The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[bdp]

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

[Shyone]

It will be interesting to see what develops from the LQC theory; however, it is much too early to tell whether it will pass muster. Regarding Hawking's no boundary theory, are you familiar with his work there? If so, you would know that he uses imaginary numbers in his equations which when converted back to real numbers brings us back to the existence of the singularity. I'm surprised you wouldn't have read that. However, you also didn't mention the problems with LQC, which are many, nor did you mention that there is no experimental data confirming the theory. So, the bottom line seems to be your rejection of Big Bang cosmology which is the best supported theory for the origin of the universe, singularities, which are equally well supported and your grasping at a theory that has no experimental support and mathematical problems. OK, if that is what you want to do...

 

LNC

I can't explain it any better than this from Hawking:

 

If the histories of the universe in imaginary time are indeed closed surfaces, as Hartle and I proposed, it would have fundamental implications for philosophy and our picture of where we came from. The universe would be entirely self-contained, it wouldn't need anything outside to wind up the clockwork and set it going. Instead, everything in the universe would be determined by the laws of science and by the rolls of the dice within the universe. This may sound presumptuous, but it is what I and many other scientists believe.

 

Keep in mind that it was Hawking and Penrose, using classic general relativity, that determined that there was a singularity. Unlike theologians, he has reconsidered and come to a different conclusion.

 

Also, the theory of the Big Bang has exactly the same experimental data as every other theory, and is itself a mathematical model.

 

The bottom line is that the study of the beginning of the universe is not for you or I to know with certainty, but it is clearly outside of theology just like the study of thunder, rain, earthquakes and disease.

 

It is now a matter for theoretical physicists and science. Even theologians are using science, but as usual, they are following, not leading.

 

Just so you won't be too far behind, start studying branes and M-Theory.

[LNC]

This is what drives me crazy about him. He wants to play within the laws of physics when he argues against us yet he can shift to God being self-caused and going outside the laws of physics himself. I would think that if he wants to have what we say operating within classical physics, his God should have to also. He may state contingent this and contingent that (or whatever he uses) but the point is is that if God can operate beyond the laws of physics, there may be something in nature that can also and still be perfectly natural.

 

To put God within the laws of physics would be a category error as God is not physical in nature. Only physical things are subject to the physical laws of nature as the name implies. So, there is no conflict here. However, what you are implying, that nature can violate laws of nature is a problem. If you want to suggest such a thing, you also want to toss out science as it would be a waste of time to study nature that doesn't always work according to law. The concept of physical law would become meaningless.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Let's apply this to theistic concepts:

 

"It is logically untenable that God could be His own cause as He would have to exist to cause His own existence."

 

And

 

"It is logically untenable that the universe could be its own cause as it would have to exist to cause its own existence."

 

Therefore, one or the other must have always existed in some form or another. Or maybe sprung into existence as the result of a quantum fluctuation.

 

We have no evidence of God. We do have evidence of the universe. While we cannot "know" what happened so many billions of years ago, we are collectively like a single fly with a lifespan of (less than) 12 hours. What the fly sees as a one time occurrence, dawn, sunset, may wind up by cyclical. The fly may even appreciate, through subtle measurements of the sun's position, that there may be seasons, but not that the seasons are cyclical.

 

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

 

OK, let's test your premises. First, in the case of God, he is by definition 1) immaterial, therefore, not subject to the laws of physics; 2) eternal, therefore beginningless; 3) Since he is beginningless, he also does not require a cause for his existence as he has always existed.

 

Now, let's try to apply that to the universe. 1) The universe is made up of matter, space and time; 2) the universe, according to the best scientific evidence, had a beginning; 3) therefore, the universe had a cause (according to the law of cause and effect). So, you either have to deny premise 1, which I don't think you will do; premise 2) which you have challenged, but have no supporting evidence and, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence to support premise 2; or, point 3) which to deny would be a negation of science as science is grounded in causality.

 

So, logic and evidence would tell us that the universe had to have a cause as it is past-finite, while God does not require a cause, since there is no logical or physical reason for that requirement and since by definition, God is a necessary being and not a contingent being.

 

You say that we have no evidence of God, which is a false statement - what you mean is that you reject evidence for the existence of God, but you cannot say that we have no evidence. The KCA presents evidence for God's existence, as is the existence of objective morality, consciousness, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and other indicators.

