Hi friends. Hope you'll are doing well.
I am a Christian Theist. I am curious as to how Atheists answer the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: Now, the Universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Corollaries: Therefore, a Cause of the Universe exists outside time and space that created the material universe out of nothing.
The properties of this First Cause that we can deduce would thus be that it is (1) Eternal, as it exists outside time, (2) Omnipresent, as it exists outside space (3) Almighty, as only an Almighty Power can create ex nihilo or out of nothing. That will do for now. How would Atheist Friends answer these arguments? God Bless.
Premise 1 is unsupported. Instant fail.
Unsupported? It's a basic logical Truth. Human beings, planets, stars and houses don't come into being without a cause. There are plenty of examples of the premise and hardly any to the contrary.
The second premise has not been demonstrated to be true.
The universe may not ever have "begun to exist."
It may be that the universe we inhabit is but the most recent iteration of a cosmos that has existed for an infinite amount of time. There have been put forward several cosmological models that show how this could be the case.
The first premise is doing a lot of heavy lifting, trying to justify the special pleading required for your conclusion.
"Whatever begins to exist." Why not just say, "Whatever exists?" It's because you need your god to be an exception to the problem you're trying to solve.
You're trying to assert that God is the prime mover. Naturally, the first question we'll ask then is, "What about God? What created him?" So you try to get people to agree with the assumption that God didn't begin to exist, to try to circumvent this problem. We've seen this a million times. It doesn't work on us.
The truth is God adds nothing valuable to the discussion. If God can exist without a creator, so can the universe. You're not explaining anything. You're just throwing in extra steps. You're making things more complicated, not less.
Frankly, the idea of a timeless being just existing with a predetermined personality and goals is just inherently ridiculous. Where did his personality come from? I can tell you that mine is a mix of nature and nurture. My experiences combined with my genetics made me who I am. What makes God the way he is? If he exists outside of time and cannot change, it's not experience. And if he's incorporeal, then it's not genetics either. So why is your god the way that he is and not any of the infinite other ways he could be?
And why does he have goals? What does he have to gain? A god with all of the omni traits assigned to him would have no need for anything. He would want for nothing. He would be self-sufficient. So what would motivate him to create anything in the first place? To do so would imply an unmet want or need in his existence. What void could a timeless, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient god be trying to fill?
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AMI am curious as to how Atheists answer the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
It is an admission of defeat. That god not only doesn't exist, but
cannot exist. You can't find god anywhere, so you are forced to use the origin of the universe to prove it's existence.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument makes me feel bad for you. It is the equivalent of a boxer who lies down when the bell rings.
It isn't worth even mentioning the actual argument. It is puerile.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:55:17 AMHuman beings, planets, stars and houses don't come into being without a cause.
So, you were there, saw it happen that way. OR some nutbar wrote a book and you liked it. I'll go with "2".
Is there a particular god you wish to promote? I don't think anyone has an issue with the concept of an accidental god.....something just strutting around outside the cosmos shitting universes in his wake as he goes on his way to a tennis match never to look back. But if your on about a god such as the Judeo god....gook luck with that because that is absurd. Really, one idiot god there, for a omnipotent being he is the most incompetent god...next to the other ten thousand that man has conjured up, in a very very ignorant world.
OP is yelling for help right now. "They're not FOLLOWING THE SCRIPT YOU GAVE ME!"
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2024, 10:15:23 AMThe second premise has not been demonstrated to be true.
The universe may not ever have "begun to exist."
It may be that the universe we inhabit is but the most recent iteration of a cosmos that has existed for an infinite amount of time. There have been put forward several cosmological models that show how this could be the case.
Very well. Happy to oblige. Here's Proof of Premise 2:
Proofs of Premise 2:"The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago
when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain
how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery." Taken from: https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin
And: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem also confirms the Universe once had an Absolute Beginning:
"The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that
any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations. It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003. The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates."[3] Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem
I will skip the other proofs for now. You can also ask yourself, "What existed 100 BN years ago?" If the answer is "nothing", or at least, "nothing material", then you have your answer. The Universe is not infinitely old, but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago in the past. The very finite age of the Universe shows the same.
