The kca, a logical argument for the existence of god.

[lawcat]

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

It was alrady stated that we can not take this as true; meaning, prior steps are needed to prove it. But more importantly, all those premises suggest something solely about Universe. Nothing about God. Those KCA premises are pretense and puffery about God because they do not relate to God in any way. They strictly speak of universe.

 

Then to introduce God into this argument, the KCA says: God has no cause (faith), and God has effect (faith), therefore God must be the original Cause (faith), and no less than the cause of the Universe (faith). Bootstrapping, faith, nothing logical or valid, or pursuasive.

[InfiniteNow]

The BBT is an necessary component of the KCA.

And, as my second contribution notes, the BBT likely doesn't hold. If you look at publications in cosmological journals these last 4-5 years, you will notice a great preponderance of work showing that the BB was (to a high order of probability) more of a bounce, and that something was there before. Your argument fails at every turn, and it appears to most of us that you are too attached to it emotionally to realize this and discard it.

[Boerseun]

One more time ; The KCA is a valid cosmological argument for the existence of God.

One more time: The KCA is not a valid argument for anything, because you presuppose the existence of God. This is not logic. It's a good example of the failure of logic, however.

[RevOfAllRevs]

And, as my second contribution notes, the BBT likely doesn't hold. If you look at publications in cosmological journals these last 4-5 years, you will notice a great preponderance of work showing that the BB was (to a high order of probability) more of a bounce, and that something was there before. Your argument fails at every turn, and it appears to most of us that you are too attached to it emotionally to realize this and discard it.

 

You are mistaken. If you are talking about a rebounding universe. There is not enough mass in the universe to stop the expansion and cause a bounce. The universe will expand forever unless this missing mass is found. Your wishful thinking is not going to work with me InfiniteNow.

 

: }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

One more time: The KCA is not a valid argument for anything, because you presuppose the existence of God. This is not logic. It's a good example of the failure of logic, however.

 

God does not make an appearance in the first part of the KCA. We haven't even discussed that yet so I am afraid you are incorrect. I touched on it but its hardly been discussed. We haven't made it past the premises validity. Until we get an agreement there is no need for me to explain how a 'personal cause' comes about.

 

; {>

[lawcat]

KCA is a failure, and my hope is that this thread is closed or deleted. I've no ongoing interest in proving KCA or you wrong, or going on with the possibility of personal attacks.

This thread adds nothing, and is merely an evidence of how people are swindled by pseudo thinkers.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Then to introduce God into this argument, the KCA says: God has no cause (faith), and God has effect (faith), therefore God must be the original Cause (faith), and no less than the cause of the Universe (faith). Bootstrapping, faith, nothing logical or valid, or pursuasive.

 

No not correct. I described why god or the cause can not have a cause. (because according to the BB time did not exist before T-0) But something existed 'before' T-0 to cause the universe to begin to exist. No faith need apply, only logic and reason.

 

Now the only thing I said as to how I deduced that God is the cause that caused the universe to begin to exit was an appeal to reason(in the formal sense). What is eternal? What can cause a universe to begin to exist? What can cause a universe to begin to exist that supports life? What can cause a universe to begin to exist that has planets stars etc when it should be filled with smooth energy instead? I said that because nothing known to science is eternal and because of the above questions its reasonable to say the cause was God. Reason and logic my dear fellow,(as I said) faith need not apply.

 

; {>

[Boerseun]

God does not make a appearance in the first part of the KCA.

How do you know that God makes an appearance anywhere, for that matter?

 

The validity of this "KCA" is based on your faith in God, and on your faith in God alone. Like I told you in my earlier post (which remains unanswered for some ungodly reason), I can employ that very same KCA to prove that the universe was created by a fluffy pink easter bunny with exactly the same logical authority.

 

i.e., none.

 

It does not matter where in the KCA God makes his appearance. The truth of the matter is that you're assuming his existence in the first place, to prove that he kick-started the universe. The KCA is not logic, it is not a valid argument, it's as old as the hills and have been blown to pieces on the very first day of its first offering as a "logical argument".

