leroy
Well-Known Member
How about this argument:
1 All humans with a Y choromosome are male
2 Chris has a Y chromosome
3 therefore Chris is a male?
Would you say that this argument is valid? , if yes why is it different from the KCA?
-
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!
What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
How about this argument:
1 All humans with a Y choromosome are male
2 Chris has a Y chromosome
3 therefore Chris is a male?
Would you say that this argument is valid? , if yes why is it different from the KCA?
leroy
Well-Known Member
My main objection to your model is that it seems metaphysically absurd to have a universe that was “doinign somethign” (contracting) for infinite amount of time and then arbitrarily did something else 14 billion years ago to produce the big bang. …. How do you go from past infinite to 14 Billion years ago?...........whatever caused the “firs big bang” has existed since eternity past, so why didnt the bang also occurred at eternity past?If you're playing poker for an infinite amount of time, then at any time you could still get a royal flush: it doesn't matter whether the one 13.8 billion years ago was the "first" one or not.
As for your other questions, perhaps a better explanation of eternal inflation is in order. Imagine a circle (we will ignore for a moment that it is a finitely sized circle, this is just to simplify the concept enough to understand). Now imagine that this circle is expanding (ignore for now that things would have to exist in order for expansion to mean anything, again, this is just to show a particular concept. Trying to pre-empt objections to the analogy).
Now, let's say that the field causing this circle to expand spontaneously decays at one of the edges and begins to expand much more slowly. So what you're imagining now is a nearly complete circle with a little dimple. Now, because the rest of the circle is expanding so much faster than the little dimple, the circle-material wraps around the dimple-material as the circle continues to expand: now you have a circle with a smaller circle (that used to be the dimple) inside of it: a bubble.
Now, the circle continues expanding. More dimples are made, and enveloped. You end up with a very large circle with a great many bubbles inside of it. As you can see, even though parts of the circle decay to make slowly expanding bubbles (relative to the circle), there will always be more circle than bubble, and the circle will never completely decay because only parts of it decay (and the rest expands to make up for it).
Now, in the real world, energy is conserved here because the expansion is balanced against the now-existent gravitational potential of the bubbles.
Entropy is temporal, and temporality is entropic. As has been stated above, every bubble creation is a local entropic minimum (that means the arrow of time begins in the bubble). Entropy winds down from there. But can you see how the arrow of time beginning in a bubble is not an ontological beginning?
The Boltzmann Brain issue is not an issue: in order for that argument to work, the universe must still be geared towards favoring the creation of such a thing; and the universe is not. It is not true that given an infinite universe and infinite time that the likelihood for all things developing is equal: we would probably smirk at the suggestion that the most likely object to exist is a green bust of Julius Caesar after all, and that's because of the physics. In order for the Boltzmann Brain objection to have any bite, Boltzmann Brains must be highly probable outcomes of the universe's physics; and they just aren't.
What Guth, Vilenkin, and Borde are saying is that classical methods of probing the Planck era give finite geodesics by necessity (in the same way that classical approaches to thermodynamics give us singular results like the ultraviolet catastrophe). Their phrasing is intended for colleagues that understand the context of their statements, which is that you cannot use classical physics to probe the Planck era: it is a consequence of the choice of metric. It does not mean that there was an ontological beginning, as at least Vilenkin and Guth have gone on to clarify when laypersons became interested in their papers.
In physics, sometimes you get singular results (e.g. event horizons, singularities) because of your choice of metric and assumptions. If you say "it is impossible to get past the event horizon," what your colleagues understand is that you are using the Schwarzschild metric and not Eddington-Finkelstein metric (the first is singular at event horizons, while the latter is not). It's because of the choice of metric, not because of any fact about reality. And that is what Vilenkin et al have shown: that we need quantum gravity to probe the Planck era; classical metrics won't cut it.
The key concept missing here is that the sheet is on metatime, the bubbles are entropic time. So the billions of years ago part is the formation of the bubble we call the local universe.
