Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Countering the universe began to exist

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 5:41:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Agree. I often challenge proponents to identify an instant of time where the universe did not exist. They never can.

It also suffers from the fallacy of composition --- what is true for the parts is not necessarily true of the whole. Cause and effect is a temporal phenomenon we observe inside our universe. What is true within the universe cannot necessarily be applied to the universe itself. They never get it though.
Kreakin
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 6:17:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is interesting getting your head around time.
If M theory is correct and there is ever multiplying branes, would time start afresh for each or be linked to the rest. Or is that vastly misunderstanding the theory?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 9:10:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ? : :

Why can't there be other universes besides this one? If we're living in simulated universe like many people are suggesting today, why couldn't there be many other simulated universes beyond this one?

https://www.youtube.com...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 9:19:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

The point was to show why the Kalam Cosmological Argument does not work, and it accomplishes that because the KCA asserts that the universe began to exist (and claims science as it's source) which is false according to what we know about the big bang.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 11:26:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 9:19:45 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

The point was to show why the Kalam Cosmological Argument does not work, and it accomplishes that because the KCA asserts that the universe began to exist (and claims science as it's source) which is false according to what we know about the big bang.

Oh I see. Good point
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Grecham
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:32:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Just thought I'd join the conversation - albeit a few days late;

Disagree

Hubblesite
The best available information indicates that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

NASA
Europe's Planck spacecraft has obtained the most accurate and detailed map ever made of the oldest light in the universe. The map results suggest the universe is expanding more slowly than scientists thought, and is 13.8 billion years old, 100 million years older than previous estimates.

Discovery
The Universe is 13.75 billion years old, primordial helium has been spotted for the first time and key evidence for the inflationary period immediately after the Big Bang has been found (discovery by NASA"s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe)

The above would seem to contradict your contention that the universe never began to exist. If scientists can estimate the age of the universe, wouldn't it be fair to assume that there was a condition whereupon the universe didn't exist. The definition of 'began' in this instant becomes relevant to the event because time has just been created.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 11:03:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:32:20 PM, Grecham wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?



Just thought I'd join the conversation - albeit a few days late;

Disagree


Hubblesite
The best available information indicates that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

NASA
Europe's Planck spacecraft has obtained the most accurate and detailed map ever made of the oldest light in the universe. The map results suggest the universe is expanding more slowly than scientists thought, and is 13.8 billion years old, 100 million years older than previous estimates.

Discovery
The Universe is 13.75 billion years old, primordial helium has been spotted for the first time and key evidence for the inflationary period immediately after the Big Bang has been found (discovery by NASA"s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe)

The above would seem to contradict your contention that the universe never began to exist. If scientists can estimate the age of the universe, wouldn't it be fair to assume that there was a condition whereupon the universe didn't exist. The definition of 'began' in this instant becomes relevant to the event because time has just been created.

You know what they say about "assume".............

Even if there was a condition where the universe did not exist, it could not be said that said condition was a fact "before" the universe exist.

As such it is still the case the universe did not "begin" to exist.

"creation" to means implies that something did not exist in the past and now it does. Thus to say time began to exist was created makes no sense in the same line of reasoning.

No time exists before time exists ergo there is no past prior time where it did not exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 11:32:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

Proposition 1 is an unprovable conjecture based on limited experience.
Proposition 2 invokes a term that is constructively undefinable.
The conclusion is therefore both constructively meaningless and unprovable.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:25:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 9:55:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What evidence is there for the B-theory of time?

STR for example.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:28:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Craig has a very ... unique definition of 'begins to exist':

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:40:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist


I disagree, this is not a necessary requirement. To begin to exist simply requires a temporal instant where something comes into existence. This could be t=0, where there is no time prior to it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:49:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 2:28:51 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Craig has a very ... unique definition of 'begins to exist':

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."

It seems to me that his conception of what it means to begin to exist is needed because under the what I consider the more understood conception of what it means to begin to exists the Kalam argument falls apart.

So if the Kalam came down to which is the better conception of what it means for something to begin to exist I think the version I used has the upper hand over Craigs conception.

I wonder whether Craig would really want to argue his conception is superior ?

And with X being a tensed fact that goes into the A theory of time vs B theory, where B theory has no tensed facts and seems to be more likely to be true than A theory...........from what I hear.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:51:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 2:40:40 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist


I disagree, this is not a necessary requirement. To begin to exist simply requires a temporal instant where something comes into existence. This could be t=0, where there is no time prior to it.

Comes into existence sounds to me as..........here is a prior time where X did not exist.............here is a later time where X does.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 3:05:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 2:49:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Craig has a very ... unique definition of 'begins to exist':

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."

