Jump to content

The Kalam Cosmological Argument


Recommended Posts

 

Again "everything which "begins to exist" has a cause apart from itself. The Christian God never began to exist! You can't make up your own god and apply your gods limitations to mine!!

 

 

Can you even show some evidence for your "Christian God" much less that it has always existed? And yes i can make up my own God and it's limitations are the same as your god...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You're just like richard dickens. NO one believes in created gods. Created gods are a delusion, and that's why he named his book the god delusion.   The Bible both says God is beyond timeTitus 1:2 a

As a matterof principle I rarely view videos linked through forums.   I find concepts much more credible when their proponents are able to express the key elements in clear, concise terms. So anothe

I gave it the first minute. It's argument from incredulity and appeal to ridicule rolled into one, plus it conveniently ignores the "if everything must have a cause, then what cause God to exist?" dis

 

 

Can you even show some evidence for your "Christian God" much less that it has always existed? And yes i can make up my own God and it's limitations are the same as your god...

 

"and yes I can make up my own God and it's limitations" yes you can but you sure as hell arn't going to apply them to my God is uncaused and never began to exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"and yes I can make up my own God and it's limitations" yes you can but you sure as hell arn't going to apply them to my God is uncaused and never began to exist.

 

The invisible unicorns came first. They created the universe and then went on to create your god.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again "everything which "begins to exist" has a cause apart from itself. The Christian God never began to exist! You can't make up your own god and apply your gods limitations to mine!!

Yeah, you're postulating an eternal entity. There's nothing in the cosmological argument that self evidently points to the existence of such an entity, let alone that it is what you call the Christian God. The arguments just don't stack up.

 

PS is it really so bad not knowing the true origins of the universe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know of any scientific evidence that points to a beginning of the universe (a lot of speculation ... but a lot of speculation about an eternal/cyclic universe as well).

 

There may be no scientific evidence that points to an eternal universe but then ... there is no scientific evidence that points to an eternal god, either.

 

The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because all the scientific evidence (that I know of) points to a beginning, and there is no scientific evidence (that I know of) that points to an enternal universe.

 

 

 

 

I don't know of any scientific evidence that points to a beginning of the universe (a lot of speculation ... but a lot of speculation about an eternal/cyclic universe as well).

 

There may be no scientific evidence that points to an eternal universe but then ... there is no scientific evidence that points to an eternal god, either.

The notion of the BB being "the beginning" was an interpretive artifact of GR and the state of knowledge at an earlier time which scientists know now is in error...the BB is just one phase in it's evolution. Let's not forget, the lines we draw chronologically at certain temporal points are there for convenience and communication but its development is in fact a seamless continuum stretching back infinitely and moving temporally forward into infinity. If this were false then the principle of conservation of energy must be false, So, to hold true, the energy always existed and will always exist.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the 2nd law?

What about it?

 

 

God didn't begin to exist.

Then neither did the universe. ANY way you can define "begin to exist" which legitimately applies to the universe applies to God. There is absolutely no sense in which the universe did not exist and then it did.

Because all the scientific evidence (that I know of) points to a beginning, and there is no scientific evidence (that I know of) that points to an enternal universe.

The universe is, by definition, eternal. It has always existed and will always exist. Having a finite past in no way precludes the universe from being eternal. There is no time at which the universe did not exist and there never will be a time at which the universe does not exist. There is no sense in which the universe did not exist and then it did.

God is uncaused and never began to exist.

Same with the universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* did you even watch the video lol?

*sigh* do you even know what you are talking about?

 

If you do, you tell me how it is relevant. If not, why are you here merely parroting talking points of disingenuous apologists? This is a discussion forum, not a soap-boxing forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* do you even know what you are talking about?

 

If you do, you tell me how it is relevant. If not, why are you here merely parroting talking points of disingenuous apologists? This is a discussion forum, not a soap-boxing forum.

 

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. As time goes on the ammount of energy in the universe is decreasing. This shows the universe did have beginning or it would have ran out of energy a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. As time goes on the ammount of energy in the universe is decreasing.

Close enough.

 

 

This shows the universe did have beginning

No. It shows that it has an initial ordered state. The universe has always existed and will always exist. A finite past does not necessarily mean a beginning.

Now, how about you get around to this post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* did you even watch the video lol?

!

Moderator Note

For the benefit of members not able to watch it, it would be nice if you could go to the effort of summarising it yourself. In fact, we don't technically allow threads of this nature to remain open as they tend to limit discussion.

 

Secondly, this thread is about a very specific philosophical argument. It would be great if members discussed and argued the merits of that, rather than going back to the tired old, 'give me evidence that your God exists,' line. It is not constructive in the context of this discussion and is besides the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

I thought I was pretty clear, but okay. Crispy Bacon, please stop spamming the thread with YouTube videos. If you must, then include a text description with it so that members who cannot access the video can see what you're trying to say. It's a very simple request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"and yes I can make up my own God and it's limitations" yes you can but you sure as hell arn't going to apply them to my God is uncaused and never began to exist.

 

 

"and yes I can make up my own God and it's limitations" yes you can but you sure as hell arn't going to apply them to my God is uncaused and never began to exist.

 

 

While I agree with what you said I am sure you didn't mean to say your god doesn't exist, so I'll ask this simple question, can you show any evidence that the christian god or any other god is uncaused and has existed eternally or are you really saying your god doesn't exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought a short video in response would be appropriate.