If there’s an infinite past, there were infinitely many of these elsewhere, each which had a beginning, and by now infinitely many have also met their end.
But it’s not even that simple as Penrose points out. The entropic time can restart, too: once the local universe is filled only with particles with no mass, the concept of entropic time disappears. In fact that means the concept of space disappears too.
leroy
Well-Known Member
https://callidusphilo.blogspot.com/2021/04/kalam_16.htmlNice.So, here's my post touching on general points:
A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Fallacy[
ok lets see the first criqique form the article
The critique is based on a strawman…….. nobody is arguing “because things in the universe have cause, therefore the universe must have a cause too."
The argument is:
Since “nohting” by definition doesn’t have any property (otherwise it wouldn’t be nothing) then “nothing” can’t have a property that would let it discriminate universes form betoeven or root beer………….if universes pop from nothing then everything else should also pop from nothing
Magical Wand
Active Member
I'll reply to your rebuttal once you reply to my last response to you.
Last edited:
Magical Wand
Active Member
Lol. Meow Mix didn't advocate the model of a contracting universe; I did. The cosmological model she explained in details is Eternal Inflation; not a contracting universe. You're confusing the two, and so your objections against her model are ineffective.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
The KLA does not prove God.
Points from Rational Wiki:
"
Problems
Special Pleading
A commonly-raised[3][4] objection to this argument is that it suffers from special pleading. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. However, while some phrasings of the argument may state that "everything has a cause" as one of the premises (thus contradicting the conclusion of the existence of an uncaused cause), there are also many versions that explicitly or implicitly allow for non-beginning or necessary entities not to have a cause. In the end, the point of the premises is to suggest that reality is a causally-connected whole and that all causal chains originate from a single point, posited to be God. That many people using this argument would consider God exempt from various requirements is a foregone conclusion, but citing "special pleading" because finite causal chains are said to have an uncaused beginning is hardly a convincing objection.
Effect without cause
Most philosophers believe that every effect has a cause, but David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.[5]
Multiple causes
Finally, there is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph
Radioactive decay
Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective. Another objection is that only the timing of decay events do not appear to have a cause, whereas a spontaneous decay is the release of energy previously stored, so that the storage event was the cause.
Virtual particles
Another counterexample is the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which randomly appear even in complete vacuum. These particles are responsible for the Casimir effect
Fallacy of composition
The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.
Equivocation error
There is an equivocation error lurking in the two premises of the Kalām version of the argument. They both mention something "coming into existence". The syllogism is only valid if both occurrences of that clause refer to the exact same notion.
In the first premise, all the things ("everything") that we observe coming into existence forms by some sort of transformation of matter or energy, or a change of some state or process. So this is the notion of "coming into existence" in the first premise.
In the second premise there is no matter or energy to be transformed or reshaped into the universe. (We are probably speaking of something coming from nothing.)
The two notions of "coming into existence" are thus not identical and therefore the syllogism is invalid.
The equivocation objection is not a contrived objection but rather relates to fundamental differences between the two forms of coming into existence. The transformation of matter or energy to cause things to come into existence is restricted by the laws of physics; but when we begin with an absolute nothing, there are no laws of physics like the conservation of energy that would prevent the universe from coming into existence out of nothing, all on its own.[6]
I am not a cosmologist. Are you? However some new theories that may yet be tested suggest a possible infinite universe:
"So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end."
The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time
This theme continues with every religious debate. Seems the religious side cannot accept "we don't know", or this is one possibility". Too emotionally attached to a particular outcome possibly?
.
Been dealing with it. Terrible argument, super bias towards one outcome yet specialists in the universe field are always open to new data?
.
.
God follows as a logical consequence when people read myths and decide they are real. That's it.
