The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Ouroboros]

I think that is an a priori assumption on Han's part. I cannot do anything with a person's a priori assumptions as they don't come to them evidentially, they simply assume them.

The preposition, "everything that comes into existence has a cause," is also an a priori assumption, so what's the big deal?

[NotBlinded]

Here is the problem, if there is not physical world then there is no physical causal agent. It is not a matter of adding gratuitously as there needs to be a cause for the effect (the universe), I am simply positing a cause for the universe that is immaterial as the universe that was created contains all material reality and that cannot be the cause as it is the effect. I am not sure what you are getting at with the rest of your post, maybe you could elaborate.

LNC, I'm not denying the physical world. There is indeed a cause for the effect, but the effect is in the cause itself. I don't know of another way to put that might help??

 

Eastern philosophers look at nature as being alive in the sense that what happens when something comes into existence, comes into being of itself. As in the Self is imanent in IT. Process philosophy understands God as being a persuasive force IN nature. It is both imanent and transcendent. This isn't denying matter, it's just putting the animating force in it instead of outside it.

 

Yes, when I raise my finger or type on my computer, I decide and then I act. How do I know this? I can decide to do it and then not do it because I have made a decision to override my decision. It is more than just a random thing and more than just an automatic thing. Sure, some parts of our bodies work on a subconscious level, like breathing when I am asleep; however, I won't act unless I intend to do so and intentionality is a major problem for the naturalist. If you don't believe me, read some of the literature from Dennett, Tye, Searle and others. If you believe that everything is spontaneous, then your words are meaningless because you had no control over them or intention to type what you did, it is just a spontaneous and meaningless string of letters on my screen. Is that what you think? If not, why not?

I may know what is confusing here. You are separating the mind from the body and this makes it hard for you to grasp what I am saying...i think. Of course you have the ability to make decisions, but do you know why? The controller is the process itself, or a part of the entire process. Do the cells in your body just act in a meaningless way because they are spontaneous? I don't think so. That is just a metaphor, so don't take it too seriously.

 

You have this "I", or mind, as existing apart from the entire process of nature and the body itself. Materialists see the mind as a function of the brain. I see "Mind" imanent in nature and therefore, the body. They are the cause and effect existing in unity.

 

Can you give me evidence that nature has the ability for genuine spontaneity? Here is the problem with your thesis, if there is no material existence, then there is nothing to be part and parcel of. Where no information exists, there can be no programming. You are assuming the existence of matter to be the cause of matter and that is question-begging.

Not at all LNC. I can give you no more evidence for my metaphysical understanding that you can for yours. I am not assuming the existence of matter to be the cause of matter. I never said that. I said the cause of matter is in the effect of matter. I'm not an atheist in the strictest sense. There is information all over everywhere, there is just not an outside programmer just as there is no separate "I", or ghost, or separate mind that exists apart from matter itself. There may be something transcendent, I don't know, but it IMO, isn't issuing orders to dead matter. It is in it and causing it to be alive and spontaneous. Again, the cause and effect are one.

 

You ask if I am immaterial and my answer is that I am both material with an immaterial essence to me. I am not sure what you are asking in your last question; however, if you are asking where other immaterial things exist, that isn't too hard, as you are interacting with them as you read this, your thoughts are immaterial and interact with your material self.

We are getting close. Just don't separate this immaterial essence from yourself...ever. Of course immaterial exists. All of nature is alive with it. This is why it is spontaneous.

 

Hans posted this in response to bornagainatheist:

 

2) Things don't come into existence. The transition into existence. We categorize things and clump them together as unique, distinct, and discrete entities while they're not. A "tree" is many things, not just one kind. It grows into it, like you said

 

Tie this all together and you may be able to see that no one has ever seen a cause. There are no separate events in nature.

 

I think that is an a priori assumption on Han's part. I cannot do anything with a person's a priori assumptions as they don't come to them evidentially, they simply assume them.

LNC...you do this too with the first statement of Kalam argument. Don't be so shifty. I'm calling you out... The last I looked there isn't a matematical formula for the Kalam argument which makes it require empirical evidence. Why would Hans' need it? Is it because it is dealing with nature instead of something transcendent? Anything of nature requires evidence? Are you a materialist? I believe you are. As I have said before; the materialist and the Theist sees nature as being dead. Your approach is evidence that you are the flipside of the coin.

