firedragon
Veteran Member
Brothermate???
This is the one argument that has turned many atheists into Muslims. The presentation in the OP is very bad.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mathematical Proof of God?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
Brothermate???
This is the one argument that has turned many atheists into Muslims. The presentation in the OP is very bad.
Faur enough.
Okay... you ask for opinions on it: the fact that an official Baha'i publication would publish that nonsense kinda makes me think less of the Baha'i faith and its institutions.
It's irrational crap.
Science nor I do not 'know' anything.
You need to get some basics on Quantum Mechanics. Read up on the origins of our universe in terms of Quantum singularity and cyclic universes.
Your sarcasm is unwelcome. More to follow.
You may start here: The Quantum Origins of Our Universe
. . . or maybe here: Searching for the quantum beginning of the universe « Einstein-Online
Salam
In the past, maybe. In this age, I doubt anyone changes stance due to an argument.
What you say was...
Sounds to me like you are certain. Please publish, i know cosmologists and particle physicists who would love to know what you claim to know.
I have some basics in QM, enough to know condescending BS when i see it.
Jolly good
leroy
Well-Known Member
Form the context of your comment we are assuming at least for the sake of discussion that the first 2 premises of the KCA are true right…?
Well universe (or multiverse assuming that there are parallel worlds) in this context means all space time and everything in it (which includes all matter)
1 so the cause of matter has to be immaterial, this is necessarily true ,( if the cause of matter is something with matter then it wouldn’t be the cause of matter)
2 the cause of time has to be timeless (permanent)
3 that cause of space has to be space less
Again this are just tautologies, these are obviously and necessarily true statements
There are only 3 possible causes
1 deterministic causes
2 random causes
3 personal causes (causes with free will)
Again if you think there are more than 3 possibilities please feel free to add a fourth possibility. If you don’t add fourth option I will assume that you agree on that there are only 3 possibilities.
If the cause is timeless and it is also deterministic or random then the universe would have been caused an infinite amout of time ago, why would the big bang happen 14B years ago if the cause has been there timelessly and has always existed?
In other words if the cause is permanent the effect should also be permanent
Given that the effect is permanent and the cause is temporal, you cant have a deterministic nor a random cause, the only alternative is that the cause most be personal
Agree? If not why not?
If the cause is immaterial, space less, timeless, and personal, then this sounds a lot like God.
agree is not why not?
please point to the exact points where you disagree.
if you disagree with more than one point, ´please select the one point that you consider less likely to be true
The multiverse hypothesis fits this formulation as well. Craig makes the same error in his Kalam argument - simply assuming multiple characteristic about this cause that point to the god he believes in without acknowledging much less excluding other potential first causes.[/QUOTE]
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
So simply a natural phenomenon that's eternal and not affected by change... still no god being required.
These are also the mistakes Craig made - unsupported claims. You and I discussed the Kalam argument recently, where I already rebutted those claims. We also discussed resurrection and fine tuning in that thread. That discussion began about right here: The Resurrection is it provable? | Page 30 | Religious Forums
I have nothing to add to that. I argued that there is no reason why a source for the universe needs to be a sentient agent, or that it need or even could exist outside of time. The argument stands unchanged, and I don't wish to rehash it for reasons previously given. I got nothing out of it, since you chose to respond to only about 10% of the content of my posts making these arguments, and I can't imagine what value it could have had for you, either, for the same reason.
I think you're a well-meaning and friendly guy, but not somebody to attempt to engage in dialectic with. I pleaded with you a dozen times to comprehensively address the posts written to you in rebuttal of your claims, but for whatever your reasons, that never happened. You continued to ignore large parts of my argument, and I eventually lost interest in further discussion.
I suggested then that you take a moment to consider the other guy, why he's there, what he wants, and what's in it for him if you don't. There's no evidence you read those words, which is emblematic of the problem. I have no idea if you did, or if you did whether you understood them, or if you understood them whether you disagreed, or if you disagreed why you disagreed. The end result is that you've lost my interest in having discussion with you. As I said, there's nothing in that for me.