Plenty of mistakes in the argument. But here we have more mistakes. Why would a cause be spaceless? What if there are infinite spaces and a creator was in a different space? Demonstrate something can exist without time and space. Demonstrate why a creator has to be personal when all the natural laws are not personal. That is complete science fiction? Oh, does "everybody" mean that by God? Hmm, first you are wrong because that isn't what Bhraman is. But the concepts of the God you speak of were created during the middle ages by thinkers like Aquinas taking Greek concepts and pasting them onto his God. In other words, made up by a guy. Fiction. This is after these people realized that the people this God "spoke to" gave them all wrong information about what he was, where he was and so on. Wow, could this be exactly like something that was completely made up by people any more?
You think because some religious philosophers from the church during the Middle ages decided that their version of God would now contain Platonic fiction that it's actually real?
"When all is said and done, it must be recognized that one man was responsible for the creation of an ontology which culminates in incorporeal Being as the truest and highest reality. That man was Plato"[9]
---
[
joelr
Well-Known Member
The KLA does not prove God.
Points from Rational Wiki:
"
Problems
Special Pleading
A commonly-raised[3][4] objection to this argument is that it suffers from special pleading. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. However, while some phrasings of the argument may state that "everything has a cause" as one of the premises (thus contradicting the conclusion of the existence of an uncaused cause), there are also many versions that explicitly or implicitly allow for non-beginning or necessary entities not to have a cause. In the end, the point of the premises is to suggest that reality is a causally-connected whole and that all causal chains originate from a single point, posited to be God. That many people using this argument would consider God exempt from various requirements is a foregone conclusion, but citing "special pleading" because finite causal chains are said to have an uncaused beginning is hardly a convincing objection.
Effect without cause
Most philosophers believe that every effect has a cause, but David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.[5]
Multiple causes
Finally, there is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph
Radioactive decay
Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective. Another objection is that only the timing of decay events do not appear to have a cause, whereas a spontaneous decay is the release of energy previously stored, so that the storage event was the cause.
Virtual particles
Another counterexample is the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which randomly appear even in complete vacuum. These particles are responsible for the Casimir effect
Fallacy of composition
The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.
Equivocation error
There is an equivocation error lurking in the two premises of the Kalām version of the argument. They both mention something "coming into existence". The syllogism is only valid if both occurrences of that clause refer to the exact same notion.
In the first premise, all the things ("everything") that we observe coming into existence forms by some sort of transformation of matter or energy, or a change of some state or process. So this is the notion of "coming into existence" in the first premise.
In the second premise there is no matter or energy to be transformed or reshaped into the universe. (We are probably speaking of something coming from nothing.)
The two notions of "coming into existence" are thus not identical and therefore the syllogism is invalid.
The equivocation objection is not a contrived objection but rather relates to fundamental differences between the two forms of coming into existence. The transformation of matter or energy to cause things to come into existence is restricted by the laws of physics; but when we begin with an absolute nothing, there are no laws of physics like the conservation of energy that would prevent the universe from coming into existence out of nothing, all on its own.[6]
I am not a cosmologist. Are you? However some new theories that may yet be tested suggest a possible infinite universe:
"So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/
This theme continues with every religious debate. Seems the religious side cannot accept "we don't know", or this is one possibility". Too emotionally attached to a particular outcome possibly?
.
Been dealing with it. Terrible argument, super bias towards one outcome yet specialists in the universe field are always open to new data?
.
.
God follows as a logical consequence when people read myths and decide they are real. That's it.
Plenty of mistakes in the argument. But here we have more mistakes. Why would a cause be spaceless? What if there are infinite spaces and a creator was in a different space? Demonstrate something can exist without time and space. Demonstrate why a creator has to be personal when all the natural laws are not personal. That is complete science fiction? Oh, does "everybody" mean that by God? Hmm, first you are wrong because that isn't what Bhraman is. But the concepts of the God you speak of were created during the middle ages by thinkers like Aquinas taking Greek concepts and pasting them onto his God. In other words, made up by a guy. Fiction. This is after these people realized that the people this God "spoke to" gave them all wrong information about what he was, where he was and so on. Wow, could this be exactly like something that was completely made up by people any more?
You think because some religious philosophers from the church during the Middle ages decided that their version of God would now contain Platonic fiction that it's actually real?