You know, I also take argument with what 3 things you deduce.
What is eternal, when talking about a state of ´existence´, for a lack fo a better word, where time or matter may not have even been?
Is it even a valid terminology to talk about eternalness, outside of the boundaries of time? One might say external is ´for all of time´. But if there is no ´before´ or ´after´ time, What would eternalness even refer to in that context? What if there is? Does it even have a place?
I can make similar objections to your two other deductions.
You seem to want to use terminology that are already hypothetical attributes in our own universe, and seem to think they would logically apply ´outside´ a place where those physics and logic would adhere.
I can´t disprove that, but you can´t make a logical claim for it. It is like saying you can define the will of God. Like you can understand the supernatural.
It seems arrogant to me. And missing the fact that it maybe a nonsens question or moot point altogether, in the first place.
And then there are further objections.
Is something that can create the universe all-powerful? What if i were to create a universe-creating machine. Would that make the machine all powerful? If all it can do is churn out universes? If that is all it can do, it is actually limited in it's function
Would it make me all powerful?
I mean I could create any universe I wanted. But I would need the machine to do it. I myself might be far from omnipotent.
And what if god could only create this universe, and no other? What if he is bounded to the rules he set out for himself?
And then again, you might have further objections.
Can you be all knowing and all powerful at the same time? Can you know what you will do in advance, for all of your eternal ´life´? And if so, can you choose to change your choice that you know you´ll make? If you can´t, can you be called all powerful? If you can, then doesn´t that mean you failed to foresee what you would do?
One might argue to that: the omni-traits are limited to what is logically possible. But then don't give your god attributes fundamentally impossible to unite.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 01:47:36 PMVery well. Happy to oblige. Here's Proof of Premise 2:
Proofs of Premise 2:
"The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery." Taken from: https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin
And: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem also confirms the Universe once had an Absolute Beginning:
"The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations. It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003. The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates."[3] Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem
I will skip the other proofs for now. You can also ask yourself, "What existed 100 BN years ago?" If the answer is "nothing", or at least, "nothing material", then you have your answer. The Universe is not infinitely old, but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago in the past. The very finite age of the Universe shows the same.
The universe may well have existed before the big bang according to various cosmologists, such as Roger Penrose, Paul Steinhardt and others.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 01:47:36 PMVery well. Happy to oblige. Here's Proof of Premise 2:
Proofs of Premise 2:
"The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery." Taken from: https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin
And: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem also confirms the Universe once had an Absolute Beginning:
"The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations. It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003. The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates."[3] Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem
I will skip the other proofs for now. You can also ask yourself, "What existed 100 BN years ago?" If the answer is "nothing", or at least, "nothing material", then you have your answer. The Universe is not infinitely old, but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago in the past. The very finite age of the Universe shows the same.
You may think you can suggest that one thing can alway exist but two cannot. It's not just a logical absurdity, it's a simple absurdity. In our limited knowledge of our universe, singularities are extremely rare, if they exist at all.
A singularity is a black hole. We have minis and monsters and all between. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 01:47:36 PMVery well. Happy to oblige. Here's Proof of Premise 2:
Proofs of Premise 2:
"The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery." Taken from: https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin
And: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem also confirms the Universe once had an Absolute Beginning:
"The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations. It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003. The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates."[3] Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem
I will skip the other proofs for now. You can also ask yourself, "What existed 100 BN years ago?" If the answer is "nothing", or at least, "nothing material", then you have your answer. The Universe is not infinitely old, but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago in the past. The very finite age of the Universe shows the same.
The Big Bang is what happened at the beginning of the universe, yes, but that model starts with the universe as a singularity. It does not start with nothing. We don't know what, if anything, was before the Big Bang. We could make blind shots in the dark and maybe one of us will get lucky, but your reasons for why you came to your conclusion are just as important as the conclusion itself. There's a world full of conspiracy theorists. Some of them may be right, but they're all nuts, and we no reason to take them seriously. So tell us, why should we entertain the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, timeless god as the cause of the Big Bang over any other possible explanation?
