Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Kalam Cosmological Argument


bornagainathiest

Recommended Posts

And I don't see it necessarily follow that a cause is sentient because it is first in the events of the Universe. It does not follow.

 

Basically, if I understand you right is, that a "Personal agent" as a mind without a body? You're postulating that it must be a mind because it can't be a "thing"? It can't be a thing because a thing requires a cause, and eventually in the uttermost beginning it must be a mind. A mind without body. Without time. Without space. Without a first cause. Without a final cause. Without formal cause. Without efficient cause. I think it's fiction. Where did this mind get the energy from? Where did it get space, matter, time from when it created everything? From nothing?

I think if formal cause was actually understood, many questions could be answered. I'm pretty sure LNC sees the capacity of a "thing" to be programmed into it, when that may not be the case. The formal cause for existents may self pre-exist.

 

And he states this:

 

An inanimate object which is not in motion will not take on the property of motion without another causal agent according to Plato and Aristotle, the object would remain at rest. That is why it is logical to posit a personal agent.

I would like him to point out a object that is not in motion without relativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • LNC

    131

  • Ouroboros

    92

  • NotBlinded

    65

  • Shyone

    64

Top Posters In This Topic

"God is an immaterial being who is not constrained by the limitations of actualizing a physical instantiated infinite. "

 

Would somebody please tell me how in the hell an "immaterial being" can be said to exist?

 

 

I suppose if you presuppose a "ghost in the machine" view of the mind, then god could be analogous to that "ghost." But the ghost in the machine concept is not nearly a given and serves as a poor analogy on which to base the assertion the "God is an immaterial being."

 

If by immaterial one means "pure energy" then that is no help. Energy and matter are related to one another by e=mc2. So if by immaterial one means energy, that is essentially admitting that god is physical and subject to the laws of this universe.

 

Once again, how can an immaterial being be said to exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The Universe began to exist.

Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

 

Hans’ and Notblinded’s line of reasoning on this was pretty cool in my opinion.

 

I don’t believe we fully understand the relations between time, the universe, and causality. For instance, what would it mean to say that time began to exist?

 

I have a hard time taking most current cosmologists seriously though, whether they be religious inclined or scientific. We have only just begun to gain explicit understandings of systems within the universe. And some of them, such as organisms, reveal our own vast ignorance to us. If organisms alone now present such daunting mystery to us, then how much more of a mystery is entire universe?

 

The questions that seem pressing to me here are... What is time? And what is the nature of causality? If we had compelling answers to these questions then I think maybe could begin to tackle some of these mysteries. But as it stands, I think we are shooting in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions that seem pressing to me here are... What is time? And what is the nature of causality? If we had compelling answers to these questions then I think maybe could begin to tackle some of these mysteries. But as it stands, I think we are shooting in the dark.

 

I think you're right about this. The argument is flawed not only because it makes flawed assumptions, but because it is asking the wrong questions - or, rather, failing to ask the right ones.

 

The Kalam argument strikes me as analogous to applying Euclidean geometry to an Einsteinean relativistic Universe. The philosophical tools being applied don't work in a quantum Universe any more than Euclidean geometry works in curved space/time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree.

 

At the moment of the first Planck Time, time, space, cause-and-effect, all of it, came into being. So to argue causality for the moment "before" the first moment and "before" causality, is an invalid operation.

 

It's just like 1/0, or tan(90˚).

 

The Kalam Argument is basically trying to figure out what the "real" answer to invalid mathematical operations are.

 

The cause and the effect were simultaneous, and not sequentially contingent. Meaning, a self-caused event. God came into existence at the same time as he for the first time ever "caused" anything. In other words, the Universe, and everything that exists, is "God".

 

LR, you're head on with the problem statement. What is time? And what is cause?

 

Just to briefly bring up something about the cause, it can be:

1) supernatural or natural

2) made by a mind, or by a natural force

3) to fit the First Cause argument, it must be able to be simultaneous, or sequential.

 

So to be correct, at least these alternative causes must be accounted for in the premise, and (since LNC loves evidence), all of them must be proven first. In other words, supernatural causes must be proven. Simultaneous cause-effects must be proven. Etc. Without those proofs, like LNC said, then the whole argument falls.

 

So where are the supernatural/mind/simultaneous cause-effects? Without them, the premise is incomplete.