"When all is said and done, it must be recognized that one man was responsible for the creation of an ontology which culminates in incorporeal Being as the truest and highest reality. That man was Plato"[9]
---
[
joelr
Well-Known Member
The Persian one true God, and Hinduism had personal Gods before Yahweh. They are probably not real. Neither is Yahweh.
You are straying further and further away from evidence and into complete folktales.
I would ask for your evidence that any God is personal but this is getting ridiculous.
Vaishnavism and Shaivism,[39] traditions of Hinduism, subscribe to an ultimate personal nature of God. The Vishnu Sahasranama[40] declares the person of Vishnu as both the Paramatma (supreme soul) and Parameshwara (supreme God) while the Rudram describes the same about Shiva. In Krishna-centered theology (Krishna is seen as a form of Vishnu by most, except Gaudiya Vaishnavism) the title Svayam Bhagavan is used exclusively to designate Krishna in his personal feature,[41][42] it refers to Gaudiya Vaishnava, the Nimbarka Sampradaya and followers of Vallabha, while the person of Vishnu and Narayana is sometimes referred to as the ultimate personal god of other Vaishnava traditions
Now we see these qualities have existed in Gods prior and /or were qualities made up way before Yahweh was in any stories.
You are picking a specific fiction, which can be shown to be unoriginal and developed through common religious syncretism and insisting this is your candidate. This argument has fallen completely apart.
QUOTE="leroy, post: 7303351, member: 64824"]
-
So in summery an argument for the existence of god has been provided (The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith) so you shouldn’t be repeating like a parrot “there is no evidence” “there is no evidence” until you deal with the argument and refute it.[/QUOTE]
That argument has further flaws below. All his points have been dealt with. And still, there is no evidence.
Five Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument
Answers to :
The problem of the extent of the present
The problem of the relevance of thought experiments about infinity
The problem of the difference between physical and metaphysical time
The problem of establishing a cause of the universe
The problem of non-personal, timeless causes
Five Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument
Conclusion
Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument faces major problems. These can be summarised as a series of questions. First, what is the temporal extent of the present? Craig needs to provide a cogent answer to this question before he can develop a philosophy of time necessary for the Kalam to work. Second, how can we determine that because certain situations involving actual infinities are impossible, that therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old? This difficulty in making the leap between hypothetical thought experiments and the finitude of the past is a major limitation in philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe. Third, is the notion of ‘time’ in general relativity equivalent to ‘real’ metaphysical time? It seems that Craig must answer ‘no’ to this question if he is to maintain his presentist philosophy of time, and yet such an answer means that he cannot appeal to scientific results (which depend on general relativity) to establish the beginning of the universe. Fourth, why can’t the universe just begin without a cause? Craig’s quip that ‘from nothing, nothing comes’ is not a sufficient answer, since the real question not whether the universe could have ‘popped into being’, but whether the universe could simply have begun a finite time in the past without any external cause. Fifth, why can’t a non-personal, timeless entity be the cause of the universe? Craig asserts that only an immaterial mind with libertarian freedom can cause a temporal state to begin from an initial timeless state, but has no non-circular justification for this, and simply ignores the many other possible causes that could bring about this effect. Unless Craig is able to provide cogent and consistent answers to these five questions, his Kalam Cosmological Argument will continue to be plagued by major unresolved problems, and fail to persuade skeptics such as me that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
Five Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Three as the supernatural has been witnessed.
If nothing 0 created where are the members of order you claim maths exists as?
If you say what pre existed changed by a portion then it owns natural sense. Reason science copying changes states by portions also.
If nothing 0 created where are the members of order you claim maths exists as?
If you say what pre existed changed by a portion then it owns natural sense. Reason science copying changes states by portions also.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Stawman, the KCA doesn’t assume that everything the universe has a cause.
It claims (and supports) that everything the begin to exist has a cause…. Any entity that didn’t begin to exist wouldn’t require a cause (as far as the KCA goes)
Which is why I (and my source) provided evidence and arguments beyond “direct observation” you are expected to deal with those arguments.
