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.
You are once again ignoring the rest of the post in which I explain why that can't be right.This is what you said:
"If most cosmologists agree with the premises, and the conclusion follows from the premises, which you claim it does, then that is equivalent to saying that they agree with the conclusion. But that can't be right..."
Just to be clear, is this really all you are limiting your argument to?To review, my proposed KCA argument was:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause for it's existence.
You don't need to suspect anything: I already made clear what I mean in the rest of the post, which you ignored.Therefore, you seem to be implying that some scientists disagree with #3, so I'm simply asking you to back up your claim by citing which scientists have claimed that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence. Don't you agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I suspect that you meant to say that they do not believe in God, which is not the same as disagreeing with #3.
I have to admit, that is one funny site! I like the picture of the wise men pointing to the FSM floating in the night sky.I've just been converted.. To a Pastafarian. Come join me. http://www.venganza.org
I see that you caught your mistake. That's fine. I make them too. But we got off on a rabbit trail. My statement was that time is a sequence of events which follow each other and that still holds.
Incorrect. I thought we covered this already. There is a "cosmic age" of the universe that is independent of a frame of reference.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, which is why I phrased it as a question. Is intelligence immaterial and does it begin to exist?Please don't put words in my mouth. I never made any claims about intelligence one way or the other. That was someone else who was talking about intelligence. In any case, I certainly do not think it is material because it does not have the same attributes as...well, matter.
Given that you make no distinction between things beginning to exist ex materia and ex nihilo, you cannot draw on our common experience as support for the first premise. We don't experience things "beginning to exist" ex nihilo.Of course p1 is supported by experience. Does not all experience you ever had demonstrate that everything that begins to exist (or one might say comes into being) has a cause?
That's not what I said. This is a strawman. Please address my actual comments.When you add in the clause "material" into p1, you are question begging. As in the following:
1. Everything (including the universe) that begins to exist has a (material) cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a material cause for it's existence.
The whole point of the KC is to determine what type of cause caused beginning of the universe. But you insert the conclusion that the universe had a material cause up front in p1.
So you are question begging.
In a more recent text, Barrow reflects on this point further. It is possible that the universe originated ex nihilo (note the 'if,' highlighted red), but that is far from established, meaning that your second premise is not fully justified.Here are two physicists who claim that space and time began to exist ex nihilo:
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity. So if the universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
Frank Tipler and John Barrow from The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.
Brian Greene said:A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory ... that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all.
The point is that I am arguing a specific version of the KCA, and your remarks here do not show that scientists are refuting the KCA version that I am putting forth. You need to first make clear exactly which version of the KCA, and its conclusion, that these scientists you talk about disagree with.You are once again ignoring the rest of the post in which I explain why that can't be right.
I don't know what you mean here. This has always been the KCA version I have proposed.Just to be clear, is this really all you are limiting your argument to?
No, not really. First you need to make clear which version of the KCA you are commenting on. State the complete syllogism, and then tell me which parts scientists disagree with.You don't need to suspect anything: I already made clear what I mean in the rest of the post...
Yes, common everyday experience. What happens at the level of common everyday experience need not apply in the highly dense state of the very early universe. Craig is apparently assuming that our metaphysical intuitions are applicable in every situation; I'm not so sure that we can be certain of this. Remember, these intuitions were shaped by common everyday experience and they help us navigate the world of common everyday experience. They have not been tested in the unfamiliar terrain of the very early universe, in which the physical conditions were markedly different from common everyday experience.Let's review:
You said:
"Given that our causal intuitions developed in a universe of physical laws, such as F=ma, we cannot be certain that those intuitions would remain intact in the absence of those laws."
First, we experience cause and effect every day and depend on it in order "to do" science. It is such a common every day experience that it has become axiomatic that effects have causes.
"...the causal premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument#ixzz3eCrQIibJ
Well said by William Lane Craig.
We weren't talking about physical laws changing, but physical laws breaking down.So what happens if the physical laws change?
Let's start with a force example (I'm going to ignore units).
F=ma
If an m of 2 fell at an a of 3, the f would be 6.