 

But then if the argument is: well, the supernatural/mind/simultaneous cause-effect was the First Cause. Then the problem is that the premise rests on the conclusions, and that is a big no-no and that fallacy got yet another fancy name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with Legion and Hans. You can express what I am thinking so much better. These cosmological arguments seem so murky to me. I can't really agree with Kalem because we just don't know enough about the structure and nature of the universe. It all seems so speculative to me especially the notion of something coming in from outside the universe. How can we know? It all seems like a waste without more evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think it goes wrong already here. Most of the time, or actually all the time, whatever begins to exist have multiple causes.

 

 

Not only that, but there are things which exist which have no causes. Quoted from Wikipedia's article on the Cosmological argument
The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation of Aristotelian physics. Some physicists feel that the development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.[18] Modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any known moving body, apparently undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument: every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He gives an example— "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is flawed not only because it makes flawed assumptions, but because it is asking the wrong questions - or, rather, failing to ask the right ones.

 

and perhaps the wrong questions are being asked because the view of reality that spawns these questions is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon Genesis,

 

Good point.

 

Another problem is that the Universe is expanding in an increasing speed; in other words, the energy input is increasing, not decreasing. Classical physics breaks down on Cosmological scale, but in case it's even worse. In this case, not even Cosmology is adequate to explain it, and neither is quantum physics. Where does this mystical energy come from? Dark matter, dark energy, infinite membranes? This extreme amount of additional energy must come from somewhere, and currently we can't measure it, test it, or observer it. How does this increasing energy fit into the First Mover argument? It doesn't. The First Mover argument should lead to a Universe which would be slowing down over time, or at least follow the law of thermodynamics, the output of energy should sum up to the same as the sum of the input, so where does this extra input come from? The Second Mover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that a Newtonian view of cause and effect sees realty as being something that has to have a mover. In this view, nature cannot be the mover because it is nothing but created matter, or fully automatic mechanical forces. In the view I propose, there are no cue balls, only cue sticks because the intelligence is innate in reality. They are intergral parts of the same event. The mover isn't separate from the what is moved.

 

What I think I'm trying to say is that existence and non-existence rely on each other to even be. Would this necessitate that everything always was, no beinging and no end? It might, I'm not sure. Cause and effect are two ways of looking at the same event.

 

It's late for me and I'm suffering brain-drain. I'll have to see if I can think this through better.

 

I guess I need more detail as to what you actually are trying to say here. I looked ahead and didn't see it in your subsequent posts, so maybe you can give me a more detailed explanation of what you mean. Non-existence is philosophically not a condition of some entity's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, NBBTB, I get it. :)

 

I think it's a good point. The framework in motion, where cause and effect are just two sides of the coin, interrelated and inseparable.

 

A "cause" outside of that framework isn't a "cause" in natural sense, since it's not part of the framework. So "cause" as a conclusion doesn't fit, since "First Cause" is the supposed non-natural cause, while premise one is based solely on natural causes.

 

You seem to be assuming naturalism which is merely begging the question. In other words, you discount an explanation that is not natural because you believe that it is outside of the natural and therefore, cannot explain the natural, if I am reading your response correctly. My question is why does this have to be true? Why cannot the explanation be a supernatural one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give an example of how an beginningless series of events could exist? Shouldn't we be able to produce a perpetual motion machine, given this? Yet, we have the problem of entropy that seems to be insurmountable in our universe. If there is a need for a first cause, and I believe that science is pointing us to a finite universe (or multiverse, if you prefer) then it would require a timeless, spaceless, intelligent, and personal cause. Timeless and spaceless as they didn't exist causally prior to the universe; intelligent as we see a universe that seems to have intelligence programmed into it; and personal because there was no existing impersonal forces that would have been able to start things in the finite past (the cause and effect would have had to come into existence simultaneously, which would beg the question of from where that cause came).

 

This is all understood from the presuppostion that the universe is unintelligent in its own right and adds that extra step to existence. Programmed intelligence? Are you programmed? Does this program control your heart beat or is there intelligence in the body?

 

When you say that the universe is unintelligent, what do you mean? Do you mean that the universe contains no intelligence or that it is not inherently intelligent? I believe that the universe contains intelligence and that intelligence had to have an external source. Information systems that we know of within our universe are always the result of intelligent agents. So yes, programmed intelligence. Our bodies are encoded with a program (or many programs) that operate our information system (DNA and the systems that operate off from DNA). These programs do operate our bodies and therefore, there is intelligence encoded within us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why cannot the explanation be a supernatural one?