 

Metaphysics can also work within nature LNC.

[Kuroikaze]

I get accused of ignoring posts when it is usually the case that the thread was closed down before I could get to answer that specific post. I answer posts in order and only ignore posts if they are comprised merely of rants rather than arguments or questions. So, if I didn't answer your post, it was most likely that I simply didn't get to it before the thread was closed.

 

Ohh, you are so persecuted, let me play the worlds smallest violin for you.

 

I don't understand why you think that deductive logic is faulty, maybe you could explain.

 

I did not say deductive logic is faulty....please learn to read. I said it is faulty to use deductive logic in the specific instance you are attempting to use it in, namely you are are trying to use it to prove something exists.

 

There is plenty of evidence that God has manifested himself in reality, the fact that you reject those pieces of evidence is another issue. Do you believe that neutrinos exist, or quarks? They cannot be directly observed, we only know that they exist via indirect evidence.

 

Then BY GOD MAN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE and stop wasting our time with whining and engaging in pointless arguments.

 

I reject your arguments/evidence because they are inconclusive. It is not my fault you disciple yourself to gratuitously moronic tools like William Lane Craig. Learn to think for yourself.

 

I believe in things like quarks because science can observer their effects, even if they cannot see them directly. Even then, the believe is contingent, we may find a better explanation for the effects. Show me a miracle that cannot posibly be explained by simple natural causes and then we have something. I am more than willing to accept indirect evidence for god....it is not my fault you can not present any. Don't blame others for your shortcomings.

 

You see, the Kalam argument is a method of showing that it is most reasonable to infer that God directly interacted with the universe, in fact that he is responsible for the existence of the universe. So, you have asked and answered your own question.

 

Except the argument fails to do what you claim it does. We have too little data about the origins of the universe to infer ANYTHING with the level of certainty you seem to think that Kalam proves god's existence.

[Kuroikaze]

The preposition, "everything that comes into existence has a cause," is also an a priori assumption, so what's the big deal?

 

Don't you know that LNC can make a priori assumptions? The rules of logic only apply if they Prove LNC right, that is the first law in LNC's big book of logic.

[Ouroboros]

The preposition, "everything that comes into existence has a cause," is also an a priori assumption, so what's the big deal?

 

Don't you know that LNC can make a priori assumptions? The rules of logic only apply if they Prove LNC right, that is the first law in LNC's big book of logic.

That's right. First law of apologetic: demand your opponent to justify and support his or her claims above and beyond what is reasonable, while maintaining that every claim you make doesn't have to be.

[NotBlinded]

The preposition, "everything that comes into existence has a cause," is also an a priori assumption, so what's the big deal?

 

Don't you know that LNC can make a priori assumptions? The rules of logic only apply if they Prove LNC right, that is the first law in LNC's big book of logic.

That's right. First law of apologetic: demand your opponent to justify and support his or her claims above and beyond what is reasonable, while maintaining that every claim you make doesn't have to be.

Isn't that the truth! It gets hard to keep up with it...and, I think I am tiring of it. I keep hoping for a little moment that will either help me or him to understand why he does this.

[NotBlinded]

I did not say deductive logic is faulty....please learn to read. I said it is faulty to use deductive logic in the specific instance you are attempting to use it in, namely you are are trying to use it to prove something exists.

 

Okay, that helped me understand what he's doing. He is assuming that the initial premise is correct, which in this case, isn't known to be correct, therefore, it is faulty.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Okay, that helped me understand what he's doing. He is assuming that the initial premise is correct, which in this case, isn't known to be correct, therefore, it is faulty.

 

Exactly, we (as humans) simply have far too little information regarding the universe to infer anything about the means of its origins.

[R. S. Martin]

The first premise is a logical axiom (intuitive). We cannot prove it; however, everything that we experience seems to verify the validity of this axiom.

 

At last! a Christian who agrees with me--that the first premise cannot be prove, i.e. we cannot prove that "Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence."

 

In my experience, if the foundation is bad, then everything that is built on top of it will fall sooner or later. As in Jesus' parable: The rains came down and the floods went up...and the house on the sand went flat!

