I can explain it without you having to click any link, Austin Austin.

[walterpthefirst]

Hello Austin Austin.

 

You cited a version William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) in the now locked thread.

 

1.  If the universe began to exist, it has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist. So...

3. The universe has a cause.

4. If the universe has a cause, God exists.

5. God exists.

 

Logic tells us that for the conclusion 5 to be true, all of the previous steps, 1 through 4, would also have to be true.

 

But the problem is that Craig is mistaken in believing that science has proved step 2, that the universe has a cause.

 

The scientific proof that he based his KCA upon is Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose's 1970 paper entitled, 'The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology'.

 

In this paper Hawking and Penrose proved that the universe must have had a beginning - that it began to exist.

 

However, in that paper they assumed that the universe would have a either a negative or null (zero) cosmological constant.

 

In 1998 it was discovered that the universe has a positive cosmological constant.

 

Therefore, Hawking and Penrose's proof cannot be used to prove that the universe had a beginning.

 

It does not apply to any universe with a positive cosmological constant. 

 

Like ours.

 

 

So that you won't have to click on any links, here is what Hawking and Penrose actually wrote in 1970.

 

A new theorem on space-time singularities is presented which largely incorporates and generalizes the previously known results. The theorem implies that space-time singularities are to be expected if either the universe is spatially closed or there is an ‘object5 undergoing relativistic gravitational collapse (existence of a trapped surface) or there is a point p whose past null cone encounters sufficient matter that the divergence of the null rays through p changes sign somewhere to the past of p (i.e. there is a minimum apparent solid angle, as viewed from p for small objects of given size). The theorem applies if the following four physical assumptions are made: (i) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological constant), (ii) the energy density is nowhere less than minus each principal pressure nor less than minus the sum of the three principal pressures (the ‘energy condition5), (iii) there are no closed timelike curves, (iv) every timelike or null geodesic enters a region where the curvature is not specially alined with the geodesic. (This last condition would hold in any sufficiently general physically realistic model.) In common with earlier results, timelike or null geodesic incompleteness is used here as the indication of the presence of space-time singularities. No assumption concerning existence of a global Cauchy hypersurface is required for the present theorem.

 

 

You see where I've highlighted their assumption?

 

A positive cosmological constant means that the theorem does not apply. 

 

Which means that step 2 of the KCA (that the universe had a beginning) is not proven.

 

And this means that the KCA's conclusion (god exists) is not proven either.

 

Because, for the conclusion to be true, all of the steps preceding it would also have to be true.

 

And they aren't.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

It was brought to my attention that Austin's first thread was a copy and paste job from answers in Genesis: 

 

What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of God? | Answers in Genesis

 

The above information completely destroys answers in genesis assertions about the origins of the universe and the entire first cause issue. So I'll the leave the link to Austin's uncited source material here as the 2nd post so that those unfamiliar with the back ground can see who created the arguments Austin has presented as his own. And how weak the original arguments were to begin with, before @AustinAustin decided to try and take them into battle here.....

[Astreja]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello Austin Austin.

 

You cited a version William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) in the now locked thread.

 

1.  If the universe began to exist, it has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist. So...

3. The universe has a cause.

4. If the universe has a cause, God exists.

5. God exists... {snip}

 

 

Even if one were able to circumvent the cosmological constant problem that destroys step 2, step 4 is pure argumentum ad rectum.  The cause could be a lot of things.  Even if the cause was something that fell into the very weakly defined "god" category it could be any god-like being, including a deistic one that inspired no scriptures and had no communication with humanity.

[walterpthefirst]

Here's a logical argument for you to consider, Austin.

 

1.  Walter is an Englishman.

2.  The capital of England is London.

3.  Therefore, if Walter wants to go to the capital of England he must go to London.

 

This is logically sound and is a valid argument.

 

As in all logical arguments, the conclusion (3) depends upon the previous steps, 1 and 2, being true.

 

If any step preceding the conclusion is either false or unknown, then the conclusion cannot be proven.

 

Would you agree?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

@AustinAustin

 

Why are there crickets from you here as well????

 

If you're going to stick around and post in this community you're going to need to take some risks and try answering the questions members here would like you to answer. And if you do, then you stand to learn something from it and gain experience for having tried to tackle any one of these issues. It's ultimately to your own benefit that you try and answer people. Don't be shy, guarded, or evasive. 

 

Participate please...

[walterpthefirst]

On 11/10/2021 at 5:00 AM, Astreja said:

 

Even if one were able to circumvent the cosmological constant problem that destroys step 2, step 4 is pure argumentum ad rectum.  The cause could be a lot of things.  Even if the cause was something that fell into the very weakly defined "god" category it could be any god-like being, including a deistic one that inspired no scriptures and had no communication with humanity.

 

Exactly so, Astreja.

 

The cause cannot be identified by logic any more than the identity of a creator god can be discovered by observing the universe.  In both cases the question of who or what did the causing/creating remains unanswered by either logic or observation.  This leaves the door open for theists to insert the causing/creating god of their choice (Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, etc.) doing so, not by logic, but by... faith.