 

One big glaring thing that sticks out to me in the OP's vid is that we never observe nothing or matter coming into existence in the normal world. An egg or a baby is just transformation of atoms, not "something coming into existence". It is just the intuitive application of what we see in our normal day to day lives onto the universe. Science can do so much better.

 

The video, and Krauss' idea, really do nothing to dispel the KCA. The ideas that Krauss espouse are not a true nothing in any sense of the word.

can you show any evidence that the christian god or any other god is uncaused and has existed eternally or are you really saying your god doesn't exist?

 

The Christian God, by definition, exists uncaused and eternally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asked to summarize this argument, and so I shall. Here goes nothing.

 

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

 

Some say quantum mechanics refutes my first premise, but that is a lie. Virtual particles particles are not really created from "nothing", but rather a quantum vacuum which contains energy to permit for the spontaneous existence of matter.

 

to prove the universe can't be enteral I will say the number of past events (of the universe) can't be infinite, and the universe must have a definite beginning to its existence. There must be an uncaused first cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asked to summarize this argument, and so I shall. Here goes nothing.

 

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

 

Some say quantum mechanics refutes my first premise, but that is a lie. Virtual particles particles are not really created from "nothing", but rather a quantum vacuum which contains energy to permit for the spontaneous existence of matter.

 

to prove the universe can't be enteral I will say the number of past events (of the universe) can't be infinite, and the universe must have a definite beginning to its existence. There must be an uncaused first cause.

Now, how about you get around to this post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asked to summarize this argument, and so I shall. Here goes nothing.

 

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

 

Some say quantum mechanics refutes my first premise, but that is a lie. Virtual particles particles are not really created from "nothing", but rather a quantum vacuum which contains energy to permit for the spontaneous existence of matter.

 

to prove the universe can't be enteral I will say the number of past events (of the universe) can't be infinite, and the universe must have a definite beginning to its existence. There must be an uncaused first cause.

 

 

Ok, lets grant you the universe has a cause, first of all how do you get from cause to God?

 

Then how do you get to the christian god?

 

Then of course how can you say this god is eternal with no beginning, all I see is an infinite regress of causes causing each other... ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok, lets grant you the universe has a cause, first of all how do you get from cause to God?

 

Then how do you get to the christian god?

 

Then of course how can you say this god is eternal with no beginning, all I see is an infinite regress of causes causing each other... ...

 

There needed to be a first uncaused cause. There can't be an inf regress of causes and that's the point. Also you don't get to the Christiain God lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There needed to be a first uncaused cause. There can't be an inf regress of causes and that's the point. Also you don't get to the Christiain God lol.

I was asked to summarize this argument, and so I shall. Here goes nothing.

 

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

 

Some say quantum mechanics refutes my first premise, but that is a lie. Virtual particles particles are not really created from "nothing", but rather a quantum vacuum which contains energy to permit for the spontaneous existence of matter.

 

to prove the universe can't be enteral I will say the number of past events (of the universe) can't be infinite, and the universe must have a definite beginning to its existence. There must be an uncaused first cause.

Now, how about you get around to this post:

 

While Kalaam is valid, it is nowhere close to sound.

 

The first premise ("Whatever begins to exist has a cause") is unsupported and unsupportable:

 

"Begins to exist" is the bit we need to pay attention to. There are two kinds of "begin to exist"; one kind is previously existing stuff being rearranged into other effectively new things and the other is stuff popping out of nothing. The first is called "Creatio ex materia" and is the only one we have any evidence for requiring causes. The second is called "Creatio ex nihilo" and is the one the argument claims applies to the universe (which, it actually doesn't).

 

These two things are radically different and barely resemble each other. To use evidence for one as evidence for both is incompetence at best and lying at worse.

 

The second premise ("The universe began to exist") is false:

 

The universe has always existed and will always exist. This is true whether or not the past is infinitely long (bringing up arguments against an infinite past is called a "red herring" and is more evidence that apologists are being disingenuous). The fact is, at every point in time, there is a point in time. There is no such thing as "before" the universe. So, it is not the case that there was nothing then there was the universe. It is also not the case that there was other stuff then there was the universe. Not only because there is no before the universe, but also because there is no such thing as other stuff when we are talking about the universe.

 

There is one option that they could take to try to disingenuously say the universe has a cause (which, they sometimes do) by defining "begin to exist" as something like "Object O begins to exist at time t iff object O exists at time t and there is no time prior to t at which O exists". On that definition, the universe begins to exist only because there is no time prior to t.

 

And, here's the kicker. That definition of "begins to exist" (and anything else that could be used to accurately describe the universe) also applies to God. So, if the universe began to exist, God did as well. This leaves open, by the Kalaam argument (assuming the first premise is true), the question "Who created God?" and we have infinite regress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There needed to be a first uncaused cause. There can't be an inf regress of causes and that's the point. Also you don't get to the Christiain God lol.

For some reason i thought you were specifying the christian god, sorry, but none the less the idea of a first cause is not necessary see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The video, and Krauss' idea, really do nothing to dispel the KCA. The ideas that Krauss espouse are not a true nothing in any sense of the word.

 

The Christian God, by definition, exists uncaused and eternally.

I'm not speaking as a scientist, but I think Krauss is talking about nothing in the only real sense that we have, whereas KCA is speaking from ignorance.

 

I could define the universe or the multiverse as existing uncaused and eternal. It assumes far less than a God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason i thought you were specifying the christian god, sorry, but none the less the idea of a first cause is not necessary see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe.

 

 

The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.