But you are dealing with an argument that attempts to provide evidence for God (the KCA argument) if you what to affirm that there is no evidence for God then first you have to deal with the argument and disprove it.
In summery This is what is happening:
1 you claim there is no evidence for god
2 I present evidence for God (KCA)
3 you ignore the evidence and repeat "there is no evidence for God"
Done, deal with the evidence that has been presented, please explain where the flaws in the KCA argument are.
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
which 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.
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
and
Hawking radiation.
The release of such radiation comes in the form of gamma rays, which we now know from experiment are simply a very energetic form of light at the extreme end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Consequently, as long as there has been vacuum, there has been light, even if it's not the light that our eyes are equipped to see. What this means is that long before God is ever purported to have said "Let there be light!", the universe was already filled with light, and God is rendered quite the Johnny-come-lately. Furthermore, this phenomenon is subject to the same objection as radioactive decay.
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]
The claim is that space time itself had a begining (as premise 2 in the KCA claims) and evidence has been presented.
So do you agree with this claim ? If no please explain what is wrong with the
evidence please spot the specific mistakes
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?
.
Ok but an argument has been provided to support the claim, please deal with the argument
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 consequence of logical deduction
God follows as a logical consequence when people read myths and decide they are real. That's it.
If you grant that the universe had a cause it follows that the cause has to be spaceless timeless immaterial powerful and personal which is what everybody means by God... ......if you disagree you can try to spot mistakes in the logic and explain why you think are mistakes.
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?
* Zeus and Marvel Gods (if the excist) are not inmaterial
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]
---
[