It seems to me that his conception of what it means to begin to exist is needed because under the what I consider the more understood conception of what it means to begin to exists the Kalam argument falls apart.
Indeed.

So if the Kalam came down to which is the better conception of what it means for something to begin to exist I think the version I used has the upper hand over Craigs conception.
Craig's is forged for his purposes exclusively.
(iii) gets God a free pass.
(iv) predicates the KCA on the A-theory, because the B-theory would refute it.

I wonder whether Craig would really want to argue his conception is superior ?
He sure does.

And with X being a tensed fact that goes into the A theory of time vs B theory, where B theory has no tensed facts and seems to be more likely to be true than A theory...........from what I hear.
Yes, it has scientific support.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 3:09:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 3:05:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:49:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Craig has a very ... unique definition of 'begins to exist':

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."

It seems to me that his conception of what it means to begin to exist is needed because under the what I consider the more understood conception of what it means to begin to exists the Kalam argument falls apart.
Indeed.

So if the Kalam came down to which is the better conception of what it means for something to begin to exist I think the version I used has the upper hand over Craigs conception.
Craig's is forged for his purposes exclusively.
(iii) gets God a free pass.
(iv) predicates the KCA on the A-theory, because the B-theory would refute it.

I wonder whether Craig would really want to argue his conception is superior ?
He sure does.

And with X being a tensed fact that goes into the A theory of time vs B theory, where B theory has no tensed facts and seems to be more likely to be true than A theory...........from what I hear.
Yes, it has scientific support.

Im not too sure what you means Gods gets a free pass in regard too "(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly,"
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 3:19:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 3:09:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:05:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:49:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Craig has a very ... unique definition of 'begins to exist':

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."

It seems to me that his conception of what it means to begin to exist is needed because under the what I consider the more understood conception of what it means to begin to exists the Kalam argument falls apart.
Indeed.

So if the Kalam came down to which is the better conception of what it means for something to begin to exist I think the version I used has the upper hand over Craigs conception.
Craig's is forged for his purposes exclusively.
(iii) gets God a free pass.
(iv) predicates the KCA on the A-theory, because the B-theory would refute it.

I wonder whether Craig would really want to argue his conception is superior ?
He sure does.

And with X being a tensed fact that goes into the A theory of time vs B theory, where B theory has no tensed facts and seems to be more likely to be true than A theory...........from what I hear.
Yes, it has scientific support.

Im not too sure what you means Gods gets a free pass in regard too "(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly,"

"clause (iii) precludes God"s beginning to exist if He enters time at the moment of creation from a state of timelessness sans creation. This result is intuitive because God, if He exists timelessly sans creation, doesn"t begin to exist or come into being at the moment of creation"
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 3:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 3:19:03 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:09:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:05:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:49:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Craig has a very ... unique definition of 'begins to exist':

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."

It seems to me that his conception of what it means to begin to exist is needed because under the what I consider the more understood conception of what it means to begin to exists the Kalam argument falls apart.
Indeed.

So if the Kalam came down to which is the better conception of what it means for something to begin to exist I think the version I used has the upper hand over Craigs conception.
Craig's is forged for his purposes exclusively.
(iii) gets God a free pass.
(iv) predicates the KCA on the A-theory, because the B-theory would refute it.

I wonder whether Craig would really want to argue his conception is superior ?
He sure does.

And with X being a tensed fact that goes into the A theory of time vs B theory, where B theory has no tensed facts and seems to be more likely to be true than A theory...........from what I hear.
Yes, it has scientific support.

Im not too sure what you means Gods gets a free pass in regard too "(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly,"

"clause (iii) precludes God"s beginning to exist if He enters time at the moment of creation from a state of timelessness sans creation. This result is intuitive because God, if He exists timelessly sans creation, doesn"t begin to exist or come into being at the moment of creation"

Okey I getcha.

Have you ever seen some sort of law of identity/contradictory Gods argument in this area ? cause I just had a thought along the following lines.........

A timeless God is different from a God existing in time ergo they can't be the same thing.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:20:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 3:23:44 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:19:03 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:09:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:05:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:49:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Craig has a very ... unique definition of 'begins to exist':

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact."

It seems to me that his conception of what it means to begin to exist is needed because under the what I consider the more understood conception of what it means to begin to exists the Kalam argument falls apart.
Indeed.

So if the Kalam came down to which is the better conception of what it means for something to begin to exist I think the version I used has the upper hand over Craigs conception.
Craig's is forged for his purposes exclusively.
(iii) gets God a free pass.
(iv) predicates the KCA on the A-theory, because the B-theory would refute it.