Oh hey, it's only the
billionth time this has been posted.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AMPremise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Unsupported. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any known means, only change states.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AMPremise 2: Now, the Universe began to exist.
Unsupported. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is not the beginning, it's just when the universe stopped being a singularity.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AMConclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Two unsupported premises leading to a faulty conclusion. The universe may not have a cause.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AMCorollaries: Therefore, a Cause of the Universe exists outside time and space that created the material universe out of nothing.
Even if the conclusion were correct, this corollary does not follow from it. The cause of the universe could exist in a different time and space, and the universe itself formed from the material of said space-time.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AMThe properties of this First Cause that we can deduce
You cannot deduce anything about that which has not been observed, directly or indirectly.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AM(1) Eternal, as it exists outside time, (2) Omnipresent, as it exists outside space
Time and space are the same thing. That's why people who actually know what they're talking about call it space-time. Also, all matter and energy is eternal since it can neither be created nor destroyed, and existing outside of space-time is the opposite of omnipresence. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere at once at all times; whereas the state of being nowhere at anytime would be called
absence.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 20, 2024, 08:22:16 AM(3) Almighty, as only an Almighty Power can create ex nihilo or out of nothing.
Another leap in logic. There is insufficient evidence to say if the universe had a beginning at all, much less created from nothing. Even if both of these were true, there are two problems: "almighty power" is not defined, and it has not been established that this undefined thing is the only way to create from nothing. Also, creating from nothing is impossible, as matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states.
Thanks for the responses.
As mentioned, the Big Bang Theory, and the BGV Theorem requires that the Universe had a beginning: "One reason for initial resistance to the Big Bang theory was that, unlike the rival Steady-State hypothesis, it proposed that the universe has a beginning – a proposition that for some had unwelcome religious implications." [(The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, Harrison P (2010)]. If the Universe had a beginning, it came into existence a finite time ago in the past. The law of energy conservation applies within the Universe once it has begun, not to the beginning of the Universe itself. The Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest named Fr. Georges Lemaitre. At the time, some Atheists disliked its implications of a temporal beginning of the Universe because that was too reminiscent of Divine Creation - but today the BBT is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology, and has had repeated empirical confirmation. Even the empirical fact of the universe's expansion, extrapolated backward, shows a beginning of space and time had to have existed.
The other objection of a supposed infinite regress of universes, where universes keep beginning and ending, still does not avoid a space-time beginning. There are two possible responses to this hypothesis. First, that an absolutely infinite collection of things cannot exist in the real world. Second, that even if it could, an absolute infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, and the addition of supposed universe to universe is a collection formed by successive addition. Said differently, if we let Ug={U1,U2,U3 .... Un} where Ug stands for the giga-universe of innumerable invisible universes, n would still be finite. Such a postulate would also seem to violate the scientific principle of Ockham's Razor.
As to why this matters, the answer is simple: because those who believe in and love God and accept Christ as their Savior will go to Heaven according to His Promise and gain Eternal Happiness. Nothing in this life can give us Eternal Happiness, but only temporal, except God alone, because God has designed it that way. We Christians know God exists by many means, also because we've experienced His Presence, answered prayers etc. But those are more or less experiential or internal to us. We therefore have recourse to indisputable scientific facts and external realities to help show you, too, the way to Heaven, so that you too might be happy forever, that's all. We debate over many things that don't bring us anything even if this or that side is right. But if Christians are right, there is Eternal, Infinite Happiness to gain by arriving at the Truth, and loving the Truth and living in accordance with it. God Bless.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 21, 2024, 03:08:51 AMBut if Christians are right, there is Eternal, Infinite Happiness to gain by arriving at the Truth, and loving the Truth and living in accordance with it. God Bless.
Big if there, buddy.
