
force that accounts for everything we see. God is the only force capable of such creation. It's very simple. Even you should be able to get it.

Which universe? Our universe? It isn't eternal. It began roughly 13.7 billion years ago.
And what else do you know of that is "uncreated"? How is it possible for something to be uncreated?

I've lost track how many times you've lied about this. But this makes one more time.

 

This statement needs to be qualified. If the universe is evidence of God then how so ?

Second, Evidence of which God and how is this God defined ?

I would claim that perhaps there is evidence of God in the universe.

My claim goes as follows.

The universe is at least two things which we call "Matter" and "Energy". There may be more things yet to be discovered but it makes no difference to my argument.

It should also be noted that at the sub-atomic level matter and energy convert back and forth so they are connected.

So .. a human is made of Matter and Energy, as is the universe.

Postulates:

1. As the ability to control of Matter and Energy approaches infinity, the entity having that ability approaches God Status.

2. There is at least one configuration of matter and energy that has gained knowledge of itself. (Humans, and we could include some of the smarter animals as well perhaps.....I think therfor I am)

If humans gained knowledge of their existence, then it is completely plausible that other configurations of matter and energy could also be self aware.

One could also ask the question, " Is it the matter, the energy, or some combination of both that has self awareness"

We can pick one of the options and do a thought experiment.

Assume there is a form of energy that has self awareness.

Assume that this form of energy is able to control Energy-Matter transformations and vice versa. In essense, this energy form would have the ability to control itself and the energy in the world around it.

If there were such an energy, or force, or entity, or configuration of matter and energy that had control over matter-energy transformations and was self aware this would then be a God.

Perhaps there are many such entities or forces in the universe ?

Now put your facing hand palm up and look at it.
Next, use your will power to make your index finger move.

Now explain to me how you made your finger move and how you did it.

You willed it. You created a thought, and that thought was made manifest in essence directing matter and energy. Stop and think about this power for a moment It really is quite something.

Now think of the universe as one big human body. The universe is made of energy and matter just like you.

Perhaps universe has a will of its own, and can control itself by creating a thought just like you can.

Perhaps in Genesis when the Gods say "let us make man in our image" they were serious.

When God puts adam and eve out of the Garden for seeking the knowledge of the Gods he says:

" Lest man put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and become like US"

Christ himself said that God is within us.

We are like Gods .. having the ability to control matter and energy through force of will, but we are limited in power.

Is it possible that some configuration of matter and energy exists whose thoughts have more power and control than we do ?

It must be possible, we could not exist if it were not.

In an infinite amount of time all possibilities eventually happen.

Proof of God in the universe, the ability to control matter and energy through force of will, is what you see when you look in the mirror every day.

When the Pharasees demanded Jesus tell them when the Kingdom of God would come he replied,

It seems that both the Gods, and Jesus think that God is within.

No need to look outside .. just look inside.

 

You give much to think about and there is much to what you say. Not sure if I agree about your thesis on animals and self awareness, but otherwise, what you post is fascinating.

All of matter is energy and our thoughts are conveyed via this energy also.
Since matter vibrates at a certain frequency death may be just a way of jettisoning our physical beings (which must necessarily wear out and decay)
and, at a new frequency, continuing our being (our souls, or the conscious essence of what we are as individuals) in, literally, a new place (that exists at a different frequency).

 

Wrong again. Exacty like God.

That's what evidence and reason is for. To distinguish the good theories from the bad ones. It is serving exactly that purpose in this case.

And yet in post #52 you conceded that an eternal universe is the only logical (i.e. "reasonable") conclusion that can be reached from the major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. About 25 posts later you further conceded that there was no logical (i.e. "reasonable") argument to get around that conclusion.

Calling something "stupid" is not an argument.

Of course, this is just another example of the profound and irrational hypocrisy that your argument has devolved to. You are no longer even trying to wrestle with the evidence of logic, of natural law, of empirical observation and your own paper trail.

If (as you repeatedly insist) I cannot tell exactly what was before the Big Bang singularity, then neither can you; to include insisting there was nothing.

But the pathetic futility of your assertion is contradicted by the simple fact that even you don't believe that there was nothing. Because if there was nothing, then there was also no God.

One must ponder at the intellectually destructive power of a dogma that would inspire in its believers the deliberate willingness to deny your own beliefs. But crises of faith are like that.

That would have been pointless. The purpose of the highlight was to point out that you know the solution to your conundrum... and simply chose to deny it. That is the only argument you have left, since you have evidence, no reason and no logic from which to argue.

All you have left is the bald denial. And I am completely content with that circumstance.