 

It's possible that Austin does realize that he's corrupting what should be an exercise in pure logic by bringing his faith into it. 

 

But, I suspect not.   

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

47 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

It's possible that Austin does realize that he's corrupting what should be an exercise in pure logic by bringing his faith into it. 

No, no.  Logic is an absolute.  It cannot be corrupted by some outside influence, like faith.  Say it ain't so, Walt; say it ain't so.

[Joshpantera]

None of these apologists, WLC not withstanding, seem to realize what they're doing as they try and force pseudo-scientific claims to fit as evidence for god. It basically degrades the heart of christianity which is salvation through faith.

 

I could see an internal argument between christians consisting of one side refusing to deal with any science at all or any claims of science or philosophy proving the existence of god, in favor of faith and faith alone. And the other side focusing on evidence based claims while denying that evidence claims undermine faith. 

 

But between the two potential factions, who would be correct??? 

 

Faith in gods existence would be meaningless if everyone knew as a fact that god exists, correct? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Joshpantera said:

Faith in gods existence would be meaningless if everyone knew as a fact that god exists, correct? 

And what would become of salvation by grace through faith?  

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And what would become of salvation by grace through faith?  

 

I was tipped off on this predicament from one of Joseph Campbell's anecdotal stories. A priest had come up to him and asked him if there's anything that could convince him that god is real, and Campbell basically shot back, "what then would be the value of faith?" And the priest said good day and went on his way. 

 

It's a hell of a question. 

 

These guys who are grasping at straws to claim that genesis is talking about evolution as we know it today, or that it's describing quantum physics like that one crack pot, are steaming rolling the biblical claim of salvation by grace through faith as they do it. 

 

I was raised on the notion that science is the devil. No one was trying to claim that genesis and the big bang are the same thing - the big bang was completely off the table. A trick of the devil. Along with the whole of secular science. No one cared one bit to try and claim that science proves god. Science was of the devil in my church and school system. We just ignored all of it. I had to read up on the BBT in my 20's because I didn't even know what in the hell it consisted of. The same with evolution. Not a clue.

 

You have faith in god, faith in the bible, and faith in jesus, period! No hybridizing with science or philosophy at all. In fact, those who do try and hybridize science and philosophy with the bible were viewed as feeble minds under the deception of satan. 

 

And it's not hard to see why that was the case. These guys who are trying to claim that the bible is describing modern science are just plain wrong. The image of the cosmos is not one of today's cosmology, obviously. The stupidity that goes into trying to claim that it is, is outstanding! 

 

Jumping through one failed hoop after another.....

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I was tipped off on this predicament from one of Joseph Campbell's anecdotal stories. A priest had come up to him and asked him if there's anything that could convince him that god is real, and Campbell basically shot back, "what then would be the value of faith?" And the priest said good day and went off on his way. 

 

It's a hell of a question. 

 

These guys who are grasping at straws to claim that genesis is talking about evolution as we know it today, or that it's describing quantum physics like that one crack pot, are steaming rolling the biblical claim of salvation by grace through faith as they do it. 

 

I was raised on the notion that science is the devil. No one was trying to claim that genesis and the big bang are the same thing, the big bang was completely off the table. A trick of the devil. Along with the whole of secular science. No one cared one bit to try and claim and science proves god, science was of the devil in my church and school system. We just ignored all of it. I had to go and read up on the BBT in my 20's because I didn't even know what in the hell it consisted of. The same with evolution. Not a clue.

 

You have faith in god, faith in the bible, and faith in jesus, period! No hybridizing with science or philosophy at all. In fact, those who do try and hybridize science and philosophy with the bible were viewed as feeble minds under the deception of satan. 

 

And it's not hard to see why that was the case. These guys who are trying to claim that the bible is describing modern science are just plain wrong. The imagine of the cosmos is not one of today's cosmology, obviously. The stupidity that goes into trying to claim that it is, is outstanding! 

 

Jumping through one failed hoop after another.....

 

I dont know that our friend Austin even tries to support his statements. Most positions he hasn't even used scripture to support it. Just assertions with no foundation other than Austin said so, so it must be true. 

 

It's bad when you can't even support you own biblical stance with scripture, other than the few snippets of salvation scripture he's offered. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Just assertions with no foundation other than Austin said so, so it must be true. 

Google it, dude... respectfully. 

[alreadyGone]

11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

...

 

Faith in gods existence would be meaningless if everyone knew as a fact that god exists, correct? 

 

It all so quickly devolves into a contest of "are you Christian enough... ?"

The entire New Testament becomes this definition of the person worthy enough to be admitted into eternal paradise by willingness to believe that which you have no objective reason to believe.

 

Many here probably experienced as I did the well-meaning believer who wants to rescue you from apostasy as long as it's easy.

Then when you don't just agree with their belief they fall into a posture of "well, you weren't a real Christian, your attitude is just wrong."

From there it becomes "you just didn't really have faith"

 

What exactly is the object supposed to be, as a qualifier of being acceptable to the supreme being by your unfounded belief?

Why is that supposed to be so important to the creator of the universe?