I don’t see that we have any need for the supernatural LNC. It seems to me that if a supernatural realm exists and it has a relation with the natural world or interacts with it in any way, then the supernatural is just an unknown aspect of the natural world. Also, it seems to me that the natural world is plenty rich and mysterious enough without having to resort to supernatural explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, NBBTB, I get it. :)

 

I think it's a good point. The framework in motion, where cause and effect are just two sides of the coin, interrelated and inseparable.

 

A "cause" outside of that framework isn't a "cause" in natural sense, since it's not part of the framework. So "cause" as a conclusion doesn't fit, since "First Cause" is the supposed non-natural cause, while premise one is based solely on natural causes.

 

You seem to be assuming naturalism which is merely begging the question. In other words, you discount an explanation that is not natural because you believe that it is outside of the natural and therefore, cannot explain the natural, if I am reading your response correctly. My question is why does this have to be true? Why cannot the explanation be a supernatural one?

Nature: I can see, touch it, test it, measure it, it's here.

 

Supernatural: I can not see, or touch it, or test it, or measure, I don't know if it's here

 

So which one begs the question? The one which constitute reality, or the one that is imaginary?

 

It's you who should defend your a priori assumption. I don't have to defend Nature, because you can just open your eyes, and it's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's you who should defend your a priori assumption. I don't have to defend Nature, because you can just open your eyes, and it's there.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

Empirical evidence exists for the laws of nature. Empirical evidence exists for the laws of physics. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of evolution. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of abiogenesis. These things are not open to serious challenge from a scientific or rational standpoint. we may ask questions about how things owrk in the natural world, but the fact they they do work is no mere conjecture.

 

No empirical evidence exists for the supernatural, god, Heaven, Hell, the soul, or life after death. Anyone defending the existence of any or all of these things has, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, a lot of 'splainin to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Empirical evidence?! But that’s too much like science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give an example of how an beginningless series of events could exist? Shouldn't we be able to produce a perpetual motion machine, given this? Yet, we have the problem of entropy that seems to be insurmountable in our universe. If there is a need for a first cause, and I believe that science is pointing us to a finite universe (or multiverse, if you prefer) then it would require a timeless, spaceless, intelligent, and personal cause. Timeless and spaceless as they didn't exist causally prior to the universe; intelligent as we see a universe that seems to have intelligence programmed into it; and personal because there was no existing impersonal forces that would have been able to start things in the finite past (the cause and effect would have had to come into existence simultaneously, which would beg the question of from where that cause came).

 

This is all understood from the presuppostion that the universe is unintelligent in its own right and adds that extra step to existence. Programmed intelligence? Are you programmed? Does this program control your heart beat or is there intelligence in the body?

 

When you say that the universe is unintelligent, what do you mean? Do you mean that the universe contains no intelligence or that it is not inherently intelligent? I believe that the universe contains intelligence and that intelligence had to have an external source. Information systems that we know of within our universe are always the result of intelligent agents. So yes, programmed intelligence. Our bodies are encoded with a program (or many programs) that operate our information system (DNA and the systems that operate off from DNA). These programs do operate our bodies and therefore, there is intelligence encoded within us.

Nevermind LNC, you didn't get what I said. Maybe you are trying to keep up with too many posts and the train of thought isn't catching on. No offense...I do this all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is flawed not only because it makes flawed assumptions, but because it is asking the wrong questions - or, rather, failing to ask the right ones.

 

and perhaps the wrong questions are being asked because the view of reality that spawns these questions is incorrect.

Yes, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that a Newtonian view of cause and effect sees realty as being something that has to have a mover. In this view, nature cannot be the mover because it is nothing but created matter, or fully automatic mechanical forces. In the view I propose, there are no cue balls, only cue sticks because the intelligence is innate in reality. They are intergral parts of the same event. The mover isn't separate from the what is moved.

 

What I think I'm trying to say is that existence and non-existence rely on each other to even be. Would this necessitate that everything always was, no beinging and no end? It might, I'm not sure. Cause and effect are two ways of looking at the same event.

 

It's late for me and I'm suffering brain-drain. I'll have to see if I can think this through better.

 

I guess I need more detail as to what you actually are trying to say here. I looked ahead and didn't see it in your subsequent posts, so maybe you can give me a more detailed explanation of what you mean. Non-existence is philosophically not a condition of some entity's existence.

Hence the problem. Are you going to find the cause of matter in matter? What is matter but a measurement of differences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

I've just joined today and this is my first post - so please be lenient if I'm making some horrible error.