The fact that a religious publication says there are religious implications is net zero.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2024, 05:20:54 PMA singularity is a black hole. We have minis and monsters and all between. Just sayin'.
But we don't have just....one.
Quote from: aitm on July 21, 2024, 08:43:36 AMBut we don't have just....one.
That was my point as well.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 21, 2024, 03:08:51 AMThanks for the responses.
As mentioned, the Big Bang Theory, and the BGV Theorem requires that the Universe had a beginning: "One reason for initial resistance to the Big Bang theory was that, unlike the rival Steady-State hypothesis, it proposed that the universe has a beginning – a proposition that for some had unwelcome religious implications." [(The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, Harrison P (2010)]. If the Universe had a beginning, it came into existence a finite time ago in the past. The law of energy conservation applies within the Universe once it has begun, not to the beginning of the Universe itself. The Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest named Fr. Georges Lemaitre. At the time, some Atheists disliked its implications of a temporal beginning of the Universe because that was too reminiscent of Divine Creation - but today the BBT is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology, and has had repeated empirical confirmation. Even the empirical fact of the universe's expansion, extrapolated backward, shows a beginning of space and time had to have existed.
Are you even reading our responses? Because it doesn't look like it. How do you even know what atheists thought back then? You're aware that atheists haven't always been accepted by society, right? Hell, we're still not. Many of us keep our atheism to ourselves in fear of backlash, and that was especially true in the past. So how is it you've managed to get their concensus? Source, please. This sounds like the kind of nonsense that people in church make up to strawman their opposition, similar to, "Atheists just hate God and want to sin." It sounds to me like you're trying to rewrite history in your favor, because Christians are the ones who historically (and presently) deny scientific progress. Many still think that the universe is 6,000 years old, which is quite a bit younger than the Big Bang suggests.
More importantly, what does how atheists supposedly felt about the Big Bang in the past have to do with anything? The question is if the Big Bang suggests the universe was created. It doesn't. If you rewind time far enough, you get a singularity, not nothingness. It may not even be possible for nothingness to exist at all.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 21, 2024, 03:08:51 AMThe other objection of a supposed infinite regress of universes, where universes keep beginning and ending, still does not avoid a space-time beginning. There are two possible responses to this hypothesis. First, that an absolutely infinite collection of things cannot exist in the real world. Second, that even if it could, an absolute infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, and the addition of supposed universe to universe is a collection formed by successive addition. Said differently, if we let Ug={U1,U2,U3 .... Un} where Ug stands for the giga-universe of innumerable invisible universes, n would still be finite. Such a postulate would also seem to violate the scientific principle of Ockham's Razor.
You're making a lot of claims, but not supporting any of them. If infinites are a problem, then I've got bad news for your god. Occam's Razor removes your god, because he explains nothing. He makes things more complicated, not less. I'll show you.
Scenario 1: The universe began with the Big Bang. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.
Scenario 2: The universe began when a being separate from time somehow decided to create the universe. There was never a time when this being didn't exist.
Which scenario makes the most assumptions? If you're honest, you'll say it's scenario 2.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 21, 2024, 03:08:51 AMAs to why this matters, the answer is simple: because those who believe in and love God and accept Christ as their Savior will go to Heaven according to His Promise and gain Eternal Happiness. Nothing in this life can give us Eternal Happiness, but only temporal, except God alone, because God has designed it that way. We Christians know God exists by many means, also because we've experienced His Presence, answered prayers etc. But those are more or less experiential or internal to us. We therefore have recourse to indisputable scientific facts and external realities to help show you, too, the way to Heaven, so that you too might be happy forever, that's all. We debate over many things that don't bring us anything even if this or that side is right. But if Christians are right, there is Eternal, Infinite Happiness to gain by arriving at the Truth, and loving the Truth and living in accordance with it. God Bless.
Yeah, sure. Maybe your god blamed us for being in the imperfect state he created us in, then came up with a solution where he'd sacrifice himself to himself to somehow justify our imperfections. And maybe that sacrifice only counts if we believe it happened for some reason. And maybe this god has such a fragile ego that if you don't worship it, you will go to Hell to be tortured for all of eternity.