 

It simply doesn't work--in real life or in philosophy--to begin with a faulty thesis. "Faulty" in this case refers to "unprovable." This is in view of the fact that half the earth's human population (Christians and Muslims, and possibly Jews) subscribe to the god* whose existence this unprovable premise supposedly "proves."

 

*I spell "god" with a lower-case "g" because some people disagree that Muslims and Christians worship the same deity; in this case, "god" passes for both.

[R. S. Martin]

Okay, that helped me understand what he's doing. He is assuming that the initial premise is correct, which in this case, isn't known to be correct, therefore, it is faulty.

 

Exactly, we (as humans) simply have far too little information regarding the universe to infer anything about the means of its origins.

 

This is where people who want to know the truth, in this case scientists, study the case in minute detail over vast expanses of time and space with the intent to learn with increasing clarity and accuracy what really is or was the case. I wonder sometimes whether people who fall for such imprecise but intelligent-sounding theories as the Kalam simply lack the patience, or faith, for this kind of in depth research. Maybe they lack the faith to live in a universe whose beginning they cannot explain?

[Kuroikaze]

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence.

 

 

The first premise is a logical axiom (intuitive). We cannot prove it;however, everything that we experience seems to verify the validity ofthis axiom.

 

I missed this little gem....LNC apparently does not understand what an axiom is.

 

This premise is far too vague to ever qualify as an axiom, and there are only three axioms in logic.

 

A=A is an axiom. but this travesty is no where close to A=A.

 

 

LNC clearly defines "everything" to exclude god, but his explanations for why this should be are vague nebulous, and confusing pseudo-philosophy.

 

It is unclear what is meant by "began to exist" especially considering that "began" only has meaning within the context of time, which is a function of space. Without the universe there is no time.

 

It is not even clear what is meant by "cause" for much the same reason.

 

Hell, we can't even get a clear definition of the world "exist" in LNC's world view

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

The basic argument can be stated in two premises and a conclusion. It reads as follows:

 

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.

 

The argument doesn't argue for a certain God, it only argues that all matter space and time had a cause that is, logically, outside of matter space and time. Logically, a thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, and the universe would fall into that category. Scientifically, the models and data that we now have indicate that the universe is past-finite, i.e., it had a beginning. Since the universe, by definition, accounts for all matter, space and time, it follows that the cause had to be outside of matter, space and time. I therefore propose that an immaterial, timeless mind is the cause of the universe.

 

KCA is an inductive argument and more specifically, an abductive argument (argument to the best explanation).

 

The first premise is a logical axiom (intuitive). We cannot prove it; however, everything that we experience seems to verify the validity of this axiom. Premise 2 is supported by the best scientific modeling and data that we have today. It was not always believed that the universe began to exist as for many years the "steady state" model was the leading model. However, since the Big Bang theory was developed, it has only been further verified by experimental data. The Big Bang model seems to indicate that the universe began in the finite past.

 

I think that you are mistaken on your third point in that KCA is not used, necessarily to support the argument from design (teleological argument) or the moral argument. Often, the three are used together as a cumulative case to argue for the existence of God, and a personal, moral God at that. However, each argument stands on its own.

 

Good questions.

 

Hello again LNC.

 

Thank you for replying and I duly acknowledge the error I made concerning the third point about the KCA. Yes, I now understand that each Argument stands on it's own and I erred in thinking that the cumulative case you describe above was some kind of mutual dependency - if one Argument failed they all failed. I agree that this is not so.

 

However, your message does prompt me to ask two new questions.

 

1. After listing the Basic Argument's three points, your next paragraph includes the sentence, "Scientifically, the models and data that we now have indicate that the universe is past-infinite. i.e., it had a beginning." Yet later in your reply you say, "The Big Bang model seems to indicate that the universe began in the finite past." So which is it? Is it definitely indicated or seemingly indicated? I'm sure you'll agree that the two are not the same. One implies definite indication and the other indefinite indication, allowing the for possibility that competing models may be just as viable.