 

My question is for any Christians using this forum.

 

What is your opinion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument as proposed by William Lane Craig? Some Christians I've talked to consider it to be a bona fide proof of God's existence, others think it just provides support for Christianity.

 

Here's a link about it.

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Argument

 

For the record, I was an Evangelical Christian before rejecting Jesus as a false God. Please do not let this information influence your reply. I would much rather you discuss the Kalam and not the fate of my immortal soul.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

 

p.s.

Yes, I know I've misspelt it - that's just a private joke.

 

I am a Christian and find that the Kalam argument is quite compelling. In fact, it is the discussion topic that brought me to this site for the first time last year. I don't use this argument to as a proof for Christianity, but is is a valid argument for the existence of God, and can even be used to argue for a personal and intelligent God.

 

I am curious about one of your comments that you rejected Jesus as a false God, yet call yourself a born again atheist. Do you consider the possibility that God exists but have rejected Jesus as that God; or do you hold that God does not exist in which case Jesus wouldn't be a false God, since there is no God in your eyes? Just trying to correlate your statements.

 

Hello LNC.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Yes, we seem to be agreed that the Kalam isn't a bona fide proof for the existence of the Christian God. Is it a valid argument for the existence of a God? Can it be used to argue for a personal and intelligent God? Well, perhaps we could debate these issues?

 

I'm sorry that you're confused about my chosen name in this forum. I'll explain it as simply as I can.

Prior to becoming a Christian I was an Atheist. When I became a Christian I naturally rejected my Atheistic world-view. Then, when I privately and publicly rejected Jesus, my Atheism was metaphorically, "born again". That's it, in chronological nutshell.

 

I consider all Gods, deities or supernatural agencies (including Jesus) as false because, imho, they have no real or actual existence. I reject the notion that if there is a false god, there is, by implication, a true one. All supernatural agencies are false because they are incorrect interpretations of the true nature of reality.

No, the falsity I refer to is the incorrect conclusion that anything supernatural has a real or actual existence. Here is a link to what I consider to be an incorrect (and therefore false) conclusion about the nature of reality.

 

http://www.en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

 

Those who hold to this concept are demonstrably adhering to and promoting a false view of reality. In the same way, those who hold to and advocate a supernatural view of reality are doing a similar thing. Because Jesus is part of such a supernatural viewpoint, he falls under the definition false, as outlined above. Therefore I refer to Jesus as a false god. I hope this is helpful.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

I've just joined today and this is my first post - so please be lenient if I'm making some horrible error.

 

My question is for any Christians using this forum.

 

What is your opinion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument as proposed by William Lane Craig? Some Christians I've talked to consider it to be a bona fide proof of God's existence, others think it just provides support for Christianity.

 

Here's a link about it.

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Argument

 

For the record, I was an Evangelical Christian before rejecting Jesus as a false God. Please do not let this information influence your reply. I would much rather you discuss the Kalam and not the fate of my immortal soul.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

 

p.s.

Yes, I know I've misspelt it - that's just a private joke.

 

I am a Christian and find that the Kalam argument is quite compelling. In fact, it is the discussion topic that brought me to this site for the first time last year. I don't use this argument to as a proof for Christianity, but is is a valid argument for the existence of God, and can even be used to argue for a personal and intelligent God.

 

I am curious about one of your comments that you rejected Jesus as a false God, yet call yourself a born again atheist. Do you consider the possibility that God exists but have rejected Jesus as that God; or do you hold that God does not exist in which case Jesus wouldn't be a false God, since there is no God in your eyes? Just trying to correlate your statements.

 

Hello LNC.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Yes, we seem to be agreed that the Kalam isn't a bona fide proof for the existence of the Christian God. Is it a valid argument for the existence of a God? Can it be used to argue for a personal and intelligent God? Well, perhaps we could debate these issues?

 

I'm sorry that you're confused about my chosen name in this forum. I'll explain it as simply as I can.

Prior to becoming a Christian I was an Atheist. When I became a Christian I naturally rejected my Atheistic world-view. Then, when I privately and publicly rejected Jesus, my Atheism was metaphorically, "born again". That's it, in chronological nutshell.

 

I consider all Gods, deities or supernatural agencies (including Jesus) as false because, imho, they have no real or actual existence. I reject the notion that if there is a false god, there is, by implication, a true one. All supernatural agencies are false because they are incorrect interpretations of the true nature of reality.

