Mathematical Proof of God?

[Sheldon]

You just stated that time itself started. So we both agree that time began to exist.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and whatever gave time its beginning could not itself be a product of time.

Elementary school logic.



"Not even wrong".

You've been watching too much Sean Carrol, haven't you?

hahaha.

There is no explanation as to why STEM would began to exist when it did, when the conditions required for it to begin were there from past eternity, only for it to begin in a finite time.

Makes no sense.



You are wrong.

If time started, then it started for a reason...and the question is why did it start in the first place...and why did it start at that moment, and not sooner or later.



What we have here is a universe that began to exist.

That is what we have, and some of us are smart enough to understand that nature cannot be used to explain the origins of nature.

That is circular reasoning.

Now, you may be fine with that, but I'd rather stick to explanations that actually explain the effect without having to use fallacious reasoning to do so.



So, when I am sad, is my brain sad? Yes or no.



About as assumed of a conclusion as you stating that thoughts are produced by the brain.



No, the lesson is "educate the uneducated".

It doesn't take much cogitation on this to realise our language is inadequate to fully understand a state where the temporal physical universe did not exist. However a beginning is a rational impossibility without the existence of time. The universe as we currently observe it, had a point of origin, it did not begin in the sense we understand causal effects that occur within the physical universe. This is a false equivalence, one of many rational flaws in the KCA.

 

[Sheldon]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

No God is assumed with either of those.

1. This has only ever been observed within the temporal physical universe, so ranting that this fact is untrue is risible. You also seem content to ignore the fact that in every single case those causes are natural.

2. Nothing can have a beginning if time does not exist, why you fail to understand this is of little import, it is nonetheless a logical contradiction to assert something began without the existence of time. Again in ever instance where we understand a cause, it is a natural product of the physical temporal universe, so P2 is not just pure assumption, it is based on a false premise itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

No God is assumed with either of those.

Heh... maybe if you tell @shunyadragon, he'll listen this time.

 

[Kharisym]

I think you are intertangling way too much in that statement. Assuming that that was someone's purpose to the standalone KCA, does not negate the fact that people like Craig uses it as an element. This statement that you disagreed with was absolutely true:

We can tell that it is true in that Craig does not stop with the conclusion of the KCA. After stating the conclusion of the argument he goes on to assert "from that we can conclude that that cause is an [extremely powerful, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, intelligent, personal, transcendent and necessary being] that we call God." This, like the KCA, is also an element of his argument. It is simply a less formal and entirely invalid argument. But those are both elements of the argument for God by Craig and the people who use his formulation.

This does not mean that originator of the Islamic version did not intend the KCA to be an argument for God. But it does not make it one. And original intent does not change or supersede the fact of current intent. Purpose lies in the person. Not in the argument.

Correct.

One of the earliest formulations of the Kalam cosmological argument in the Islamic philosophical tradition comes from Al-Ghazali, who writes:

"Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."

Note the absence of any deity in the argument.

Has there ever been a case where the KCA was used in any other way than to *support proof of a god's existence?

edit: Added support for clarity.

 

[Sheldon]

First off, you are WRONG.

I never said "everything must has a cause", I said "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause".

And again, if there is any exception to that intuitive principle, then I haven't seen in yet and neither have you.

Nit picking, and that is another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We haven't see outside of the physical temporal universe, and yet you are making assumptions about things requiring causes, and based on a rational contradiction like something having a beginning, despite time not existing.

I already addressed his sentiments about quantum mechanics and why it isn't necessarily true...and also made reference to the philosophical problems with that interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Nope, you cited differing views, and decided arbitrarily your assumption is sound and all other positions wrong, it seems to be a recurring theme in your posts. That's not addressing the point, it is subjective handwaving.

Basically what I am saying is; quantum mechanics cannot help you here, and does not violate P1 of the KCA.

Well there you go, the nuh uh argument, not very compelling.

So, what would be the natural cause of a universe popping into being uncaused out of nothing...as you claim occurs in quantum mechanics?