 

2. You say that the cause had to be outside of matter, space and time. Agreed, terms like inside, outside, before and beyond are entirely valid in their use after the Big Bang event itself because the existence of the spacetime continuum is indicated by scientific data. But, I don't quite understand how terminology like this ( that rely on spacetime itself for their meaningful usage ) can be applied and used in such a definite way. "Had to be outside...", appears to me to be a definite statement of temporal and spatial location. Given that the very scientific models you cite indicate that time and space themselves did not exist in some timeless time and spaceless space, how can such terms be meaningfully used? I ask because of the wording of the Wikipedia description of the word Argument. See here...

 

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

 

"In logic, an Argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the Premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition) known as the Conclusion."

 

If, as you say, the KCA is an abductive Argument, then it must surely use language and terminology in a meaningful way to satisfy the conditions of what an abductive Argument can be? Meaningless language/terminology would surely result in meaningless Premises and a meaningless Conclusion? Perhaps you could clarify this issue?

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Ummm... perhaps I missed your reply to the above LNC? If so, sorry 'bout that! I'll have to go back thru this thread to find it.

 

If I didn't, would you please be so kind as to reply?

 

I realize that availible time might be the issue here, so whenever you can is fine.

 

Now, I hope you won't mind my throwing this open to anyone else who wants to respond?

 

They say that two heads are better than one, so perhaps more than one p.o.v. is better than one?

 

Any thoughts Han, Davka, Kuroikaze, R.S. Martin or anyone else?

 

What I'm struggling with is what I perceive to be the 'closed' nature of the Big Bang event. My understanding of these matters is that because humans operate within the spacetime continuum, our language and definitions of what is knowable and comprehensible all operate within that context. If there can be said to be anything 'before' time or 'beyond' space, whatever this something is cannot be adequately described by our language or understood by our minds. This 'something' is 'closed' to us and when we try to communicate anything about it, our language is necessarily speculative and imprecise, making any kind of verification or agreed meaning difficult or impossible. Am I way off-beam here?

 

I can think of two examples from Cosmology and Astrophysics that seem to indicate there are such regions of reality that are 'closed' to us in a similar way - the event horizons of black holes and the potential edge of the observable universe.

In the first case, despite the possibility of Hawking radiation leaving a black hole's event horizon, it's surely impossible for us to describe the singularity that lies within with precision, meaning and accuracy. We theorize about it, speculate and surmise, but how much can we ever do more than that?

The second case seems similar. The further our telescopes are able to see in space, the further back in time they are looking. Perhaps, in the coming decades, future telescopes will see as far back as it is physically possible to see - that is, the light from ever more distant galaxies will be red shifted beyond the grasp of any human technology. Will this represent another region of reality that is forever 'closed off' from us? If so, we can speculate that this observable universe of ours might be part of a much larger one, but how could we ever know? Direct verification of cosmological theory might be impossible!

 

Now (I hope) you can see my line of reasoning.

With the two above cases there appear to be regions of our current reality that are beyond the scope of investigation and therefore of understanding and therefore of meaningful description. They seem to have left our physical universe altogether and have made themselves 'closed' to us by effectively leaving the spacetime continuum we inhabit. If that's so (granted, it's a BIG if...) what hope do we have of investigating, understanding and meaningfully describing anything about anything in the timeless time and spaceless space that was conjectured to exist "before" the Big Bang event? Here's where my brain reaches meltdown and I need help!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

[Guest Norlick]

LNC

 

There's nothing to suggest that the universe actually began at the big bang -- How do you know that before the singularity that preceded the big bang, there were previous big bangs followed by big crunches, or that the matter has always been there, or any number of other possibilities? You dont bro, you just fucking dont, so dont make shit up and say you do know, because in the end you're still just making shit up.

 

This is giving you every point of the argument for free too -- I haven't read the other responses to your shit but I'd assume others have pointed out the bullshit already.

 

"intelligent as we see a universe that seems to have intelligence programmed into it"

Wait a sec, dont you even see the bullshit in what you're saying here?

Who's 'we'? Christians? Muslims? What the fuck about this universe tells you that intelligence has been programmed into it? Never mind that intelligence is simply a human concept describing the result of a bunch of neurons firing off in a giant survival machine's brain box.

 

The Kalam argument is a stack of bullshit bro, get over it.