 

You say that we have evidence for the universe, which does not tell us how and why the universe exists, so I don't know what that statement does for you. When you say that we cannot know what happened billions of years ago, do you reject the scientific discoveries that have been made in that direction? If so, why do you say it happened billions of years ago and not five minutes ago? I think it is because we have evidence of the age of the universe. I think you are not a scientific realist if you actually believe what you wrote, but I don't think you really do.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Maybe, I am willing bet that this has already been mentioned, but how does this prove the Christian God at all?

 

If all we know of it natural, then why are we allowed to apply "supernatural" terms to it

 

What are your thoughts on this LNC

 

"The curious clause "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to "everything except God has a cause." As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence, and we are back to begging the question."

 

Source:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

 

You are right to an extent, that it doesn't go all the way to proving the Christian God, we need more arguments and evidence to go all that way. However, what we do learn from this is completely consistent with the God described by the Bible. First, he must be powerful as the universe is at least 20 billion light years across. Second, he must be extremely intelligent (as we surmise from both this and fine tuning which is a separate argument) as the necessary conditions to create a life-permitting universe are extremely fine-tuned. Third, we learn that he is personal as he had to choose to create at the point that time began, otherwise, we would see a universe that is infinitely old. We learn other attributes, but these are some that we know and all are consistent with the God revealed in the Bible.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Those verses were originally intended to make excuses for prophecies that didn't come true. Now you're using them to make excuses and try and make the bible and science line up.

 

Please verify your assertion with evidential support.

 

LNC

[LNC]

"time is the measure of a sequence of events"

 

Is it?

 

Yes, why did you have a different definition or understanding? If so, please share.

 

LNC

[bdp]

I have nothing - it just doesn't seem like a good definition to me. If we didn't exist and there were no 'events' would there still be time?

[Shyone]

"time is the measure of a sequence of events"

 

Is it?

 

Yes, why did you have a different definition or understanding? If so, please share.

 

LNC

Read about space-time.

[LNC]

You never give up.

 

As I said, we disagree.

 

I can only assume from your response that I'm not allowed to have a different view on things or agree with other philosophers.

 

Our discussions have led me to understand that we will not agree on the underlying warrants to our arguments. There's just no need to continue to try to find a commonality. Simple as that.

 

You can have whatever view you want; however, you view will either be a view that is held absent of evidence and support, against the best evidence or held because of unsubstantiated theories that support it, or it will be held in line with the best evidence. So far, I haven't seen you put forth solid evidence to support your views and, in fact, have given evidence that many of your views are contrary to the best scientific evidence. So, as long as you know that and are OK with that, believe as you will.

 

Listen, I am not going to make you respond to me; however, if I come across your posts that I think merit a response, I will reserve the right to do so. It has been good to interact with you.

 

LNC

[LNC]

We can only observe a tiny fraction of the universe. And astronomers are finding planets all the time. Several were found recently which have all the elements to sustain life, including this one which was life-sustaining bu not habitable. It is only a matter of time before astronomers find a rocky planet with life-sustaining elements in an orbit around its star which renders it habitable.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if a planet was discovered that could support life; however, the one that you referenced is not a candidate. The article concludes, "The planet is not habitable but has the same chemistry that, if found around a rocky planet in future, could indicate presence of life." So, it takes more than just having certain chemical properties to support life. However, I am open to the idea that one could be found; what I am saying is that we know of none that could support higher life forms and many cosmologists and chemists are skeptical that we ever will.

 

LNC

 

You repeated exactly what I said, and made it sound like I made an error, which I did not. The only new statement you make is what I highlighted above in bold.

 

To which I respond, that's fine, there are just as many cosmologists and chemists who are optimistic that we will someday find a planet with all the elements necessary to sustain complex forms of life.

 

I don't think I repeated exactly what you said. You said that you believe that we will find a rocky planet that is habitable and I said that scientists are skeptical that we will. That appears to be contradictory points of view as far as I can tell. Now, I don't completely dismiss the possibility, only hold it as an extremely low probability. However, can you point out which cosmologists you are reading and what their evidence is that we will find a planet that can support higher life forms? I would interested in reading what they have to say and how they come to their conclusions.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

 

OK, let's test your premises. First, in the case of God, he is by definition 1) immaterial, therefore, not subject to the laws of physics; 2) eternal, therefore beginningless; 3) Since he is beginningless, he also does not require a cause for his existence as he has always existed.