Ooooooor maybe there is a god who sends people to Hell for believing stupid things without good reason, and atheists go to Heaven for not believing those stupid things. Watch out! Your soul may be in danger of eternal torment!
Now do you see why we can't take you seriously? There are infinite possibilities for what happens after death. Not only is your religion not the only option, but it is one of the more nonsensical religious claims out there. At least other religions are more logically coherent, even if they can't support their claims any better than you can.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 21, 2024, 03:08:51 AMAs to why this matters, the answer is simple: because those who believe in and love God and accept Christ as their Savior will go to Heaven according to His Promise and gain Eternal Happiness.
None of that is even implied by the kalam cosmological argument.
You are wasting time.
I've seen this poster's copy pasta elsewhere. What's the rule here, on spamming?
They have to follow the script. You have to say what they expect you to say, based on their total ignorance of non-believers.
Quote from: BlackleafThe question is if the Big Bang suggests the universe was created. It doesn't. If you rewind time far enough, you get a singularity, not nothingness. It may not even be possible for nothingness to exist at all.
The Big Bang does suggest the Universe was created, because it leads to a finite age of the Universe. The singularity only shows that our calculations etc break down beyond that point. Given the finite age of the Universe, all you have to do is ask the question, "What existed 15 or 50 billion years ago". Since the Universe by definition is the sum-total of all matter across all of space-time, it clearly follows that the material Universe had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. The same conclusion follows from the BGV Theorem, which I don't think anyone addressed IIRC. That Theorem shows a Universe that is on average expanding as our Universe is must have had an absolute beginning at a temporal point in the past. The very finite size of the Universe also requires the same conclusion of a finite period of expansion etc.
QuoteYou're making a lot of claims, but not supporting any of them. If infinites are a problem, then I've got bad news for your god. Occam's Razor removes your god, because he explains nothing. He makes things more complicated, not less. I'll show you.
Let's take a look below, but God is not a collection of things, nor was He formed by successive addition of, say, particle to particle. We saw another problem with infinites in the material world above. Following an infinite period of expansion, the size of the universe would be infinite, which it is not. Next, if an infinite time has already passed, the Universe would have suffered heat death long ago. And so absurdity upon absurdity would follow.
QuoteScenario 1: The universe began with the Big Bang. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.
Scenario 2: The universe began when a being separate from time somehow decided to create the universe. There was never a time when this being didn't exist.
Which scenario makes the most assumptions? If you're honest, you'll say it's scenario 2.
The problem with scenario 1 is it assumes things can begin without a cause, which is the denial of all science and logic. Why didn't Sir Isaac Newton, when the proverbial apple fell on his head, just assume, "Maybe the apple fell on me with no cause/for no reason"? Rather, he tried to discern the underlying cause, applying logic, and thus discovering the law of gravity, causing knowledge and science to progress. Occams Razor does not exclude all causes but only unnecessary ones.
One Cause is necessary to explain the temporal beginning of the Universe. 10 causes are not. I can still postulate 10 if I want, but to postulate more than strictly necessary violates Occams Razor.
QuoteNot only is your religion not the only option, but it is one of the more nonsensical religious claims out there. At least other religions are more logically coherent, even if they can't support their claims any better than you can.
There are broadly 3 forms of religion/religious worldviews. (1) Atheism (2) Polytheism (3) Monotheism. Dr. Bill Craig has often argued, and I agree with him, that the Beauty of the Kalam is that it eliminates both (1) and (2). Many believed in multiple gods that begin to exist and cease to exist, the opposite of what the Kalam proves. Some also considered rain and sun and moon and planets to be gods, which we now know scientifically to have begun to exist. So, in brief, not all claims out there are equally probable. The Lord Jehovah, the God of Abraham, some 4000 years ago, distinguished Himself from all pagan/polytheistic multiple gods by revealing there was only One Almighty and Eternal Creator God, consistent with the Kalam. That model has stood the test of time and has had stunning empirical confirmations in cutting edge 20th and 21st century science like the Big Bang Theory and the BGV Theorem. The others have not.