[Guest Norlick]

Just got a PM informing me that this isnt the board to drill people, so apologies.

Also after reading some of the rest of the thread looks like what I said has already been pointed out a few times anyway.

[Legion]

My understanding of these matters is that because humans operate within the spacetime continuum, our language and definitions of what is knowable and comprehensible all operate within that context. If there can be said to be anything 'before' time or 'beyond' space, whatever this something is cannot be adequately described by our language or understood by our minds.

Yes BAA, I think these points go directly to the heart of the matter. Hans and I made a parody a few pages back utilizing these observations. We three seem to agree that concepts like “before time existed” and “outside of space” have little if any coherence.

 

Just got a PM informing me that this isnt the board to drill people, so apologies.

No problem Norlick. You're new and didn't know. We can rip people to shreds in the Lion's Den however. So please keep your claws sharp.

 

Welcome to ex-C.

[NotBlinded]

Now (I hope) you can see my line of reasoning.

With the two above cases there appear to be regions of our current reality that are beyond the scope of investigation and therefore of understanding and therefore of meaningful description. They seem to have left our physical universe altogether and have made themselves 'closed' to us by effectively leaving the spacetime continuum we inhabit. If that's so (granted, it's a BIG if...) what hope do we have of investigating, understanding and meaningfully describing anything about anything in the timeless time and spaceless space that was conjectured to exist "before" the Big Bang event? Here's where my brain reaches meltdown and I need help!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

bornagainathiest,

 

I think you have understood it well. LNC uses metaphysical reasoning to arrive at his understandings and gets upset with us when we do the same thing. Any speculation about "before" is metaphysical in nature because, as you said, this understanding is closed to us. It all matters to what preference one prefers.

 

The difference is that he is trying to use deductive logic based on a premise that is part of this "closed", or speculated beginning. He wants this to work, we know it doesn't, and we also know that our speculations about it won't work with this type of reasoning either. Right now, it's speculation on all parts. He won't admit that.

[Ouroboros]

One interesting aspect of this discussion is that we have another thread were we're discussing the problems of using scientific deconstruction and reductionism for explaining human nature. The interesting part is that Kalam is an attempt to use the reductionist's method to arrive at the nature and existence of God. How can the world be so complex and impossible to completely understand through reduction, while God supposedly can? Does it argue that both the world and God are simple to explain?

[NotBlinded]

One interesting aspect of this discussion is that we have another thread were we're discussing the problems of using scientific deconstruction and reductionism for explaining human nature. The interesting part is that Kalam is an attempt to use the reductionist's method to arrive at the nature and existence of God. How can the world be so complex and impossible to completely understand through reduction, while God supposedly can? Does it argue that both the world and God are simple to explain?

I posted this to LNC on the previous page:

 

LNC...you do this too with the first statement of Kalam argument. Don't be so shifty. I'm calling you out... The last I looked there isn't a matematical formula for the Kalam argument which makes it require empirical evidence. Why would Hans' need it? Is it because it is dealing with nature instead of something transcendent? Anything of nature requires evidence? Are you a materialist? I believe you are. As I have said before; the materialist and the Theist sees nature as being dead. Your approach is evidence that you are the flipside of the coin.

 

Metaphysics can also work within nature LNC.

 

He is a materialist, IMO.

 

The Kalam is based on a reductionist method as you said. They go right beside the materialist, use their science and then claim they are wrong. Talk about confusing to the ones that try to understand this thought process!

 

What needs to happen is not to claim the materialist is wrong, but lacking, IMO. There is something not of material that is existing within the material itself. Metaphysical, yes and it will remain that way until, or if, it can be observed by effects. I don't know if that is possible or not until we can stop asking, "What" or "Who" and look at it for what it is doing of itself. ????

 

I'm not saying everything I want to say, but I can't think of anything else right now.

[Ouroboros]

He is a materialist, IMO.

And yet he rejects it when it propose alternative answers to his questions.

 

He's shifty, as you said.

 

I'm not saying everything I want to say, but I can't think of anything else right now.

It will come to you eventually.

[bornagainathiest]

Ummm... perhaps I missed your reply to the above LNC? If so, sorry 'bout that! I'll have to go back thru this thread to find it.