This is incoherent, but if you have chased God right out of the universe as an immaterial being, then He cannot interact with matter, right?

 

That which interacts with matter and affects the laws of physics must have properties that pertain to the universe.

 

You want it both ways. Not subject to the laws of physics and immaterial, but capable of maneuvering and altering matter. How would you say this is possible? It makes no sense.

 

You want time to begin with the universe, but refer to God as eternal - lasting as long as time has existed. That could only mean that God was born with the universe - if there were such a thing, or unless you define God as the Universe.

 

Likewise, "always" is a reference to time. Did time begin? Or do you now agree with the Big Bounce Theory?

 

Immaterial can also be a word to refer to importance. "Lacking importance; not mattering one way or the other" God is immaterial indeed.

 

I think this is relevent:

 

How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.

 

To say that God is a Force is also incoherent if He is immaterial.

 

Force = d/dt(mv) = ma

 

Strange how you can't keep the concepts in your mind while you revert back to biblical terminology. Eternal?

[Dagan]

We can only observe a tiny fraction of the universe. And astronomers are finding planets all the time. Several were found recently which have all the elements to sustain life, including this one which was life-sustaining bu not habitable. It is only a matter of time before astronomers find a rocky planet with life-sustaining elements in an orbit around its star which renders it habitable.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if a planet was discovered that could support life; however, the one that you referenced is not a candidate. The article concludes, "The planet is not habitable but has the same chemistry that, if found around a rocky planet in future, could indicate presence of life." So, it takes more than just having certain chemical properties to support life. However, I am open to the idea that one could be found; what I am saying is that we know of none that could support higher life forms and many cosmologists and chemists are skeptical that we ever will.

 

LNC

 

You repeated exactly what I said, and made it sound like I made an error, which I did not. The only new statement you make is what I highlighted above in bold.

 

To which I respond, that's fine, there are just as many cosmologists and chemists who are optimistic that we will someday find a planet with all the elements necessary to sustain complex forms of life.

 

I don't think I repeated exactly what you said. You said that you believe that we will find a rocky planet that is habitable and I said that scientists are skeptical that we will. That appears to be contradictory points of view as far as I can tell. Now, I don't completely dismiss the possibility, only hold it as an extremely low probability. However, can you point out which cosmologists you are reading and what their evidence is that we will find a planet that can support higher life forms? I would interested in reading what they have to say and how they come to their conclusions.

 

LNC

 

many cosmologists and chemists are skeptical that we ever will.

 

You first.

 

See? I can play the "waste your time forcing you to exhaustively support every little thing you say" game too.

[Dagan]

Those verses were originally intended to make excuses for prophecies that didn't come true. Now you're using them to make excuses and try and make the bible and science line up.

 

Please verify your assertion with evidential support.

 

LNC

 

I'm using common sense. Did Jesus come back right away like he promised? No. Did writers of the later books of the bible -- 2 Peter definitely qualifies as one of the latest -- detect disappointment among believers and try to address it? Yes. Therefore what's the simplest explanation? The "a day with God" thing is a secret Green Lantern decoder passage to interpret God's mystical timelines? Is it a back door to justify a literal interpretation of the creation story and let it co-exist with evolutionary timelines? Or it's just a figure of speech, intended as a sort of "God's ways are not our ways" cop-out explanation?

 

However, I know you want a source for everything because you seem incapable of thinking for yourself, so here's a list of failed bible prophecies I found after two seconds of googling. I also read it in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" a while ago, sorry, no link for that, no online version. I suggest you go to the library and read all 1,300 pages to verify. Here's another one that dumps all over "gap theory."

 

Plus, according to the Gospel of Answers in Genesis,

"If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8, '... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years . . .'. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, it you look at the rest of the verse, it says, '. . . and a thousand years as one day'. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time — He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word 'day' already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference In this passage to the days of creation.

 

So using this verse in reference to creation is out of context.