[alreadyGone]

14 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I dont know that our friend Austin even tries to support his statements. Most positions he hasn't even used scripture to support it. Just assertions with no foundation other than Austin said so, so it must be true.

...

 

Most likely it's the intensity of his emotional reaction to his belief.

Isn't that usually the case?  I know it was for me.

 

[alreadyGone]

One of my favorite parts of The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy -

 

The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance.

It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

 

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

 

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best selling book 'Well That About Wraps It Up For God'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought that hilarious even when I was a believer.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

20 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Most likely it's the intensity of his emotional reaction to his belief.

Isn't that usually the case?  I know it was for me.

 

 

True. But even then. When I would tell someone something I would always try to have scripture ready to back me up. 

[sdelsolray]

59 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

True. But even then. When I would tell someone something I would always try to have scripture ready to back me up. 

 

Scripture is (nearly always) not evidence of the claim.  It is merely the source of the claim.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

What exactly is the object supposed to be, as a qualifier of being acceptable to the supreme being by your unfounded belief?

Why is that supposed to be so important to the creator of the universe?

 

It's beyond ridiculous to imagine a scenario where something all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and all PRESENT for fucks sake, give two shits one way or another whether or not someone believes in it - it being the TOTALITY for crying out loud! 

 

It's boils down to something as trivial as to whether or not you believe? 

 

None of this makes any sense unless we look at the evidence and notice that the only thing that needs people to believe, are these various religious sects. The priests and preachers themselves very much depend 100% on people believing ridiculous things at face value. They need faith and belief in order to scratch out a living. If people don't believe them and their claims, they're shit out of luck. 

 

So it's off to brainwash and indoctrinate people with obviously false claims under threat of hell, fire, damnation for those who don't believe it.....

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

25 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Scripture is (nearly always) not evidence of the claim.  It is merely the source of the claim.

True. But as a Christian he is supposed to be armed with the Armour of God. 

 

Ephesians 6:17

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

 

And he is supposed to study to show himself approved. 

 

2 Tim 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

I'm just saying. It's disappointing from a former Christian point of view to see Christians unable to even use their own text to defend themselves. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 11/11/2021 at 9:34 PM, DarkBishop said:

True. But as a Christian he is supposed to be armed with the Armour of God. 

 

Ephesians 6:17

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

 

And he is supposed to study to show himself approved. 

 

2 Tim 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

I'm just saying. It's disappointing from a former Christian point of view to see Christians unable to even use their own text to defend themselves. 

 

 

 

Classic BAA thread! I remember that one well. The big point being that the description of the armor of god had no protection in the back. Meaning that they are not to be found running away and showing their rears! They aren't supposed to chicken shit! 

 

I guess answers in genesis didn't pass along the memo to Austin or anyone else aspiring to take on the devils atheists......

[Joshpantera]

Austin, like all of the other examples given above, ran away defeated.

 

Paul was setting the stage to rile up new converts but at the same time setting a trap inadvertently for future cowards living in a time that Paul nor any other biblical writers could have actually conceived of. They had no way of preparing for a future that they never saw coming. And that's another strong point that needs made here. Regardless of every claim of prophecy and vision, each and every claim fails upon closer investigation. They had no idea that people would evolve to give women equal rights, abolish slavery, stop the persecution and even execution of homosexuals, and most importantly, they didn't see the existence of real atheism as a thing. 

 

Atheism in that period simply referred to someone who didn't believe in the existence of someone else's gods. The christians were accused of being atheists because they didn't believe in the existence of the Greek, Roman, and near eastern desert pantheons. There was no sense at all of true atheism where a complete and total lack of the existence of any gods defines it. That wouldn't appear until centuries later and into the modern era. 

 

Paul nor any other author saw that coming. They didn't see this future. And had no idea that it would be a thing for future generations of christians to prepare for. They knew zero about the future of cosmology. Couldn't prepare for that either. And that 'should' cause pause for thought. If people are claiming that they saw the future, why all of the lack of knowledge about this future? The lack of preparation for this future? 

 

It says above that "faith" is the strong point of the armored christian. 

 

Meanwhile, christians have flipped that around in this future to where the focus in not on faith as directed by Paul and scripture, but on hallow claims of hard evidence. Faith is not something that you have in hard, demonstrable, evidence. There's no reason to have faith in the proven. Faith has to do with the unproven.

 

Paul never saw a future where "faith" wouldn't be good enough - where people would have to think they had hard evidence in order to believe.

 

Imagine an image of someone being being pushed as far back against the ropes as they can be pushed in a fighting ring, while at the same time firing shots into their own feet over and over again as they flail against the ropes. Then being allowed to brush off, try and recover, and come back again, only to show their 'backside' as they hobble away from the fight! 

 

That's what Austin has done here in the name of jesus and on the behalf of christianity.....

[sdelsolray]

Well, the Uruk-Hai had no armor on their backs, as they were expected never to flee battle.  However, at the Battle of Helms Deep, after being attacked by Eomer's army (led by Gandalf) the Uruk-Hai turned and ran into the forest, only to be met and destroyed by Huorns from Fangorn Forest.

 

Some mythology is great, and some sucks.