 

If I didn't, would you please be so kind as to reply?

 

I realize that availible time might be the issue here, so whenever you can is fine.

 

LNC responds to posts in order. He is currently responding to items in this thread from September 8, so you have a bit of a wait. I have prompt interaction with him over PM, with the loss of multiple views presented through public input. If speed is paramount, I recommend PMing him. If you'd prefer to keep the dialogue public, you this is a heck of an opportunity to exercise tremendous patience.

 

Be well,

Phanta

 

Thanks Phanta, now I understand... ...and Yes, I'm a patient enough man to wait.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

What I'm struggling with is what I perceive to be the 'closed' nature of the Big Bang event. My understanding of these matters is that because humans operate within the spacetime continuum, our language and definitions of what is knowable and comprehensible all operate within that context. If there can be said to be anything 'before' time or 'beyond' space, whatever this something is cannot be adequately described by our language or understood by our minds. This 'something' is 'closed' to us and when we try to communicate anything about it, our language is necessarily speculative and imprecise, making any kind of verification or agreed meaning difficult or impossible. Am I way off-beam here?

I can think of two examples from Cosmology and Astrophysics that seem to indicate there are such regions of reality that are 'closed' to us in a similar way - the event horizons of black holes and the potential edge of the observable universe.[/color]

In the first case, despite the possibility of Hawking radiation leaving a black hole's event horizon, it's surely impossible for us to describe the singularity that lies within with precision, meaning and accuracy. We theorize about it, speculate and surmise, but how much can we ever do more than that?

The second case seems similar. The further our telescopes are able to see in space, the further back in time they are looking. Perhaps, in the coming decades, future telescopes will see as far back as it is physically possible to see - that is, the light from ever more distant galaxies will be red shifted beyond the grasp of any human technology. Will this represent another region of reality that is forever 'closed off' from us? If so, we can speculate that this observable universe of ours might be part of a much larger one, but how could we ever know? Direct verification of cosmological theory might be impossible!

BornAgainAthiest.

 

Ho-hum!

It looks like I might have to revise the wording of the above because of this... http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

The way I'd worded the query covered only the scenario where our attempts to look 'beyond' the edge of the observable universe were ultimately stymied by the ever-increasing red shift. I forgot to take account of 'external' influences reaching in and affecting our observable bubble, as this Wiki article suggests. The jury seems to be still out on this issue, but maybe when the CMB data from the European Planck probe is in, we'll know more.

 

However, the 'closure' of gravitational singularities (i.e., in Black Holes and in the simplest Big Bang Cosmological model) still seems viable. See here... http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity (See under the heading, Curvature) For the sake of clarity, I reproduce the relevant sentences. "The simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extension into the past. Extrapolating backwards to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions, infinite density, infinite temperature and infinite space-time curvature."

 

Now, I may be taking an overly-simplistic view of things, but to me a universe of time 0 and size 0, combined with the above infinitites, sounds pretty much 'closed' to empirical investigation!

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[LNC]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 

2. The Universe began to exist.

 

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

 

Why is it that the Universe needs a cause but God does not? If the Universe is the result of a "First Cause", why does that cause have to be a who, why not a what? This argument doesn't support or refute the existance of God.

 

The universe is a contingent thing just like all material entities are. God, by definition is a necessary being. At some point we need to find a necessary cause for a series of contingent entities. I have explained before that if the cause was a what, we should expect that the universe would be much older than it is (in fact, eternally old) as the effect would coincide with the cause. In other words, an impersonal what could not determine an effect to be triggered later, that would require personal agency. Actually, the argument does support the existence of God which is why it has been used so effectively in debates with naturalists/materialists.

[Kuroikaze]

The universe is a contingent thing just like all material entities are. God, by definition is a necessary being. At some point we need to find a necessary cause for a series of contingent entities. I have explained before that if the cause was a what, we should expect that the universe would be much older than it is (in fact, eternally old) as the effect would coincide with the cause. In other words, an impersonal what could not determine an effect to be triggered later, that would require personal agency. Actually, the argument does support the existence of God which is why it has been used so effectively in debates with naturalists/materialists.