Of course I can. It would violate the laws of nature for there to be no universe before the singularity. If you deny (as you have repeatedly denied) that the universe was created ex nihilo than you are admitting that there was something material before the singularity. You have conceded the universe that came before.

There you go again, appealing to magic.

If there was no act of creation at all, then no God is necessary. And as an aside, I have no problem imagining a bigger scale. You really should not use your personal limitations as the standard for deciding the rest of the universe's limits.

More stunning than that a magic man for whom we have no evidence has always been around? You seem to have no rhyme or reason (other than previous indoctrination) regarding what you find stunning and what you do not.

You have already conceded that logically only an eternal universe makes sense.

So again... where's this empirical evidence? Because the universe is only evidence of itself.

You keep saying that, and yet you have been completely unable to establish the existence or even the need for such a God.

Answer that question for God, and my answer will be identical.

Anybody can go to post #52 and see that the only liar here is you.

 

I've warned you more than enough about lying about my statements and the penalty for your repeated lies. You don't deserve the respect of a reply anymore.

 

In post # 52 you conceded that the major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument could only lead logically to an infinite regress.

The question asked was:

"So please. Yes or no. Do you agree with me (and Craig and Al-Ghazali and Aquinas) that Craig's major premise logically leads to the conclusion of an eternal universe?"

Your answer was.

"Yes, within the confines of the question as you've posed it and the logic it sets up."

You immediately denied that you actually believed it... but we already knew what you believed. That wasn't the question. The question regarded where the logic led, and you agreed that it lead to an eternal universe.

This of course is where the Cosmological Argument fails. To reach the conclusion of God one must do as you do here, admit the eternal universe and then simply say you don't believe it and declare God instead. To make certain that you knew this is exactly what you were doing I asked a follow up question. It was this:

"What is your logical argument for necessarily rejecting your own conclusion that the universe is eternal?"

You answered in Post # 77:

"I have no logical argument that counters the logical box you have set up that can only have one answer."

The subsequent lie is only your denial of your admissions recorded here for all to read.

 

Since I do not accept your two premises, that things have a cause of existence or that the universe had a beginning.

Your argument REQUIRES that I accept your premise. I do NOT accept that everything had a cause of existence, some things may have just always existed. It is also possible that the universe has always existed, in a continuous looping of expansion and contraction or in some other way.

Therefore you evidence for a god is non-existent

 

Like what, for instance? Any ideas?

May have is a pretty low bar of proof for what you claim. In fact, it's no proof at all and people realize on an instinctual common sense level that nothing comes from nothing and things don't just happen to exist.

It's "possible" in the sense that you've imagined it. But in no other way that I'm aware of.

Remarkable.

 

Oh? You've actually been able to make yourself "unaware" that you conceded the KCA can only logically lead to an eternal universe?

It is a strange ability to make yourself unaware of your own reasoning.

 

Post number 265.

 

Ah yes... the post where you continued to lie about your previous comments and then ran away

Let's recap the details, shall we?

In post # 52 you conceded that the major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument could only lead logically to an infinite regress.

The question asked was:

"So please. Yes or no. Do you agree with me (and Craig and Al-Ghazali and Aquinas) that Craig's major premise logically leads to the conclusion of an eternal universe?"

Your answer was.

"Yes, within the confines of the question as you've posed it and the logic it sets up."

I then asked:

"What is your logical argument for necessarily rejecting your own conclusion that the universe is eternal?"

You answered in Post # 77:

"I have no logical argument that counters the logical box you have set up that can only have one answer."

So... we have demonstrated (with your begrudging cooperation) that the Kalam Cosmological Argument logically leads only to an eternal universe, and that to get around it theists abandon logic, deny their own premises and arbitrarily insert "God" for no good reason.

It really serves you no purpose to ignore me, Yosh. It has been months since any of these posts were provided for your benefit. I do not post here to convince you, I post here to expose the bankruptcy of the idea you embrace.

Your abandonment of the field only puts a finer point on the success of that exposition.

 

The universe MAY have a beginning and it MAY not have one, no one actually knows, so your conjecture is not valid and I do not accept it, just as I would not accept it if you had said "the universe has always been around".

In 50,000 years of human existence there has not been one iota of evidence, not ONE fact that shows a god or gods may or may not exist. All we have are the beliefs, myths, superstitions and suppositions of men. NO proof exists. To me this is enough proof to send a criminal to the electric chair or to say that no god or gods exist. You may not agree, but that is fine, it does not bother me if your beliefs are wrong.

 

Belief that the universe has always existed is compatible with the truth of the first premise "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause". It is not, however compatible with reality. Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete

 

No, the first cause could not be an effect. It must be causeless. The first cause must exist necessarily.

 

Then the assumption that everything has a cause obviously is wrong.