Multiple causes
Finally, there is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graphwhich represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism.
Granted, nothing in the KCA argument excludes many causes, (polytheism) the monotheist is expected to provide additional arguments to exclude polytheism …. But so what? The argument doesn’t aspire to prove monotheism over polytheism
at this point do you grant that I have refuted those points? if not why not?
leroy
Well-Known Member
OK out of those 5 problems which would you say its the worst problem so that I can adress it
gnostic
The Lost One
The worse problem of KCA has always been demonstrating the “existence of God” (or the “Creator”) as the “cause” of the universe’s existence, but the personal Creator being “uncause”.
That's the core problem - the existence of Creator
Craig’s premises in KCA rely on no evidence for the existence of this “personal uncause Creator”, relying only on just circular reasoning for asserting Creator in the last two premises.
There are no ways to prove the existence of this Creator, hence the whole KC argument falls apart, as unprovable and untestable rationalization.
Like @joelr said, Craig - as well yourself, leroy - is using special pleading to make the imaginary Creator the “cause” of real and existing universe as a valid point, which ultimately cannot be validated...like i said using biased circular argument.
KCA is nothing more than biased and unrealistic argument, a sophistry.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Because human male exist, and the Y-chromosome exist.
The KCA only have the “universe” existing, not the “Creator” existing.
God or Creator or whatever you may call this entity, don’t exist beyond belief, imagination or in delusion, so neither of these are really to show god exist.
So the human-chromosome and KCA are not really comparable.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Reason to argue a creator owned cause. So science in ego would not believe they owned everything created in one place.
As counting one begins where you live.
Then zero nothing owns nothing it is empty. No maths.
Science argues emptiness claiming it's impossible to relate as zero.
Yet consciousness forms holes in earth and gases water oxygen our conscious state moves into the hole.
Consciosness says zero to know is not possible. And it owns no numbers.
Consciousness is tricked by our heavens.
Teaching natural self human consciousness self existing is first. Not numbers.
Topics of reading own human purposes involved.
Hence when science says I want to create the thesis zero is how to cause a space. Their space is contradictory to natural emptiness. So he will argue by using numbers.
Why they argue maths. As without maths you could not create a conversion in destruction. Want is first the want to force change. Part of consciousness that is not a number.
What we learnt. Creation existed without a creator.
However informed status says it believes a creator body had released it. Yet no creator was in the state just created exists.
St and ate. A human worded purpose. No creator as consuming removed the origin body.
And notified scientists as humans told us destroyed form is to perform science and thesis about terms involving destruction constantly.
The theist is always inferring to lesser or reactive states that own no human owned status as complete oneness first.
Oneness said first is human in position one first in creation. The place of self ownership. Also proving maths wrong as earth is not the beginning.
In science however it is as they convert it's mass as position one.
Why lying and coercion is involved in science.
Why they had to state consciously no human is any God. For human ego reasons.
Ownership rich and imbalanced human conditions the reason science historic is wrong first.
Commonsense today says it has to stop imbalanced causes as the human conscious answers know the elite equals our life's destruction.
As counting one begins where you live.
Then zero nothing owns nothing it is empty. No maths.
Science argues emptiness claiming it's impossible to relate as zero.
Yet consciousness forms holes in earth and gases water oxygen our conscious state moves into the hole.
Consciosness says zero to know is not possible. And it owns no numbers.
Consciousness is tricked by our heavens.
Teaching natural self human consciousness self existing is first. Not numbers.
Topics of reading own human purposes involved.
Hence when science says I want to create the thesis zero is how to cause a space. Their space is contradictory to natural emptiness. So he will argue by using numbers.
Why they argue maths. As without maths you could not create a conversion in destruction. Want is first the want to force change. Part of consciousness that is not a number.
What we learnt. Creation existed without a creator.
However informed status says it believes a creator body had released it. Yet no creator was in the state just created exists.
St and ate. A human worded purpose. No creator as consuming removed the origin body.