Now within Monotheism, there are 3 options, (1) Judaism (2) Islam (3) Christianity. Christ gave multiple lines of evidence for why it is reasonable to believe He is the Son of God, died for our sins, rose again and is the Promised Messiah, such as fulfilled Messianic Prophecies and the Evidence for His Resurrection, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. Will cover that in future threads. The Kalam shows that of the 10 or so religious claims in the world, and the 3 schools of thought of atheism, polytheism and Monotheism, only Monotheism is credible. It thus excludes multiple options.
God Bless.
Fundamental misunderstanding of cosmology is not the same as understanding it.
They're so funny when they parrot that collection of pedos that pretend we have to follow the script they wrote.
Speaking of pedos: "You're known by the company you keep."
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 22, 2024, 10:50:02 AM[snip]
I already explained why these are garbage arguments. Answer my rebuttal.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 21, 2024, 01:57:46 AMUnsupported. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any known means, only change states.
Answered this above: "If the Universe had a beginning, it came into existence a finite time ago in the past.
The law of energy conservation applies within the Universe once it has begun, not to the beginning of the Universe itself." We know matter is not eternal because of its finite age, the same way we know you or I are not eternal, nor are houses, nor is the Earth etc. All these are of finite age and therefore began to exist. Let me give 3 proofs of Premise I:
Proofs of Premise I1.1 The Proof from Science: As I mentioned, when the apple fell on Sir Isaac's head, he knew that event had a cause. If Atheists were right in denying premise 1, why couldn't he have denied such and similar events ever needed a cause? To deny effects require their own proper cause would be the denial of and the end of all science, because science works to discern the underlying causes behind how things work.
1.2 The Proof from Logic: If universes could pop into being uncaused, then why can't horses and houses and everything else also pop into being uncaused? Logically, when we see something, we reason and reflect philosophically over its cause, and try to understand what happened and why it happened or what caused it to happen as it did. It could be Agent Causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation or Event Causation or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-07165-4_4 some such thing.
1.3 Atheism is worse than Magic: At least with Magic, when a Magician attempts to pull a rabbit out of an empty hat, at least you have the magician and the hat! But, according to Atheism, the rabbit could have just supposedly begun to exist without any cause - no magic, no hat, no magician or any such thing needed! All this is clearly and self-evidently false, we know things don't happen in that way.
QuoteUnsupported. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is not the beginning, it's just when the universe stopped being a singularity.
I gave three proofs of Premise 2. I will just recap them below.
Proofs of Premise 2:2.1 The Big Bang Theory. (btw, the singularity is what happens to our equations when we extrapolate backward in time. It does not mean the Universe itself was a singularity. Next, if it was, we know the Universe did not exist 20 billion or 60 billion years ago. Thus, it is of finite age and began to exist.)
2.2 The BGV Theorem.
2.3 The impossibility of actual infinites, especially forming them by successive addition.
QuoteEven if the conclusion were correct, this corollary does not follow from it. The cause of the universe could exist in a different time and space, and the universe itself formed from the material of said space-time.
I will let Dr. Craig answer this one:
Quote"Conclusion
On the basis, therefore, of both philosophical and scientific evidence, we have good grounds for believing that the universe began to exist. It therefore follows that the universe has a cause of its beginning.
What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we've seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy."
From: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument In brief, the Universe is the totality of matter across all of space-time. The Cause of the Universe therefore transcends it.
QuoteYou cannot deduce anything about that which has not been observed, directly or indirectly.
Disagree. We deduce all kinds of things about the beginning and the initial conditions of the universe, including things we clearly have not observed directly. So what do you mean by indirectly observe. And if by indirectly observe you mean we can know about Causes by studying their effects, as we know a murderer from his crime scene, then we answer that we can know about the Cause of the Universe in the same way.
