Here I fixed it.
Nothing that begins has a cause.
The universe began.
The universe has no cause.
Nothing that begins has a cause.
The universe began.
The universe has no cause.
Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Nothingness doesn't have the quality of being.
Note that the Bible doesn't say God created nothingness, it only states that in the beginning, there was darkness. So if you are saying that we have to explain the existence of nothingness, scripture doesn't bother with that either.
Last edited:
See below.
The key word here is thing, and I have give a definition. ''Everything, or, every thing, mean all things. The definition you cling to means ''all things'' that exist.
The rest of the definitions gives ideas of what things it means.
How many times do I have to tell you?
The universe began to exist, therefore there is a cause for the universe.
The universe, or the cosmos, contain everything, and everything has a cause.
It follows that the cause of everything is not a thing.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
You response in post 108 does nothing to show flawed logic, it doesn't even address the argument.
The argument logically concludes that the universe has a cause, and that cause must necessarily be transcendental to it's effect.
You might not like the outcome, but that's your problem.
I have read the thread Sarkus, and all that seems to keep coming up are situations that misunderstand the argument, probably because the alternative is acceptance of it.
Most people here are forced, by their world view, to not accept that as a valid argument. Most people here can not accept anything that is even slightely positive, about the existence of God.
I have a good idea, from scripture, of what God is, and what God is not.
You on the other can think of God however you like, but God logically exists.
Just as Spidergoat can say what he thinks about God, and nobody asks him to justify his claims, so can I.
jan.
I created the universe.
My word.
My word.
It didn't begin, so nothing can be acausal. As you said, time is a quality of material things. Unless you think that god created nothing too, in which case, great job man, how did He ever think of it?
The simple lack of a god does not satisfy parsimony (Occam's razor). Without an 'uncaused first cause', all other explanations become infinite regress. So it is more parsimonious to postulate a god, or equivalent uncaused first cause, than to attribute the origin of the universe to an infinite cycle of universes, or similar regress. Many people are simply more comfortable with a fallacious argument entailing things they are familiar with, e.g. more universes, but no infinite regress ever has any more explanatory power than 'it's just always been'. Just like atheists are justified in asking where god came from, so there should be a finite end to any origin regress to satisfy parsimony.
The Big Bang as envisaged according to General Relativity is the beginning of time, but it's not a creation event, because nothing was actually created. It just means that existence only goes back finitely far, there's no story to tell of anything happening or existing prior to that first instant, and the word "prior" has no physical meaning at that instant.
It's utterly futile trying to impose everyday commonsense realities on space and time under extreme physical situations, and then desperately invoking supernatural fantasies to make it all work out in a sensible fashion. Recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that cause and effect is only an approximate macroscopic illusion anyhow, and at its most fundamental levels the universe operates on probabilistic correlations alone. Not only does religious superstition offer zero illumination on the issue of beginnings to our universe, but it's now experimentally required to invoke a God with a gambling addiction.
It's utterly futile trying to impose everyday commonsense realities on space and time under extreme physical situations, and then desperately invoking supernatural fantasies to make it all work out in a sensible fashion. Recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that cause and effect is only an approximate macroscopic illusion anyhow, and at its most fundamental levels the universe operates on probabilistic correlations alone. Not only does religious superstition offer zero illumination on the issue of beginnings to our universe, but it's now experimentally required to invoke a God with a gambling addiction.
Ok, then what's your explanation for all the temples humans have built, and why do so many of them appear to be built to mark certain dates, such as the summer and winter solstices? When did we start charting the stars, naming them or naming constellations? Why did we do that?Jan Ardena said:
Well, so far, after thousands of years of observing the heavens, no evidence for a being who controls anything happening "out there" has been found.
Maybe that's true today, but I don't know how confident I can be that it was never true.
Only if you know what God really is, and then only really for you, can you "pretend" to claim there is such a position.
I can say I believe there is a God, except not the God you think I mean.
Can I say I know for certain this God exists? Yes, but that's because of personal experience which is not something I can show you. Furthermore, the God I know about seems to have very little to do with the universe out there.
Sounds nice, but that sort of answer has absolutely no explanatory power. I'm with you that existence, as we understand it, has a finite history and that "prior" has no real meaning. But whether you want to call it creation or not, something evidently changed, and change warrants explanation. Why should something suddenly change a particular, finite distance in the past, rather than 3 or 4 times that? You can try to claim the demise of the previous universe, but that is just an infinite regress that pushes the question further into the past without ever addressing it.
Sounds suspiciously like 'god is beyond human understanding'. Another non-answer that is just as unsatisfying in science as it is in religion.
What evidence is there that macroscopic cause and effect are ever violated? That is what it would take to truly call it an illusion. Quantum probability does not allows us to avoid causality. The two operate in differing domains of applicability. And yet those stochastic processes support a largely deterministic universe. Doesn't sound like gambling to me.
Jan Ardena:
I see a lot of red herrings from you, and a lot of desperate avoidance and attempts to side-track onto other arguments. But you studiously avoid addressing the actual topic of the thread.
Are you ever going to get around to responding to the content of the opening post of this thread?
It has been shown that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is fatally flawed as a proof of God. How do you respond?