 

And repeating that we're all wrong and the KCA proves God created the universe, won't make one wit of a change to that simple truth, Rev.

 

The only advice I can give you is to get over it and move on.

[RevOfAllRevs]

KCA is a failure, and my hope is that this thread is closed or deleted. I've no ongoing interest in proving KCA or you wrong, or going on with the possibility of personal attacks.

This thread adds nothing, and is merely an evidence of how people are swindled by pseudo thinkers.

 

I would never make a personal attack. If its closed or deleted its because you can not defeat it in my opinion. I have offered clear and valid rebuttals to every claim or attempted to. I have been cordial and civil. We have only touched the tip of the KCA iceberg as a valid cosmological argument. The KCA is a valid argument (and I provided a university level of a debate of the KCA) Its strange that you mention personal attacks then you make a statment like this

 

LAWCAT SAID ;"This thread adds nothing, and is merely an evidence of how people are swindled by pseudo thinkers"

 

Please either support that claim or retract it.

 

 

Personal insults have no place here.

 

; }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

How do you know that God makes an appearance anywhere, for that matter?

 

The validity of this "KCA" is based on your faith in God, and on your faith in God alone. Like I told you in my earlier post (which remains unanswered for some ungodly reason), I can employ that very same KCA to prove that the universe was created by a fluffy pink easter bunny with exactly the same logical authority.

 

i.e., none.

It does not matter where in the KCA God makes his appearance. The truth of the matter is that you're assuming his existence in the first place, to prove that he kick-started the universe. The KCA is not logic, it is not a valid argument, it's as old as the hills and have been blown to pieces on the very first day of its first offering as a "logical argument".

 

And repeating that we're all wrong and the KCA proves God created the universe, won't make one wit of a change to that simple truth, Rev.

 

The only advice I can give you is to get over it and move on.

 

 

I keep current on these things so please support when and where the KCA has been proven wrong? FAITH does not exist in the KCA, I have demonstrated linked and defined that. If I haven't made myself clear ask me I will provide more information. I don't say that God is included in the KCA the argument does. A cosmological argument is a valid philosophical argument for the existence of God. So what should I get over? If I repeat that you or another member is wrong its because I am defending a criticism.

 

So how do we discuss a valid PHILOSOPHICAL argument for the existence of God without mentioning God ?

 

Here is an expanded version so you will know what I mean

 

Here is an outline of the argument:

 

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (:cup: no beginning.

2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (:shrug: uncaused.

3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (B) not personal.

 

http://heidiphelps.com/AnalyticalReasoning/HomeworkAssginments/Kalam%20Cosmological%20Argument%20assignment.htm

 

Amazon.com: The Kalam Cosmological Argument (9781579104382 ...

In the Kalam Cosmological Argument, PhD and ThD William Lane Craig sets ... of this cause as being non-mechanistic, and therefore a personal agent capable ...

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/theology-forum/theology-forum/www.amazon.com/Kalam-Cosmological-Argument.../157910438X

 

It seems to me that if the detractors are frustrated by not being able to win a debate then that makes me the bad guy eh?

 

; {>

[Donk]

God does not make an appearance in the first part of the KCA. We haven't even discussed that yet so I am afraid you are incorrect. I touched on it but its hardly been discussed. We haven't made it past the premises validity. Until we get an agreement there is no need for me to explain how a 'personal cause' comes about.

Thank God for that ... :cup:

[RevOfAllRevs]

A personal cause is part of the KCA. I realize that the active posters here are at a stalemate with me. However there may be guests etc that are interested in this version of a cosmological argument.

 

; {>

[InfiniteNow]

You are mistaken. If you are talking about a rebounding universe. There is not enough mass in the universe to stop the expansion and cause a bounce. The universe will expand forever unless this missing mass is found. Your wishful thinking is not going to work with me InfiniteNow.

 

You know, for someone who whines so much about vitriol and personal comments, you really do quite a lot of that yourself. It's perhaps time to practice what you preach there, reverend. Someone might show you a mirror and you might not like what you see.

 

Again, my primary point is that any talk of "singularity" is, and always will be total bullshit. Nature does not have singularities, and they are recognized as what they truly are... breakdowns in our man-made theories. There is no scientific reason to believe "time began" with the BB.

 

A good way for the lay audience to understand my point is by reviewing the Einstein Online links I shared on the first page. Specifically, here is a good one which makes abundantly clear the point I am making to you:

 

 

A tale of two big bangs

Thus, while some cosmologists do not have a problem with assuming that our universe began in a singular state, most are convinced that the big bang singularity is an artefact - to be replaced by a more accurate description once quantum gravity research has made suitable progress.

 

 

 

Or, here:

 

Avoiding the big bang

In the loop quantum models, the big bang universe whose beginning is haunted by infinities... turns out to be a universe with a history reaching far beyond the big bang - a universe that, initially, was in a state of collapse, reaches zero extension at the point where general relativity predicts the big bang singularity, and, afterwards, expanded in perfect harmony with the predictions of the regular big bang models.

 

 

 

Now (since I can tell you are a man with incredibly high standards of proof and evidence), if you don't find the lay-descriptions above at the "cosmology ambassador" site of Einstein-Online, and if you want more concrete evidence in support of my point regarding the direction of the research these last few years, then knock yourself out and enjoy the results of the below SPIRES search of the Stanford SLAC site on the subject of LQG:

 

SPIRES-HEP: FIND K QUANTUM COSMOLOGY AND DATE 2006

 

 

 

Buh-Bye... :cup:

[RevOfAllRevs]

Thus, while some cosmologists do not have a problem with assuming that our universe began in a singular state, most are convinced that the big bang singularity is an artefact - to be replaced by a more accurate description once quantum gravity research has made suitable progress.

 

Quantum gravity has not made suitable progress yet, it may one day, or even if the Higgs Boson is found it may verify something other than the standard model of the big bang. Again; I haven't said other theories are out there, but none have more support than the BB. And none to my knowledge has have empirical evidences to support them. Try again?

 

In the loop quantum models,

 

Pure theory. As I said I can give you a hundred links to sites that give various theoretical claims for how the universe began. Quantum loop gravity is promising but it has no empirical evidence to support it.

 

http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleImage?image=images%2Fpages%2Fdtc.433.tif.gif&doi=10.2307%2F3080963

 

Avoiding the big bang

 

In the loop quantum models,

 

Same problem pure theory no empirical proof.

 

; {>

 

ps the 'wishful thinking' was in a tit for a tat. I never start the insults.

[Boerseun]

Here is an outline of the argument:

 

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (:thumbs_up no beginning.

2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (B) uncaused.

3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (B) not personal.

Okay. Let's start from there. This argument only holds if, and only if:

1a, 2a and 3a.

 

Let's begin with point 1:

The Big Bang Theory breaks down at a certain point. Before that, the concentration of energy and space is such that the entire thing becomes a cusp of information annihilation. We simply do not know. Quantum research might bring us closer to the point, and give us more information from which to build a model of what came before. Whether it was merely a bounce from a prior universe, we currently do not know. Whether we're on the inside of a hypermassive black hole that exploded inwards into strange (strange to its prior condition, at least) dimensions which to us look like normal 3-dimensional space and time, we simply do not know. There is no way for us to say that the universe had a beginning, or not. You simply cannot assign a) or B) to point 1.

 

As to point number 2:

Okay - this assumes 1a). I'll roll with that for a bit. Let's say the universe had a beginning. Certainly it must have had a cause. Our current scientific endeavours in fields like quantum physics (in finding a physical understanding of what that cause might have been) or even string theory (in formutaling a mathematical understanding of same) are developing ever better understanding of that point where classical theory breaks down. Using Occam's razor (seeing as we're treading into philosophical grounds here), we see that the cause of the "universe" (in its current incarnation, at least) is within the broad horizon of human understanding, and is most likely the result of happenings in the physical reality, without invoking any entity like God. Invoking God is a cop-out, its an admission that we've reached the limits of understanding and therefore a guy who's eternal, omnipotent and omniscient must therefore have done it. It holds absolutely no more logical or philosophical water than my fluffy pink easter bunny, whom I personally blame for the universe. But this entire point rest on the assumption of 1a. And we simply do not know that.

 

As to point 3:

For the KCA to hold, it must be 3a. The invocation of "personality" is redundant, an unneccessary step, and anthropocentric to the extreme. There is no reason to invoke this, unless you have presupposed the existence of God. Which fails the entire argument from the word go.

 

Rev, in short, you repeatedly state that the KCA have never even been dented. In this here thread, we have repeatedly blown it out of the water. Your KCA is the USS ARIZONA, lying belly-up in Pearl Harbor for curious tourists to look at. Divers go down to look at the remains of a battleship sunk more than sixty years ago by the Japanese. You are the only diver to go into the bridge, flipping the engine telegraph to "FULL SPEED AHEAD", shouting a bubbly "Tally ho!" through your regulator and assuming that the other divers are swimming away because you're going to bomb them. They might just be swimming away because of that crazy look in your eyes.

[lemit]

Invoking God is a cop-out . . . . It holds absolutely no more logical or philosophical water than my fluffy pink easter bunny, whom I personally blame for the universe.

 

That explains the slightly oval shape of the planets. I think you have something there, at least as much as the KCA argument, which I believe is that God created the universe when he was stuck at the Kansas City Airport.

 

I think I could work up a better Kansas City Airport cosmology than that other KCA. Since I've spent many hours there at Easter, I could confirm your Easter Bunny theory. I've seen a lot of them around there. So now we've combined your Easter Bunny theory with the Kansas City Airport theory. I think there's something I can publish and develop a network of followers from. Looking at the KCA web page the brief time I could before I started feeling creepy, that seems to be what they did.

 

Of course, I'll need some financial support to develop my theories. When my site is developed, you can enter your credit card number to help me further disseminate the understanding of the creation of the universe by the Easter Bunny at the Kansas City Airport while waiting for a plane to Minneapolis.

 

May the Easter Bunny bless you with his perfect eggs.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. The stars and the planets having been first laid in a basket by a male bunny and then spread around for children to find isn't a bad creation myth. Let's see, if you accept that the universe had a beginning, could not that beginning have been in an easter basket?

[modest]

Thus, while some cosmologists do not have a problem with assuming that our universe began in a singular state, most are convinced that the big bang singularity is an artefact - to be replaced by a more accurate description once quantum gravity research has made suitable progress.

 

Quantum gravity has not made suitable progress yet, it may one day, or even if the Higgs Boson is found it may verify something other than the standard model of the big bang. Again; I haven't said other theories are out there, but none have more support than the BB. And none to my knowledge has have empirical evidences to support them. Try again?

 

The big bang theory has equations. The equations give meaningful answers. To give a simile accurate enough for theology, the following is the big bang theory:

[math]D = \frac{1}{T-13.7}[/math]

The left hand side is the density of space and the right hand side is a function of time in billions of years ago.

 

Density obviously goes to infinity as T approaches 13.7. At T = 13.7 the equation breaks down. This equation does *not* say that the universe has a beginning. It’s a misconception based on popsci literature.

 

Many people confuse cause and effect with time, more accurately that time is required for cause and effect while common sense intuition would tell us this is true I think it isn’t necessary.

 

“Beginning” is a time, an event, or the state of something at a particular time. As such the concept of “X caused beginning is a temporal concept. As it stands, I’d bet you 5 +reps that you can’t describe “X caused Y” (scientifically) where Y is the singularity of the big bang and X is metaphysical. Actually... that would be impossible by definition... :shrug:

 

~modest