No, the falsity I refer to is the incorrect conclusion that anything supernatural has a real or actual existence. Here is a link to what I consider to be an incorrect (and therefore false) conclusion about the nature of reality.

 

http://www.en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

 

Those who hold to this concept are demonstrably adhering to and promoting a false view of reality. In the same way, those who hold to and advocate a supernatural view of reality are doing a similar thing. Because Jesus is part of such a supernatural viewpoint, he falls under the definition false, as outlined above. Therefore I refer to Jesus as a false god. I hope this is helpful.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

 

Hmmm. That link didn't seem to work properly. Sorry! I'm a newbie when it comes to these things. This one should be ok.

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The Universe began to exist.

Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

 

Hans’ and Notblinded’s line of reasoning on this was pretty cool in my opinion.

 

I don’t believe we fully understand the relations between time, the universe, and causality. For instance, what would it mean to say that time began to exist?

 

I have a hard time taking most current cosmologists seriously though, whether they be religious inclined or scientific. We have only just begun to gain explicit understandings of systems within the universe. And some of them, such as organisms, reveal our own vast ignorance to us. If organisms alone now present such daunting mystery to us, then how much more of a mystery is entire universe?

 

The questions that seem pressing to me here are... What is time? And what is the nature of causality? If we had compelling answers to these questions then I think maybe could begin to tackle some of these mysteries. But as it stands, I think we are shooting in the dark.

Hey thanks Legion! :D

 

I agree and I think it may not be possible to ever intellectually understand it. I think it has to do with the way we process information. Everything we learn and know comes to us in a linear fashion and there are only so many variables we can consciously deal with at once. The universe isn't linear and comes all at once (cause and effect being one. Hans addressed the variable problem earlier). We haven't been able to tap into the part of the brain that handles thousand of variables all at the same time, like blood chemistry, body temperature, etc. That tells me that the little part of us that is conscious is just a small part of who we are. I think the only way we could maybe ever understand it is intuitively as in a "knowing" (or supraconscious). We can't process it because that would set it out in a linear manner. Anyway...just some more thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example would appear to be the Universe itself.

 

Evidence for this assertion?

 

Are you familiar with the concept of the Big Crunch?

 

Yes, I am familiar with the big crunch, how does that explain that we should have a perpetual motion machine (which was my question)? The big crunch better fits with a finite universe model.

 

Pure speculation. Neither intelligence nor personality are necessary for a first cause. Lighting strikes with no intelligent hand guiding it - there are, in fact, far more examples of causes without intelligence in the Universe than causes which proceed from intelligence.

 

Pure speculation? Again, you simply toss out these statements without a shred of backing. The best of big bang cosmology not only points to the beginning of the universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago, but also points to the idea that a new physics would be required to get around this idea. So, no, it is not "pure speculation" as you say. How would you get around intelligence or personality being characteristics of the first cause? Lighting strikes are merely effects within the already existing universe, but this example seems to have nothing to do with explaining how all matter, space and time came into being. Can you give me an explanation of how an effect could happen if there is no physical cause as the physical world did not exist? Check out what Borde, Vilenking and Guth have to say about this (see, Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete)

 

More speculation and opinion. You are arguing from a conclusion.

 

Can you please give more complete responses? These are just assertions without evidence or explanations. I don't find them helpful, useful, or particularly meaningful.

 

Nice try. "NOT" + something = negative.

 

Really? So what you seem to be implying is that 0 + 1 = -1. Is that what you are saying? Please explain.

 

Science is not a set of belief-statements.

 

Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty, so in a sense, it is based upon belief statements. Do you have information to prove otherwise?

 

Look, asshole, this line of crap is getting very, very old. YOU are an ignorant sack of shit, and you dodge questions and refuse to admit it when you are wrong. Until you are ready to admit how totally and completely full of shit you were on the Occam's Razor question, I don't want to see you tell ME to "read more" on any subject at all.

 

DO NOT talk down to me, you pathetic fuck. Capisce?

 

*edited to tone it down a bit, believe it or not*

 

You have made statements and assertions; however, you have not given one actual argument or shown any scholarship to back up your assertions. I am left to surmise that you have not read widely in this field or in the field of philosophy based upon the unsupported conclusions to which you have come and your misuse of philosophy (see Occam's razor). You can call names with the best of them; however, that is not an argument either. Sorry, if you consider me to be ignorant, but at least I can and have pointed to evidence for my positions whereas, you have not.