 

This argument simply not as convincing as you think it is.

 

You are asserting a lot of things that you cannot posibly know about how reality works, since we as human beings have woefully little knowledge about such things.

 

 

I wish you could see how incredibly silly you look to everyone else when you make statements like this.

[NotBlinded]

I wish you could see how incredibly silly you look to everyone else when you make statements like this.

Here is a visual for him.

 

[LNC]

First, abiogenesis. It depends on what you call evidence, perhaps, but consider:

 

1. At one time there was no life, then small fossils appeared.

[Note, no life -> life = abiogenesis. You think goddidit, but that's still abiogenesis]

 

How do small fossils appear if there is no life? Fossils are the preserved remains of past life. Whatdidit?

 

2. Concentrations of gases in the atmosphere changed as life became abundant which confirms that life has impacted the environment

 

You still didn't explain how life got here, you merely assume it showed up somehow. That begs the question, how? You also have not shown that life impacted the environment, you have merely asserted that. That is known as the cum hoc fallacy, assuming that because two things happen simultaneously, that one is the cause of the other.

 

3. Amino acids and complexes form in the atmpospheric conditions present before life began.

 

How do these amino acids form and how do you suggest that the chirality was overcome? So far, that problem has not been solved by science. Again, you assume a lot here but I see nothing but a just so story.

 

4. Spontaneous formation of RNA in labs shows how the chemistry of life can occur without divine intervention (unless you think God was fiddling with the chemicals in the lab too).

 

I like how the headline of your linked article still has the question mark after "First evidence for abiogenesis" and also how it says that "RNA spontaneously forms in lab experiment?{" How is a result of a lab experiment spontaneous? Were not the scientists trying to achieve the results of that spontaneous experiment? I think that there are a lot of hurdles that need to be overcome with the RNA World hypothesis and the article seems to have overstated the case in saying that some of the precursor molecules have been found in interstellar dust clouds and meteorites. Sure, they have found some trace molecules, but that is far from finding what they would actually need to find. Orgel, who is basically responsible for the hypothesis believed that RNA originating on earth was highly unlikely given the conditions of early earth, and thought that it was possible that life could have been seeded from other planets; however, the science was inadequate to prove it. This would also merely push the question back a step as to how that life began.

 

Life is chemistry from bottom to top. That life began is not seriously debated except when Christians shoot themselves in the foot by claiming life could not have ever started. But of course it did. We are here. So the question is how, not whether, life started.

 

So there is "evidence". It consists of the study of the chemicals of life, how the form, how the assemble, and possible mechanisms for self organization.

 

As far as "why the laws of physics exist", they are the properties of mass and energy. The Question is the problem. It's like asking, "Who makes the sun rise?"

 

The answer is not a mystical beast that fantastically shoots the fireball across the sky, but - the earth rotates. There is no "who". And for the laws of physics, they are what they are because mass is what it is. There is not a good reason to ask why.

 

But, since people ask, study particle physics, energy, relativity, quantum physics and all the rest of that stuff that deals with what matter is and energy is. One thing you'll never find is an equation that has "goddidit" anywhere in there.

 

I don't know of Christians who claim that life could not ever have started, could you let me know to whom you are referring? If life is just chemistry, can you explain the chemistry of the mind? If you can, can you tell me how you know that? In other words, how does chemistry analyze chemistry and arrive at truth? Can chemistry be free or is it always determined? No, you have not provided evidence, you have merely made unproven assertions.

 

Regarding the laws of physics, again you are merely begging the question not providing an answer. Yes, it is like asking from where did the laws come from that make the sun rise and you haven't really answered that. Do you consider it a mere brute fact? That would mean that the laws of physic are necessary and not contingent and that doesn't fit with either science or philosophy. Simply building straw man alternatives to shoot down isn't the same as providing an answer or even making your assertion more plausible. So, I will ask again, from where did the laws of physics come?

 

When you study the laws of physics, you will never find the answer that they just came from nowhere out of nothing. You are engaging in a category error in saying that science is responsible for explaining metaphysics. Science cannot do more than to explain the probably outcomes of interactions based upon hypothesis and empirical analysis. It cannot tell us why the laws exist by which nature operates, that is outside of its magisteria.