 

The biggest source is the bible itself. Paul talks about Christians who were hanging around being useless, waiting for the last days. The gospels themselves reflect a changing view of the second coming of Christ, from immediate and imminent in Mark to the more spiritual view in John.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok, point taken.

 

How about this then?

 

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy. But, what about Virtual Particles? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

Ok, we can't exactly prove that these guys are self-caused, but they do seem to exhibit characteristics that look like self-causation. They appear to 'pop' spontaneously into existence before self-annihilating. Before vanishing, they exist within the space-time continuum. They appear to be real, in as much as, there are many ways they can be detected (see 'Manifestations').

 

As far as I understand it, something that is self-caused would cause itself to 'pop' into existence within our space-time continuum, just as they do.

No need to invoke supernatural agencies, creatio ex nihilo or timelessness/spacelessness.

 

BAA.

 

BAA,

 

Virtual particles appear in quantum vacuums that contain quantum energy (so they are not complete vacuums), so I don't think that they are of any help in explaining the origin of the universe as quantum energy would have been contained within the singularity. Also, virtual particles are highly unstable and only exist for a brief time. However, we cannot observe them so there is some dispute as to whether they really exist. Here is a page from Stanford that gives some detail

 

Hi LNC!

 

'However we cannot observe them...'? Umm... now I'm confused again.

 

Your Stanford link appears to say that virtual particles are abstract, conceptual entities, not real and physical ones that can be detected. However, if we look at that Wikipedia page we can see under the heading, 'Manifestations' that...

* The Coulomb force is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.

* The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.

* The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of the interaction of virtual gluons.

* The weak nuclear force - it is the result of the exchange of virtual W bosons.

* The Casimir effect was observed in 2001 by a group from the University of Padua and is significant in the fields of micro and nanotechnologies.

* The Lamb shift (a difference of energy levels in the hydrogen atom) currently provides a measurement of the fine structure constant (Alpha) to better than one part in a million, allowing a precision test of Quantum Electrodynamics.

 

So what's the deal here? Can you help me out please? Call me slow, but I just can't get my head around the idea that abstract entities can cause real and measurable effects in our physical universe. Ouroboros' link would seem to be relevant here. Specifically, 1.1 'Immanence', where it talks about 'Pushing'. So, are virtual particles immanent (concrete and located in space-time) or transcendent (abstract and non-spatiotemporal) ? Since the main thrust of the 'pushing' argument seems to be that of interaction and the Wikipedia links do talk about manifestation thru interaction, wouldn't it be fair to say that virtual particles are, in fact, real and concrete entities, not abstract or conceptual ones? I mean, you did say that they...only exist for a brief time. Wouldn't that mean that their existence is real (immanent) and not abstract (transcendent)? If anything can exist in our universe, no matter how short it's duration, doesn't that therefore mean that it ceases to be abstract concept and becomes a concrete, interactive entity?

 

Ok LNC, lots of questions. I know. Sorry 'bout that, but I'm really puzzled over this one. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

BAA.

[LNC]

It's a fallacy of definition.

 

"Self-caused" is usually interchangeable with "un-caused," which isn't a violation of the law of identity. And why does "self-caused" mean "a thing caused itself to exist"? It's your definition, so you create the conflict.

 

What about love? Can love be caused? Is it a thing? Did a thing cause it? I thought you argued that love isn't a thing at all, but something beyond physical reality. So is your love to your wife a thing that was caused? Did God's love cause you to love... no wait... love can't cause love, because that would be a violation of identity, and those things are not things, or are they?

 

But I do see the problem how God being a "thing" and existing before Time-Zero.

Self-caused is not the same as uncaused as one implies a cause and the other does not. The reason that it violates the law of identity is that the entity must exist in order to be its own cause and that is a logical problem. If you don't define self-caused as a thing being the cause of itself, how else are we to understand it. The words seem fairly straight forward.

 

Again, regarding love, you are equivocating on the use of words. What type of cause do you mean? Where did I make any argument about the nature of love? I wouldn't define love as self-caused either (no matter which aspect of cause is used or what definition of love). I choose to love my wife and kids, love isn't something that is its own cause. God's love is caused by God not by itself. I can respond to God's love by loving him back, but that doesn't mean that my love is self-caused either. I'm not sure that your logic or argument work out here. Love is always related to an agent who loves. Love is not an entity independent of an agent.