And notified scientists as humans told us destroyed form is to perform science and thesis about terms involving destruction constantly.
The theist is always inferring to lesser or reactive states that own no human owned status as complete oneness first.
Oneness said first is human in position one first in creation. The place of self ownership. Also proving maths wrong as earth is not the beginning.
In science however it is as they convert it's mass as position one.
Why lying and coercion is involved in science.
Why they had to state consciously no human is any God. For human ego reasons.
Ownership rich and imbalanced human conditions the reason science historic is wrong first.
Commonsense today says it has to stop imbalanced causes as the human conscious answers know the elite equals our life's destruction.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Wow, you just re-explained why it's special pleading?
Your "source"? LOL. WLC doesn't understand Cantor's transfinite theory and he tries to pretend he knows more about quantum mechanics than Paul Davies? Fail.
The argument pretends it knows everything possible about reality. We do know stories abouts Gods are fiction but we do not know what can and cannot happen in the scope of reality.
You need to ask?
joelr
Well-Known Member
If you have an argument make it. If you have issues with Paul Davies please find an actual physicist to chime in. Maybe a mathematician to comment on Hilberts hotel and how "absurd" it is?
Yes I pick a fourth option, we do not know.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Men who talk about a creator say the evidence is gods son.
Consciousness says man said he was God and his son a baby created by his life man made his son a son of God man.
How is that status defining a creator?
The human statement says a man was discussing his own life body human. His male son.
No he says God is our father.
Then.he says God the father created two adult human parents.
Brother and sister. Proof he says adults were first. Not babies. So you wonder about his thesis.
We know water formed in space and without it there is no life.
Water is a defined spirit body.
Life he says was created.
So he ought to rethink what claims he is discussing in reality. About a creator creating
As spatial forms are vastly different in mass.
We all know babies come from sex. A choice by two humans.
By two he said created life.
Yet number two never did anything.
As a bio body dies if you get sacrificed you are physical. The story talks physical life. Yet the bible says clouds that own water owned man's spirit image.
To be a man physical life is lived first.
No he says Jesus is before Christ it was a sacrificed man's image in the clouds....not a living man.
Why humans say there is no creator in created creation.
Consciousness says man said he was God and his son a baby created by his life man made his son a son of God man.
How is that status defining a creator?
The human statement says a man was discussing his own life body human. His male son.
No he says God is our father.
Then.he says God the father created two adult human parents.
Brother and sister. Proof he says adults were first. Not babies. So you wonder about his thesis.
We know water formed in space and without it there is no life.
Water is a defined spirit body.
Life he says was created.
So he ought to rethink what claims he is discussing in reality. About a creator creating
As spatial forms are vastly different in mass.
We all know babies come from sex. A choice by two humans.
By two he said created life.
Yet number two never did anything.
As a bio body dies if you get sacrificed you are physical. The story talks physical life. Yet the bible says clouds that own water owned man's spirit image.
To be a man physical life is lived first.
No he says Jesus is before Christ it was a sacrificed man's image in the clouds....not a living man.
Why humans say there is no creator in created creation.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Lets start with something simple. If you don’t understand this I will not waste time in more complex stuff.
In this context “the universe” by definition includes “all space and time” this means that any cause of the universe by necessity would have to be space less. Otherwise it cannot be the cause of the universe.
This is analogous to “the cause of the first computer, by definition has to be a “non-computer” otherwise it wouldn’t be the first computer. (if the first computer came from a preexisting computer then the former can´t be the first computer)
So do you understand why the cause of the universe (if there was one) by definition has to be space less?
Do you grant this simple trivial and uncontroversial fact? If not then I have no other option but to conclude that, you don’t have to grant the whole KCA argument, you don’t have to grant the existence of God, you dont have to grant any of the 2 premises, all you have to do is grant that *IF* the universe had a cause then by definition the cause has to be spaceless.
Remember in this context the defection of universe includes all space, including all the “space” that might exist before the big bang or in other parallel worlds.