Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Was there a "time" (for all that term is worth) before t=0 where God might have decided to create the universe but had not yet gone through with it?
I don't see why some atheists have a hard time understanding this. The moment that universe began to exist (t0) is the exact moment that God created it (t0).
I find that some people have a hard time with that, so let's think about a pool table with two balls. One begins to roll fast and hard at t0 and smacks another at t2. So two questions:
1. exactly when did the first ball smack the second ball and impart its energy? t=t2.
2. exactly when did the second ball absorb the energy from the first ball and begin to move? t=t2.
The effect of the universe coming into existence is the exact same moment that God brought it into existence. Both the cause and effect occurred concurrently.
Nope. It simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is confirmed daily by personal experience and also repeatedly by science.
p1 is confirmed daily by personal experience and by scientific evidence,
and p2 is confirmed by not only two philosophical arguments but also by 2 scientific evidences and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do you have something against science...or is it just when it leads to implications that you wish to deny?
I beg to differ. Although I'm not saying that the FSM is bound by space-time, but he is material...after all, he's made of spaghetti.
However the rest, to the best of my knowledge were always within space-time. If you think not, you can cite a reference if you like. However, even if they did exist outside of space-time,
The argument against infinite regress suggests it.
So what? Yes, I'm speculating about what the cause of the universe would be. Geesh!
One atheist complains saying that I'm presupposing the existence of God in the KCA (which I'm not), and the other gets on my case if I don't. I'm simply using the KCA to extrapolate out what traits the cause would have, and it so happens that those traits limit us to only a few possibilities. All of this I have admitted several times. While the KCA does not rule out the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian gods, it does rule out temporal-material causes.
Yes, it does. It implies that the cause was immaterial, timeless, powerful, uncaused, and even personal.
I always hear that, but no atheist seems willing to list any, at least any that pass the criteria of the KCA.
People often get caught by this misunderstanding. Whether or not something came out of nothing or its' just a reordering of existing material is actually irrelevant. The fact remains that anything that begins to exist, even like a foal, a painting, a house, a car, etc. has a cause of it's coming into existence. None of these things just come into being for no reason. So p1 stands.
You're the one who is limiting the cause to matter and energy within space-time, not the proponent of the KCA. So you rule out other types of causes from the outset. Why do you do that?
Minds are not brains, nor is the mind reducible to the brain. But that's another discussion altogether.
Not necessarily true. If all the items which began to exist in your sample had a cause, then one can come to the erroneous conclusion that everything that began to exist has a cause. But have you (or anyone) examined everything that ever began to exist? If not, then we can't know for sure that everything that begins to exist had a cause.Nope. It simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is confirmed daily by personal experience and also repeatedly by science.Joshua - He's correct. The KCA does engage in the fallacy of special pleading. It says that God is exempt from creation, yet the universe isn't. That's special pleading and kills the entire KCA.
See explanation above for why #1 isn't necessarily true.p1 is confirmed daily by personal experience and by scientific evidence, and p2 is confirmed by not only two philosophical arguments but also by 2 scientific evidences and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do you have something against science...or is it just when it leads to implications that you wish to deny?If it's about what we do know, then the entire KCA is invalidated by the first two premises.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
We don't know for sure that either of those are true.
I don't do links. Make your case here.You'll find an excellent refutation of the KCA at Cosmological Kalamity
Please read it and if there is anything about it you don't understand, I'll be happy to explain.
Minds are not brains, nor is the mind reducible to the brain. But that's another discussion altogether.
I think this post captures the frustration I sometimes feel looking through some of these threads.
People often get caught by this misunderstanding. Whether or not something came out of nothing or its' just a reordering of existing material is actually irrelevant.
The fact remains that anything that begins to exist, even like a foal, a painting, a house, a car, etc. has a cause of it's coming into existence.
You're the one who is limiting the cause to matter and energy within space-time
p1 is confirmed daily by personal experience and by scientific evidence
Minds are not brains, nor is the mind reducible to the brain.
Hey, you brought it up.But that's another discussion altogether.
Well, you don't really "know" very much at all. You can only be reasonably sure. So, for example, when we see a car or airplane we're reasonably sure that it took intelligence to create them. Likewise, when we see the universe, we can also be reasonably sure of the same thing. Exactly how is that idea faulty?
I certainly wouldn't call it "speculation."
Determine and measure the fact that when you see a car/airplane, you can be reasonably sure it took intelligence to make it...? Please.
If God exists (playing Devil's Advocate here - obviously he does), then he freely chose to create the universe and therefore could have freely chosen to create a different one.
People "make" things only in the sense that they refashion what alread exists. Humans, on themost fundamental of scales, can't "create" energy or "destroy" energy, only change it in form. And in fact, we are not even the cause of that energy's change in form. We understand the conditions necessary for the change in form and we apply those conditions. The hammer that bends the metal. But we have not created the energetic functions and mechanisms that lead to changes in energetic form. We only apply out knowledge of those already existent electromagnetic mechanisms. So while it would be fair to say intelligence is required to "fashion" the energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) the existence of the energy itself is not subject to human intelligent creation. There's no reason to think that because we need intelligence to refashion energy into certain forms that suit the needs of an intelligence (humans) that this means intelligence is necessary for the energy itself to exist.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that intelligence is a preexisting force that organises matter and energy. This teleological intuition seems to have it backwards though. Intelligence doesn't just come from nowhere; matter and energy must first undergo certain processes in order to become 'intelligent' and thereby have the ability to organise things. As we learn more about the universe, and as we trace the origins of intelligence to its roots in biology, this teleological intuition becomes increasingly untenable.
Apologists leverage this assumption in the KCA to some extent. The idea that intelligence depends on there being a universe would go against their assertion that an intelligence was responsible for bringing the universe into being. This is usually the point at which they resort to special pleading: "Oh, but this intelligence is exceptional! Being supernatural, it doesn't need to satisfy the conditions necessary for intelligence within the universe. It's special, so our knowledge of 'intelligence' within this universe doesn't apply."
Was there a "time" (for all that term is worth) before t=0 where God might have decided to create the universe but had not yet gone through with it?
Ask and ye shall receive...
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? - Scientific American from that page...
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy...."
It's interesting and short, I suggest you take a gander.
Also...
Phys.Org Mobile: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
That made big headlines this year. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, I just brought it up to our friend Achilles because he kept insisting that the universe had to have "begun to exist". I explained that it probably began to exist in its current state, but could've existed in another state before. The jury is still out on that question.
Does God exist?
Please don't qualify it with "beyond the universe" or "outside of time" because neither you nor I understand what that means. Answer yes or no, does God exist like you and I exist? That is, as an independent and objective reality.
t0 would have been the beginning. There would have been no t-1. In that state affairs, God existed alone...without creation, or space-time as scientists like to call it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?