 

Regarding to your continued problem with God's existence outside of time, you may just need to read more about that as philosophically it is not problematic. You may want to read more about time and its nature as you may have a faulty understanding that as well. My intent is not to put you down with these suggestions, it is just to say that most philosophers don't seem to have a problem with the concept of God existing outside of time so your having that problem may be resolved by understanding the thinking of these people. Here is an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that would be a good place to start.

[Dhampir]

No logical argument by itself can "prove" anything. You can only use them to disprove something.

[Shyone]

Regarding to your continued problem with God's existence outside of time, you may just need to read more about that as philosophically it is not problematic. You may want to read more about time and its nature as you may have a faulty understanding that as well. My intent is not to put you down with these suggestions, it is just to say that most philosophers don't seem to have a problem with the concept of God existing outside of time so your having that problem may be resolved by understanding the thinking of these people. Here is an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that would be a good place to start.

Perhaps you can give some names of philosophers who speak of existence outside of time that aren't speaking of God. The concept of existence outside of time was invented of whole cloth solely to excuse the absolute absence of evidence for God in the first place. What else exists outside of time?

 

There are some problems with the concept itself since it is undefined.

 

First, existence "outside of time" commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

 

To say that something can exist outside the Universe, is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. The Universe is that which contains existence(things that exist). To claim that something exists outside of the Universe, is to steal the concept of existence, and apply to something external to itself.

 

Second, taking something that fits every definition of nonexistence and making it into something that exists is reification of the zero.

 

Third, If something could be defined as existing "outside of time" it would necessarily be excluded from the universe. "The Universe is supported by several credible sources as being by definition, everything that exists."

 

Fourth, by creating definitions of God that defy any concept of existence, we have defined nothing.

 

To "exist" is to "exist as something rather than something else." Existence cannot be separated from having certain qualities rather than others. Now, if we cannot identify any such qualities, then it seems that we cannot say what the difference is between "X exists" and "X does not exist." And, if that is the case, what reason do we have for asserting the former over the latter? If we have no qualities to speak of, then we have nothing to speak of. So what are we really talking about?

 

And finally, since the existence of God is said to be necessary so that God can have "caused" the universe and so "preexisted" the universe (by existing outside of time:

 

There was no "before" the universe. There is no "to the south of" the universe. There is no "above" the universe. There was, in a sense, no "cause" of the universe. These concepts (before, outside, south of, cause) rely upon things that only exist as part of the universe: space, time, physical laws. To apply them to the origin of the universe is a "stolen concept" fallacy: it's taking a concept that only appears later in an argument and applying it earlier than is allowed.

 

Incidentally, show me a physicist that can explain anything existing "outside of time."

[NotBlinded]

This is what drives me crazy about him. He wants to play within the laws of physics when he argues against us yet he can shift to God being self-caused and going outside the laws of physics himself. I would think that if he wants to have what we say operating within classical physics, his God should have to also. He may state contingent this and contingent that (or whatever he uses) but the point is is that if God can operate beyond the laws of physics, there may be something in nature that can also and still be perfectly natural.

 

To put God within the laws of physics would be a category error as God is not physical in nature. Only physical things are subject to the physical laws of nature as the name implies. So, there is no conflict here. However, what you are implying, that nature can violate laws of nature is a problem. If you want to suggest such a thing, you also want to toss out science as it would be a waste of time to study nature that doesn't always work according to law. The concept of physical law would become meaningless.

 

LNC

Describe to me what physical things are LNC. Matter is particles, or is it waves, or is it wavicles? What does matter exist IN?

 

Are you telling me that your understanding of God is one that cannot interact with nature? If you believe it can can, then you too are saying that there are non-physical occurences in nature. You see it as beginning outside of the physical and somehow being directed into the physical to cause things. I say its existence is in the physical to begin with. They go together. Seems like a minor difference because it ends up interacting with the physcial either way, yet it does pose a mountain of difference in the way we view nature. You have a controller/law giver that pushes buttons from some grand console and I have a spontaneous nature that happens on its own because of this Essence that has its existence in it.