Nice straw man attempt to reverse the burden of proof, but I made no such claim. Only you are making claims to knowledge about what can or has happened before the existence of the universe.

You are contradicting yourself between one sentence and the other.

Nope, you are just misrepresenting me with straw man fallacies.

Truth does not contradict truth when it comes to the same subject matter, which means that it must not be true in the first place.

Like your contradiction that something can have a beginning even though time didn't exist, nice own goal.

you cant logically use causes occurring within the physical temporal universe, to explain the origins of the physical temporal universe.

I'm not you are, as does the KCA.

Nonsense. A first cause argument is a theistic argument, if it is a theistic arguing for a first cause.

Try reading it more slowly perhaps F-I-R-S-T C-A-U-S-E A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T. See if that helps? No one is arguing that theists don't use it to make assumptions about the existence of a deity, but it is not an argument for a deity, it is as the name explains a first cause argument.

Please state how WLC is begging the question as he maintains that a deity must have x, y, and z characteristics. Explain why and how.

I already did, he makes several unevidenced assumptions about the thing he is arguing for, a deity.

Interesting. Sean Carrol had stated (in his debate with Craig) that WLC is the one guy who puts the fear in the hearts of his atheists friends. So, WLC must be doing something right, poor debater and all.

If he said that he seems to be alone in thinking it, Professor Dawkins summed Lane Craig up quite nicely, didn't view him as a worthwhile opponent, and rightly so.

 

[Sheldon]

the argument only has two premises.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

That is the KCA.

Is this a windup? You also failed to address the point, again.

 

[Sheldon]

So to sum it up:

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish.

 

[Sheldon]

Kids are being lied to every day in classrooms across America, at tax payers expense.

Yet, I am the one manipulating people?

The irony.

In churches you mean surely?

 

[Sheldon]

No, I am pro-science, pro-reason, and pro-education.

Just not the bits that contradict any part of your belief in archaic superstition and creation myths involving risible claims for magic.

 

[Sheldon]

Any universe that has an average expansion rate greater than zero must have had a beginning.

beginning
noun

1. the point in time or space at which something begins.

How can something occur in spacetime when it doesn't exist?

 

[Sheldon]

Yes indeed. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

Happy research.

The good thing about the theory (from a creationist standpoint) is the fact that only one requirement is needed; which is that all the universe (or any universe) needs to have is an expansion rate greater than zero.

Any universe that has an average expansion rate greater than zero must have had a beginning.

That is literally the ONLY requirement needed...and every conceivable model meets at least that requirement...this applies to multiverses, string theories, oscillating models.

Please let me know when you finish digging.

Still wrong of course, and still for the same reason, but how exactly does this evidence archaic superstitious creation myths, involving inexplicable magic?

If the universe is just a few thousand years old, how come we can see light from stars that are billions of light years away?

 

[ppp]

Has there ever been a case where the KCA was used in any other way than to *support proof of a god's existence?

edit: Added support for clarity.

Ever? I don't know. But let's say for the sake of convenience that the answer is, No.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Has there ever been a case where the KCA was used in any other way than to *support proof of a god's existence?

edit: Added support for clarity.

I can't think of any.

While it isn't an argument for God in and of itself, it's pretty much useless except as an element of arguments for God.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

It doesn't take much cogitation on this to realise our language is inadequate to fully understand a state where the temporal physical universe did not exist.

Speak for yourself. I understand. Don't project your ignorance off on me.

However a beginning is a rational impossibility without the existence of time. The universe as we currently observe it, had a point of origin, it did not begin in the sense we understand causal effects that occur within the physical universe. This is a false equivalence, one of many rational flaws in the KCA.

I already addressed this and as far as im concerned, what I said stands.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

beginning
noun

1. the point in time or space at which something begins.

How can something occur in spacetime when it doesn't exist?