I don't know why did you do that, but I did explain to you what would result if you didn't start doing your part - this. It's inconceivable to me that you never addressed any of that, either. I didn't see any sentence or word that reflected that you read that or cared about what I cared about, which was the problem. I have no idea why you would do that, but you should have realized that I would eventually lose interest in such discussions. I told you I would. And I have.
Sorry. Really. I would very much have preferred it be otherwise, as I did enjoy your demeanor and good cheer, but they aren't enough. I strongly exhort you to consider these words. What happened and why? Could it have been otherwise and better? What would it take keep your collocutor's interest?
Not Jolly good. No, your posts DO NOT reflect a basic knowledge of QM.
Sounds like . . . . has absolutely no relevance to the content of my posts. Your condescending BS and sarcasm is getting tedious without any basic knowledge of Quantum Mechanics.
I gave references.
I post relevant to the current knowledge of science with references.
Condescending? Take a look in the mirror, i only give what i receive.
What references? you gave opinion as you usually do and you have not addressed your claim that you know what conditions weren't prior to the BB
I think the best way to solve this silly dispute over what happened prior to 10e-43 of a second after the bb is the ignore button. Your thoughts?
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Incorrect but whatever floats your boat.
Your evidence please.
All individual effects need a cause. p1
A set of effects is an effect. p2
Therefore set of infinite effects for induction reasons (and not apply parts as whole thing) is still an effect.c1 (p1 p2)
A set effects always has a start to cause it. p3
Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards p5
Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible (p5 contradicts c1 + p3) c2
Therefore only finite sets are possible c3 (rephrasing of c2)
Therefore the universe it a finite set (application of possible worlds to this world - c2) c4
Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe (c4 + p3) c5
It's clear to me, but I can help anyone with any of these premises.
Infinite set of effects is like a square triangle. If a square, not a triangle. If a triangle, not a square.
You can see inductively it would need a cause but also span wise in theory it would not have a cause, thus a paradox like square triangles.
It's impossible and hence the universe has a start and that needs a start causer.
When people reach this conclusion.
(1) That cause is eternal (never began)
(2) Had enough power to create the universe
The notion that the universe was in a state of non-movement, and all a sudden began to move after eternally not, doesn't stand to reason for me. If it's eternally not moving, it's not going to ever start.
So (a) magical being(s) created it.
This is a start to the right direction. It doesn't prove capital "God", but it's a step.
A set of effects is an effect. p2
Therefore set of infinite effects for induction reasons (and not apply parts as whole thing) is still an effect.c1 (p1 p2)
A set effects always has a start to cause it. p3
Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards p5
Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible (p5 contradicts c1 + p3) c2
Therefore only finite sets are possible c3 (rephrasing of c2)
Therefore the universe it a finite set (application of possible worlds to this world - c2) c4
Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe (c4 + p3) c5
It's clear to me, but I can help anyone with any of these premises.
Infinite set of effects is like a square triangle. If a square, not a triangle. If a triangle, not a square.
You can see inductively it would need a cause but also span wise in theory it would not have a cause, thus a paradox like square triangles.
It's impossible and hence the universe has a start and that needs a start causer.
When people reach this conclusion.
(1) That cause is eternal (never began)
(2) Had enough power to create the universe
The notion that the universe was in a state of non-movement, and all a sudden began to move after eternally not, doesn't stand to reason for me. If it's eternally not moving, it's not going to ever start.
So (a) magical being(s) created it.
This is a start to the right direction. It doesn't prove capital "God", but it's a step.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I know many.
Alhamdulilah, maybe I live with insincere people.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I can give you people and you can find them on the internet.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Inboxed brother
leroy
Well-Known Member
Sounds more like an excuse I challenge you to quote a single relevant claim that I didn’t addresses
These claims are true by definition, the cause of matter (or the cause of the first material thing) by definition has to be immaterial; otherwise it wouldn’t be the cause of the first material thing.
So if you ever discuss the KCA with someone else at least make an effort , open your mind, and accept the simple and uncontroversial stuff….. otherwise you will end up with long circular and endless conversations where eventually the other guy will lose interest (which apparently causes a big discomfort in you)