God Bless.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 23, 2024, 11:47:14 AMIf the Universe had a beginning
I am going to ignore everything else in the first segment, because it depends on this very huge "if." We know the current expansion of the universe had a starting point. That is not the same as saying it's when the universe began.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 23, 2024, 11:47:14 AMI gave three proofs of Premise 2. I will just recap them below.
Proofs of Premise 2:
2.1 The Big Bang Theory. (btw, the singularity is what happens to our equations when we extrapolate backward in time. It does not mean the Universe itself was a singularity.
It also doesn't mean God was sitting there building a universe-sized nuke. The difference is I am citing science while you are citing a book of fables. Science can change and correct itself. Your book of fables has always been demonstrably wrong about absolutely everything, and always will be unless someone decides to re-write it.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 23, 2024, 11:47:14 AMNext, if it was, we know the Universe did not exist 20 billion or 60 billion years ago. Thus, it is of finite age and began to exist.)
We know roughly when the observable universe began expanding, and we call this its age. This is no different than identifying a human's age by the time their cells began dividing; however, the matter you are made of existed long before you did. Similarly, it is not known how, when, or even
if matter and energy came into being. There is certainly no reason to believe your imaginary friend was their maker.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 23, 2024, 11:47:14 AMI will let Dr. Craig
Who is not a scientist or mathematician of any kind, and whose opinion therefore has no relevance to this discussion.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 23, 2024, 11:47:14 AMWe deduce all kinds of things about the beginning and the initial conditions of the universe, including things we clearly have not observed directly.
Brilliant deduction, Sherlock, I never said anything to contradict that.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 23, 2024, 11:47:14 AMSo what do you mean by indirectly observe. And if by indirectly observe you mean we can know about Causes by studying their effects, as we know a murderer from his crime scene, then we answer that we can know about the Cause of the Universe in the same way.
Yes, we
could know about the cause of the universe if we did, in fact, have any way to observe it. What you have conveniently ignored, and which I already brought up, is that there is no such evidence of that cause, or if one even exists. But matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known means, and we have no reason to believe they ever were created.
One last thing. You have failed to consider or disprove any alternatives to God. As I mentioned earlier, "almighty power" is not defined, and it has not been established that this undefined thing is the only way to create from nothing. This is why even most philosophers don't take KCA seriously.
They believe in magic. Makes their grasp of science ludicrous.
Quote from: HijiriWe know the current expansion of the universe had a starting point. That is not the same as saying it's when the universe began.
This is like saying we know a line had a starting point, but we don't know if it began. If it had a starting point, it began. If if never began, it would have no starting point. Answer this question: what existed 100 billion years ago, according to you?
QuoteIt also doesn't mean God was sitting there building a universe-sized nuke. The difference is I am citing science while you are citing a book of fables. Science can change and correct itself. Your book of fables has always been demonstrably wrong about absolutely everything, and always will be unless someone decides to re-write it.
The series of causes must end in a first cause, because an infinite regress is impossible. I haven't appealed to the Bible, only Philosophy, Science and Logic; although Fr. Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest, and his Big Bang Theory is consistent with Genesis in saying the universe came into existence.
QuoteWe know roughly when the observable universe began expanding, and we call this its age. This is no different than identifying a human's age by the time their cells began dividing; however, the matter you are made of existed long before you did. Similarly, it is not known how, when, or even if matter and energy came into being. There is certainly no reason to believe your imaginary friend was their maker.
Did you read the BGV Theorem? "any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary." It is just not a question of us "calling this its age", but the universe only is that old. It did not exist 100 bn years now, it now does, hence something or Someone caused it to exist. As for us human beings, we did not exist as individual persons before conception.
QuoteYes, we could know about the cause of the universe if we did, in fact, have any way to observe it. What you have conveniently ignored, and which I already brought up, is that there is no such evidence of that cause, or if one even exists. But matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known means, and we have no reason to believe they ever were created.