 

I pointed that out in your treatment of Occam's razor and I don't remember you providing a shred of evidence that you were applying it correctly. I am not talking down to you, simply pointing out my observations. If you don't believe what I am saying I challenge you and everyone else who reads this post to go back and look at your posts on this thread and tell me where you have done anything more than make assertions. Show me where you actually pointed to some research or referenced a scientist or philosopher who backs up your views.

 

You and others want me to admit that I am wrong, yet why is it that I must admit I am wrong when no one, including you is willing to admit you are wrong. BTW, I have admitted to being wrong a number of times on this sit (not this thread, but others); however, I don't remember anyone else doing so here, including you. Are you willing to admit that you misapplied Occam's razor? I have given clear evidence of this, yet I have not read that you have admitted this. Maybe you can take your own advice.

 

I don't like taking such a stern stand, but your language and behavior on this post (since edited) and on others requires it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC, do you see how your insinuation causes reactions like this? Your statement above is a sly way of ad hominem. And I think you're doing it on purpose, which means that you are trolling for reactions. And if you are trolling for reactions, you are a troll. So stop it. Or I will pick up the ad-hom ax again and go to town with it.

 

You see, when you say something like "You may want to do some more reading," you are in effect doing an ad hominem, because you are accusing the other person of not knowing these things and hence being wrong. You attack the person instead of the argument.

 

So what do you say? Should we go at the personal attack approach again? If you want me to quit, then you better quit. But obviously this is way above your head, it would take someone with IQ 10 or more to understand, so sorry that you won't get it.

 

I don't think that my statement was out of line when you look at Davka's posts. They have no evidential support, but yet, he makes very sweeping statements that I don't believe fit with the best scientific findings. I also didn't make the statement as an insult, nor did I intend for it to be taken as such. So, if someone takes something that I said wrong, I don't know that I am completely to blame. I have done a lot of reading in this field and also listened to lectures, debates, and checked out other resources in this field. If someone suggested that I should do more reading, I would be inclined to ask for references from the person to see if they have sources of which I am not familiar. That is not an ad hominem. His name calling, however, was the equivalent of an ad hominem.

 

Do you support Davka's conclusions and statements? If so, maybe you could give me your defense of them. Cite reference material to back them up and scholars who hold them. I am not interested in an exchange of personal opinions, I want to exchange peer reviewed scholarship on this and I haven't gotten that from Davka. So, if that comes across as a personal attack, then sorry, I will stop posting on this thread. I have said before that I am not interested in merely exchanging opinions, and certainly not interested in trading insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example would appear to be the Universe itself.

 

Evidence for this assertion?

 

The universe exists. You want more evidence than that?

 

Are you familiar with the concept of the Big Crunch?

 

Yes, I am familiar with the big crunch, how does that explain that we should have a perpetual motion machine (which was my question)? The big crunch better fits with a finite universe model.

 

Nope. Big Bang, expansion until attraction reverses direction, deflation until Big Crunch, creating a singularity which, unstable, creates a Big Bang . . .

 

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

Pure speculation. Neither intelligence nor personality are necessary for a first cause. Lighting strikes with no intelligent hand guiding it - there are, in fact, far more examples of causes without intelligence in the Universe than causes which proceed from intelligence.

 

Pure speculation? Again, you simply toss out these statements without a shred of backing. The best of big bang cosmology not only points to the beginning of the universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago, but also points to the idea that a new physics would be required to get around this idea. So, no, it is not "pure speculation" as you say.

 

You seem to misunderstand much of what you have read. It is pure speculation to posit the necessity of the First Cause being either intelligent or personal. I defy you to show me a single respected astrophysicist who claims such a thing.

 

 

 

Nice try. "NOT" + something = negative.

 

Really? So what you seem to be implying is that 0 + 1 = -1. Is that what you are saying? Please explain.

 

Come off it. You asked me to prove that the universe "is not finite." I pointed out that you are asking me to prove a negative. You claim that because you have a semantic pile of gobbledygook, proving that something is not true is somehow different from proving a negative.

 

I suppose this same line of drek proves that black is white.

 

Science is not a set of belief-statements.

 

Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty, so in a sense, it is based upon belief statements. Do you have information to prove otherwise?

 

Science is also not based on semantics. Your arguments, however, are. The above utterly nonsensical assertion is a perfect example.

 

Get thee to a university. Your ignorance is abysmal. Go tell any professor of any scientific discipline that science is "in a sense, based on belief statements."

 

When he has properly schooled you, come back and apologize for being such a fool. And while you're at it, have him school you on Occam's Razor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.