I already addressed this, and the fact that Im telling you that it was addressed should tell you that your little objection means nothing and is of no concern to me or the KCA.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

1. This has only ever been observed within the temporal physical universe, so ranting that this fact is untrue is risible. You also seem content to ignore the fact that in every single case those causes are natural.

2. Nothing can have a beginning if time does not exist, why you fail to understand this is of little import, it is nonetheless a logical contradiction to assert something began without the existence of time. Again in ever instance where we understand a cause, it is a natural product of the physical temporal universe, so P2 is not just pure assumption, it is based on a false premise itself.

Again, I already addressed this.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

1. This has only ever been observed within the temporal physical universe, so ranting that this fact is untrue is risible. You also seem content to ignore the fact that in every single case those causes are natural.

You already admitted that time began to exist...so what can give rise to temporal physical reality?

Tell me.

2. Nothing can have a beginning if time does not exist, why you fail to understand this is of little import, it is nonetheless a logical contradiction to assert something began without the existence of time. Again in ever instance where we understand a cause, it is a natural product of the physical temporal universe, so P2 is not just pure assumption, it is based on a false premise itself.

I already addressed this.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Nit picking, and that is another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We haven't see outside of the physical temporal universe, and yet you are making assumptions about things requiring causes, and based on a rational contradiction like something having a beginning, despite time not existing.

Nonsense. We dont need to see outside of the physical universe to know that the cause of physical reality cannot itself be a product of physical reality.

This is elementary school logic.

If I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, but the catch is; the answer you give has to lie within the computer.

Can you do it? No, you cant.

Or, maybe the computer popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Why not?

If whole universes can, then why not computers.

It is amazing the lengths people will go through just to not believe in God hahaha.

Nope, you cited differing views, and decided arbitrarily your assumption is sound and all other positions wrong, it seems to be a recurring theme in your posts. That's not addressing the point, it is subjective handwaving.

No, I cited differing views AND I gave mention to at least two philosophical problems with it.

Combined together, it is all one giant pot of IT AINT HAPPENING.

Now, you can believe things pop into being uncaused out of nothing, but i don't have enough faith to believe that nonsense.

Well there you go, the nuh uh argument, not very compelling.

Nice straw man attempt to reverse the burden of proof, but I made no such claim. Only you are making claims to knowledge about what can or has happened before the existence of the universe.

I stand by those claims.

Nope, you are just misrepresenting me with straw man fallacies.

I call it how I see it.

Like your contradiction that something can have a beginning even though time didn't exist, nice own goal.

I already addressed this. Your anger and smugness isnt allowing you to gain the correct reading comprehension.

Try reading it more slowly perhaps F-I-R-S-T C-A-U-S-E A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T. See if that helps? No one is arguing that theists don't use it to make assumptions about the existence of a deity, but it is not an argument for a deity, it is as the name explains a first cause argument.

The First Cause is God. Maybe you missed that memo, I will send it again.

The First Cause is...GOD.

If he said that he seems to be alone in thinking it, Professor Dawkins summed Lane Craig up quite nicely, didn't view him as a worthwhile opponent, and rightly so.

Professor Dawkins? Who is that??

Ohh, I remember...isnt that the guy who has been ducking WLC in a debate for over a decade?

Whatever happened to the fella? I haven't heard from him since John Lennox gave him an intellectual spanking in their debate.

hahaha

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Still wrong of course, and still for the same reason, but how exactly does this evidence archaic superstitious creation myths, involving inexplicable magic?

If the universe is just a few thousand years old, how come we can see light from stars that are billions of light years away?

Not all Christian theists are young earth creationist.

So what we have here is a failed "gotcha" moment.

Hahaha.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Just not the bits that contradict any part of your belief in archaic superstition and creation myths involving risible claims for magic.

Lets trade one superstition for another..

My superstition: A dead man, by the power of God, was resurrected from the dead in a physical body.

Your superstition: Dead (inanimate life), suddenly and/or gradually, came to life and began to talk, think, and have sex.

I like my superstition better than yours.