It follows from Kalam, and the logical impossibility of an infinite regress. If that doesn't convince you, fine. Maybe other arguments will, maybe they will not. But the premises of the Kalam are solid and, at the least, more plausible than their denial. It won't do for Atheists just to deny premises and establish none of their own. Atheists also have to explain the grounds for their worldview and what they think confirms it.
QuoteOne last thing. You have failed to consider or disprove any alternatives to God. As I mentioned earlier, "almighty power" is not defined, and it has not been established that this undefined thing is the only way to create from nothing. This is why even most philosophers don't take KCA seriously.
The more one can create from less, the more powerful one is. Therefore, when one create almost everything from absolutely nothing, the limit of one's power tends to infinity. I think it's a reasonable deduction. If Atheists think otherwise, why don't one of you pls create just one Apple for me, out of nothing? You can't, it exceeds the limits of our finite power. You can create apple juice from that apple of course, but that's not creation out of nothing. The closest analogy we have is conceiving something that does not yet exist. Traditional theology has always held that God conceived the Universe and then created it out of nothing.
As to your last sentence: "According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well-argued in contemporary theological philosophy".[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argumentGod Bless.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 24, 2024, 02:10:16 AMThis is like saying we know a line had a starting point, but we don't know if it began.
No, it's really not. We know many ways a line can be created or destroyed.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 24, 2024, 02:10:16 AMThe series of causes must end in a first cause, because an infinite regress is impossible.
You don't know that, and you shouldn't pretend that you do.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 24, 2024, 02:10:16 AMIt did not exist 100 bn years now
Matter and energy necessarily did. There is a model that allows this, and you could have figured that out by now if you had taken the time to consider alternatives to Imaginary Friend Theory.
No, I'm not going to name the alternatives. None of them are proven, either, and it's not my job to help you improve your argument.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 24, 2024, 02:10:16 AMBut the premises of the Kalam are solid and, at the least, more plausible than their denial.
It's an argument so inane that it could only have been thought up by a philosopher.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 24, 2024, 02:10:16 AMIt won't do for Atheists just to deny premises and establish none of their own. Atheists also have to explain the grounds for their worldview and what they think confirms it.
"Atheists" don't have a worldview. Atheism is lack of belief in deities. And I don't have to establish any premises. I don't have to have a better explanation to say that yours doesn't make sense. "I don't know" is a valid position to take in science, and "you don't know, either" is a valid argument to make.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 24, 2024, 02:10:16 AMThe more one can create from less, the more powerful one is. Therefore, when one create almost everything from absolutely nothing, the limit of one's power tends to infinity. I think it's a reasonable deduction. If Atheists think otherwise, why don't one of you pls create just one Apple for me, out of nothing? You can't, it exceeds the limits of our finite power. You can create apple juice from that apple of course, but that's not creation out of nothing. The closest analogy we have is conceiving something that does not yet exist. Traditional theology has always held that God conceived the Universe and then created it out of nothing.
There is no known mechanism for creating something from nothing. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any known means. If you can't define a mechanism for creation, then the almighty power behind your creation theory is undefined by default. You can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but it will not change this fact.
Quote from: Xavier2024 on July 24, 2024, 02:10:16 AMAs to your last sentence: "According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well-argued in contemporary theological philosophy".[5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
I claim that most philosophers don't take it seriously, and your response is to find
one dude who does?
(https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/slow_clap_vanderbeek.gif)
HEY! Follow the fuckin' script they presume you have, atheists!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 24, 2024, 10:07:05 AMHEY! Follow the fuckin' script they presume you have, atheists!
It just makes me scratch my head every time Kalam gets posted. Do apologists really think we've never seen it before? You can literally do a google search for debunking Kalam and get thousands of hits. It's such a tired, overused argument that refuting it is practically a rite of passage for any skeptic.
"GOTCHA!!!" is the only plan for fundies.
Dear Currently Posting Fundy. Give up, you're not smart enough.
I'm waiting to see if he'll post the "good without God" argument before he gets banned. I know it's coming, I can see him chomping at the bit to get it out of his system.