 

Why would I toss out science any more than you would? Is it not you that suggests that physical laws must have a law-giver? This suggests that this law-giver can change his mind at any time and, interfering with the physical, turn gravity on its head, water into wine and stop the sun in its tracks. What I suggest is that this runs smoothly because nature itself is the Essence that allows for water to remain water and wine to remain wine. There is nothing outside itself that interfers with it. It is It. And, if there is to be an evolution of a thistle producing figs, then that will come from the interactions of the thistle with the environment and not from some outside Being directing it.

 

So yes, there is a conflict. I'm not a materialist or a reductionist. My understanding doesn't have nature violating the laws of nature. You, LNC, are a materialist and a reductionist that sees nature in the exact same way as they do. As a machine. You have a controller of the machine and they have a fully automatic machine. Not much difference in both views of reality. I say there is no machine. The physical is alive and will produce many fruits.

[NotBlinded]

You are right to an extent, that it doesn't go all the way to proving the Christian God, we need more arguments and evidence to go all that way. However, what we do learn from this is completely consistent with the God described by the Bible. First, he must be powerful as the universe is at least 20 billion light years across. Second, he must be extremely intelligent (as we surmise from both this and fine tuning which is a separate argument) as the necessary conditions to create a life-permitting universe are extremely fine-tuned. Third, we learn that he is personal as he had to choose to create at the point that time began, otherwise, we would see a universe that is infinitely old. We learn other attributes, but these are some that we know and all are consistent with the God revealed in the Bible.

 

LNC

That's just silly. He's personal because he had to choose to create? What if creation just happened? Are you personal because you choose to start your brain cells every morning? Your brain functions just fine without you choosing it to doesn't it? You are doing that aren't you? It happens every day doesn't it?

 

You go from sounding smart to really silly conclusions. And your silly conclusions are no better than mine are.

[NotBlinded]

This is incoherent, but if you have chased God right out of the universe as an immaterial being, then He cannot interact with matter, right?

 

That which interacts with matter and affects the laws of physics must have properties that pertain to the universe.

 

You want it both ways. Not subject to the laws of physics and immaterial, but capable of maneuvering and altering matter. How would you say this is possible? It makes no sense.

 

You want time to begin with the universe, but refer to God as eternal - lasting as long as time has existed. That could only mean that God was born with the universe - if there were such a thing, or unless you define God as the Universe.

 

Likewise, "always" is a reference to time. Did time begin? Or do you now agree with the Big Bounce Theory?

 

Immaterial can also be a word to refer to importance. "Lacking importance; not mattering one way or the other" God is immaterial indeed.

 

I think this is relevent:

 

How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.

 

To say that God is a Force is also incoherent if He is immaterial.

 

Force = d/dt(mv) = ma

 

Strange how you can't keep the concepts in your mind while you revert back to biblical terminology. Eternal?

Yes, that is what I was saying to him before I even read your post (in my less than scientific way). This is getting scary Shy...

[Legion]

your silly conclusions are no better than mine are.

Yes, this will become part of my signature.

[Shyone]

Yes, that is what I was saying to him before I even read your post (in my less than scientific way). This is getting scary Shy...

There are many ways to same the same thing.

[NotBlinded]

your silly conclusions are no better than mine are.

Yes, this will become part of my signature.

Thanks Legion! I was hoping someone would catch that! And yes, I did do it on purpose.

[skepticalme]

The problem with the Kalam arguement is that it assumes causality outside of time. Everything we know about causality is based within the framework of a linear progression of time from past to future. To say that, "If 'A' caused 'B' then 'A' must precede 'B' or 'B' must follow 'A" is only valid if time exist and is flowing in one direction from past to future. Before the Big Bang time did not exist so the concepts of 'precede' and 'follow' are undefined prior to that point. We have no model to describe something outside of time because we have no frame of reference to draw conclusions from. Perhaps one day we will be able to model something outside of time. It took one of the greatest minds ever, Einstein, to describe physics in a framework were time was only malible. It would likely require an equal, if not greater, genius to model physics outside of time completely. Any apparent bizzarness in quantum mechanics would pale to that model.

 

We don't even have a faction of what we would need to know in order to describe how the Big Bang happened. We have only scratched the surface in exploring the meer aftermath of the BB. We may still be millenia from knowing enough to even tackle the "How?" question just as the ancient Egyptians were millenia from tackling question of "How can the sun rise and set?"