Therefore, the cause (m of 2 falling at an a of 3) created an effect (f of 6).
Now if the physical Force law changed from F=ma to F=m(.5a), that would not nullify the "law of causality" that effects have causes. Let's try it out:
If an m of 2 fell at an a of 1.5, the f would be 3.
Therefore, the cause (m of 2 falling at an a of 1.5) created an effect (f of 3).
So there's no reason to think that just because the physical laws themselves might change, that the "law of causality" would have to change also.
I don't see how they have any causal power at all.
I am talking about the same version we have been discussing here: the version that attempts to draw theological conclusions from it. We haven't been discussing any other version. In fact, if we had limited our discussion to the basic three-line KCA, then the conversation would have been very short, given that the basic three-line version doesn't entail a theological commitment even if were conceded in its entirety.The point is that I am arguing a specific version of the KCA, and your remarks here do not show that scientists are refuting the KCA version that I am putting forth. You need to first make clear exactly which version of the KCA, and its conclusion, that these scientists you talk about disagree with.
I don't know what you mean here. This has always been the KCA version I have proposed.
No, not really. First you need to make clear which version of the KCA you are commenting on. State the complete syllogism, and then tell me which parts scientists disagree with.
Sorry. I thought you had found your mistake. The site below explains how the age of the universe is calculated:Actually you never quite actually responded. The first quote is all I got out of you.
#1107 Here's the post.
Sorry. I thought you had found your mistake. The site below explains how the age of the universe is calculated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
Plainly (and demonstrably) incorrect. I have always used the same version below:I am talking about the same version we have been discussing here: the version that attempts to draw theological conclusions from it. We haven't been discussing any other version. In fact, if we had limited our discussion to the basic three-line KCA, then the conversation would have been very short, given that the basic three-line version doesn't entail a theological commitment even if were conceded in its entirety.
There's no mention of deities in that version.Plainly (and demonstrably) incorrect. I have always used the same version below:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.
Jesus does not say that God is material, nor that God is material and immaterial. Rather, Jesus explains that God is spirit (immaterial). He came into this world in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Why do you assume god is good, other than the book says so?We both have conscious minds that transcend the material as we contrast the super-material values of the good contrasted with relative evil. Faith in it's purest form is a trust in the ultimate Goodness of God. The spirit of worship in man, in all men, is what motivates us to seek for the origins of these nonmaterial values.
And yet you promote a book that's so far out of left field, it's good the people aren't successful with it.We both agree that there are deplorable errors committed in the name of God, that there are genuine charlatans who have attached themselves to religious causes for various reason, but this does not invalidate the faith of billions of sincere humans who do not act that way.
We both have conscious minds that transcend the material as we contrast the super-material values of the good contrasted with relative evil. Faith in it's purest form is a trust in the ultimate Goodness of God. The spirit of worship in man, in all men, is what motivates us to seek for the origins of these nonmaterial values.
We both agree that there are deplorable errors committed in the name of God, that there are genuine charlatans who have attached themselves to religious causes for various reasons, but this does not invalidate the faith of billions of sincere humans who do not act that way.
Got any proof of this?Tens of millions of people throughout the last 2000 years have met Jesus when he physically manifested himself onto them. They witnessed their lives were completely changed and for the better. This has happened around the world and to countless people over the ages, who were not even born into Christain families.
Wrong date. 497,000 years would be closer to the mark.Why did God wait roughly 180000 years to introduce his son to mankind?
Which god would that be. On older one, newer one, and what version should I use.I am not interested in your question. If you are sincerely wanting to know the answer, then first establish a relationship with him.
The universe is evidence of the universe. In what way is it evidence of a deity?
Why did so many gods reveal themselves to so many other people long before the Jewish god?
He misses an important part. There is evidence in Genesis to the Age of Man.One of the few things, I agree with Willy on:
No they point to. Going to find out via science. Which people are presently doing.Matter is generally not self-creating.
Matter is not generally procreating.
Matter is tends to increase in entropy.
Matter in not usually infinite.
These properties of matter are not very matter-ish, and so point to God.
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?