I see a lot of red herrings from you, and a lot of desperate avoidance and attempts to side-track onto other arguments. But you studiously avoid addressing the actual topic of the thread.
Are you ever going to get around to responding to the content of the opening post of this thread?
It has been shown that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is fatally flawed as a proof of God. How do you respond?
"La-la-la I can't hear you!"
I've responded heaps.
Why don't you respond to one, and show point by point, the logical errors instead of just asserting that I'm wrong, or not responding?
jan.
Last edited:
They're not for searching for God, or demi-gods.
What were they hoping to find?
Why would anybody think to look for God like that?
Unless you deny even the basic attributes.
The best place to get at least an idea of what God is, is the scripture. There you will learn that God is not physical.
Once you accept that as a description (not necessarily believe), it's not that hard to comprehend most of what you read.
I think the problem is that some people won't accept that, and have become accustomed to the idea that God,
if He exists, must be scientifically proven to all, so the world can see.
This is not the God that theists believe in.
You don't need to show me that God exists.
What would the God you know have to be engaged in, in order for you to acknowledge His presence in the universe out there?
jan.
Last edited:
Why bring God into the argument at that point?
Can you answer that?
''Everything that begins to exist has a cause'' is a simple, unambiguous observation, not a hidden agenda as you seem to need to think.
My answer is, it's not important.
jan.
Explanatory power isn't necessarily required. You haven't shown that the Big Bang or the laws of General Relativity necessitate an explanation that satisfies human animals, let alone any explanation at all.
No, the existing evidence suggests that nothing changed at the moment of the Big Bang, rather the universe was simply in its initial state and has evolved dynamically ever since.
General Relativity doesn't require a previous universe, nor any kind of empty pre-existence. According to the theory, everything that exists has only existed for a finite duration along with all of the associated causes, and it's no more illogical a proposition than any of the physical and metaphysical alternatives anyone else has postulated. An infinite regression of universes going infinitely far into the past is also entirely possible and not firmly ruled out by existing experiments, but it's not required nor is it the only alternative to a deity or creator.
As to why the Big Bang has to occur as far in the past as it did, the simplified model I studied directly once upon a time pretended that the universe had a uniform spatial distribution of dust, gas, dark energy and radiation, but all realistic cosmological models still require a Big Bang, and if I'm not mistaken, the time one traces back to the Big Bang depends on the historical matter and energy concentration in their local neighbourhood, since clocks at different positions and velocities do not tick at the same rates and with universally agreed simultaneity.
If you have a proof that everything in nature requires an explanation comprehensible to human beings, please do share it. As it stands, science has no explanation for why the laws of physics exist nor the universe they exist in, only that they seem to pass virtually every test we throw at them. Since the scientific method only finds and tests patterns in nature, it can never explain why such patterns exist in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
Bell test experiments now conclusively establish that cause-and-effect mechanics can't explain observed quantum phenomena without violating the known laws of Special Relativity, whereas probabilistic quantum mechanics has no such trouble and is fully compliant with Special Relativity.
Wrong. QM not only allows us to avoid causality at the fundamental level, but it altogether demands that we avoid it.
What you're describing is the macroscopic illusion of cause-and-effect that results from averaging out probabilities for zillions of atoms, generally on the order of Avogradro's number and larger. All experiments to date demonstrate that it's still an illusion, albeit an extremely reliable one.
Jan Ardena:
Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist?
The argument begs the question of God's existence if God is the only thing comtemplated in the category of "things that do not begin to exist".
This is only about the tenth time this has been explained to you, Jan. Maybe now would be a good time to actually think about the argument being put, rather than desperately flailing about and trying to distract everybody from the point of discussion.
Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist? Or can't you? Or will you attempt to avoid the question again?
So.... ?
Based on your performance in this thread, I evaluate your understanding of what a logical argument is to be surprisingly low. Are you familiar with the difference between a premise and the conclusion of a logical syllogism, for example (because there are indications to the contrary in what you wrote above)? Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"? Do you, in fact, understand my opening post?
Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist? Or can't you? Or will you attempt to avoid the question again?
Yes, with red herrings and attempts to side-track the discussion, like I said.
See my opening post, which remains unrefuted at this point.
Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist?
Yes. The point is that we need to pin down what exactly is meant by "everything that begins to exist" in the Kalam argument. As I explained in the opening post, the argument attempts to create two categories of things: those that begin to exist and those that do not begin to exist.
The argument begs the question of God's existence if God is the only thing comtemplated in the category of "things that do not begin to exist".
This is only about the tenth time this has been explained to you, Jan. Maybe now would be a good time to actually think about the argument being put, rather than desperately flailing about and trying to distract everybody from the point of discussion.
Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist? Or can't you? Or will you attempt to avoid the question again?
Then you'll have no problem giving an unambiguous answer about whether God begins to exist, or whether he doesn't.
So.... ?
Not only is it important - it is fatal to the validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for reasons I and others have explained to you time and again.
Based on your performance in this thread, I evaluate your understanding of what a logical argument is to be surprisingly low. Are you familiar with the difference between a premise and the conclusion of a logical syllogism, for example (because there are indications to the contrary in what you wrote above)? Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"? Do you, in fact, understand my opening post?
Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist? Or can't you? Or will you attempt to avoid the question again?
Last edited: