One piece, the Kalam

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't matter, it's about causality, cause and effect.

Of course it matters. If "begins to exist" refers to creatio ex nihilo, then you can't just point to things beginning to exist ex materia as support for P1.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I ḿ not sure what you mean...

Only the original (first) cause can not be caused, or it wouldn't be the original (first) cause.

What disqualifies the universe from satisfying this condition? Presumably you will say that the universe doesn't qualify because it began to exist. But in what sense did it "begin to exist"? Can you see why it's important to clarify what this term means before examining whether P2 holds true?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No sir, it's just about cause and effect.
Time purportedly had a beginning, so what caused it?

Okay, let's consider this for a moment. If the beginning of the universe is the beginning of time, then the universe always existed, in the sense that it has existed for all time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No sir, it's just about cause and effect. Time purportedly had a beginning, so what caused it?

There is no "before" time. So that question is invalid.
It's like dividing by zero.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You think they're limited to it.

They are. By definition of what the universe is: the space-time continuum.

Causality is a phenomena of the universe. Causality is a sequence of events. A sequence of events unfolds over a period of time.

In other words, time itself needs to exist in order for the phenomena of causality to manifest.

Because it's here.
Logic and reason.

Logic and reason do not lead to a chicken and egg problem.

Logic and reason does lead to the conclusion that you can't use a property OF x to explain the origin of x.

 

[bhsmte]

Everything that suggests or implies it was a real event.
This is quite a lot. Otherwise i wouldn't be convinced.
Aha, okay, we don't have that here in Europe, at all. Yeah, well, they shouldn't lie, obviously, but i think the other side has similar integrity deficits.
I'm not too interested in certain people and their human nature.
It's about the evidence and the case you can make either for or against something.

And what objective evidence exists that the biblical flood was a real event? Be specific.

Do you believe a global flood event would leave geological evidence that it happened?

 

[durangodawood]

There is no "before" time. So that question is invalid.
It's like dividing by zero.

Exactly.

Cause-effect is a sequence in time.
Its non-sense to talk about it "outside of" time.

 

[bhsmte]

That i have a hard time getting a point across.

Or, you dont have a valid point.

 

[quatona]

Or, you dont have a valid point.

He has already conceded that he talks about things he has no concept of. No need to rub it in.

 

[Hieronymus]

Of course it matters. If "begins to exist" refers to creatio ex nihilo, then you can't just point to things beginning to exist ex materia as support for P1.

You're making it complicated for no reason.
Beginning to exist refers to beginning to exist.

 

[Hieronymus]

Or, you dont have a valid point.

You wouldn't recognise it anyway...

 

[Hieronymus]

He has already conceded that he talks about things he has no concept of. No need to rub it in.

Apparently you lot have no concept of causality.

 

[Hieronymus]

And what objective evidence exists that the biblical flood was a real event? Be specific.

Google it, look for it, study it.
If not, you're willfully ignorant.
But hey that's legal.

 

[Hieronymus]

They are. By definition of what the universe is: the space-time continuum.

Indeed.
Now what caused it?

 

[quatona]

Apparently you lot have no concept of causality.

Yes, we have: Causality requires there to be time. While "causality in the absence of time" is a non-concept.
Pretty much in the way that "moving in the absence of space" is a non-concept.

 

[Hieronymus]

There is no "before" time. So that question is invalid.
It's like dividing by zero.

Then you believe that the universe just popped into existence without a reason, due to nothing.
That's ridiculous.

 

[bhsmte]

You wouldn't recognise it anyway...

Why not?

 

[bhsmte]

Google it, look for it, study it.
If not, you're willfully ignorant.
But hey that's legal.

I have.

I was asking you what evidence you relied on?

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, we have: Causality requires there to be time.

Says who?
Did nothing cause time then? No reason for its existence?
That's pathetic.
You must be desperate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're making it complicated for no reason.
Beginning to exist refers to beginning to exist.

So shall we assume from now on that when you refer to the universe "beginning to exist" you mean that it "began" in the same way that a loaf of bread "begins to exist"? Or are you suddenly going to switch to a different meaning (creatio ex nihilo) when we reach P2?

To be clear, I'm only making it as "complicated" as is necessary to prevent you from equivocating.