I wonder whether Craig would really want to argue his conception is superior ?
He sure does.

And with X being a tensed fact that goes into the A theory of time vs B theory, where B theory has no tensed facts and seems to be more likely to be true than A theory...........from what I hear.
Yes, it has scientific support.

Im not too sure what you means Gods gets a free pass in regard too "(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly,"

"clause (iii) precludes God"s beginning to exist if He enters time at the moment of creation from a state of timelessness sans creation. This result is intuitive because God, if He exists timelessly sans creation, doesn"t begin to exist or come into being at the moment of creation"

Okey I getcha.

Have you ever seen some sort of law of identity/contradictory Gods argument in this area ? cause I just had a thought along the following lines.........

A timeless God is different from a God existing in time ergo they can't be the same thing.
I'm not sure whether this conclusion follows. After all, you and me as toddlers were in some way different from what we are now, yet we remain the same persons.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:53:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

or supernatural matter/energy
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:53:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

or supernatural matter/energy
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 8:11:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:53:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

or supernatural matter/energy

Well, I could possibly accept your theory assuming you acknowledge anything supernatural required a spiritual existence.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 8:22:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 8:11:33 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 7:53:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

or supernatural matter/energy

Well, I could possibly accept your theory assuming you acknowledge anything supernatural required a spiritual existence.

Sure why not, as long as you accept that intelligence is not a parameter.

supernatural spiritual matter/energy that is not intelligent.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:18:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 8:22:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:11:33 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 7:53:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

or supernatural matter/energy

Well, I could possibly accept your theory assuming you acknowledge anything supernatural required a spiritual existence.

Sure why not, as long as you accept that intelligence is not a parameter.

supernatural spiritual matter/energy that is not intelligent.

Well, I would argue it needs to have a will, which implies an intelligence. Here's why... If the cause is eternal, why isn't the effect (the universe) eternal? The only answer I can imagine is because the cause made a conscious choice.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:01:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 10:18:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:22:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:11:33 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 7:53:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

or supernatural matter/energy

Well, I could possibly accept your theory assuming you acknowledge anything supernatural required a spiritual existence.

Sure why not, as long as you accept that intelligence is not a parameter.

supernatural spiritual matter/energy that is not intelligent.

Well, I would argue it needs to have a will, which implies an intelligence. Here's why... If the cause is eternal, why isn't the effect (the universe) eternal? The only answer I can imagine is because the cause made a conscious choice.

You are assuming the cause of the universe was a one time conscious decision of an intelligence being that either is a eternal state or exists in an eternal state. You have the same problem. If there is not time or an ability of change, how can you possible have a one time event? The event of creating the present universe would have to be eternal and from our perspective we can't see it. From the perspective of the being or the "eternal universe" there would be kajillian and then some physical universe like the one we live in.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:30:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:01:17 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:18:38 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:22:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:11:33 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 7:53:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:35:11 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Disagree. Instead of temporal duration, there could have been existential duration before it came into existence. Matter and time wouldn't have to exist in this kind of reality, but a supernatural being could.

or supernatural matter/energy

Well, I could possibly accept your theory assuming you acknowledge anything supernatural required a spiritual existence.

Sure why not, as long as you accept that intelligence is not a parameter.

supernatural spiritual matter/energy that is not intelligent.

Well, I would argue it needs to have a will, which implies an intelligence. Here's why... If the cause is eternal, why isn't the effect (the universe) eternal? The only answer I can imagine is because the cause made a conscious choice.

You are assuming the cause of the universe was a one time conscious decision of an intelligence being that either is a eternal state or exists in an eternal state. You have the same problem. If there is not time or an ability of change, how can you possible have a one time event? The event of creating the present universe would have to be eternal and from our perspective we can't see it. From the perspective of the being or the "eternal universe" there would be kajillian and then some physical universe like the one we live in.

I don't see the problem. An intelligent cause wouldn't have to always be creating, but one without intelligence would. Also, an infinite regress would never get us to today. ... Making it impossible.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:51:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We know Adam was created in 4026 BCE. The creation story was revealed to Moses in Genesis in 1200 BC. So give or take God places His creation under 10,000 years. But we know the universe is 14 billion years old. So it existed before God created His piece of it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:03:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:06:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The Kalam argument goes as such......

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

You exist, but not only that you began to exist, because we would realize that although you exist there was a time prior where you did not exist. This can be formulated as such......

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

There is no "before" the universe since absent the universe there is no time and thus no temporal relations of past/present/future.

As such there is no time in which the universe did not exist . ergo the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Agree ? Dis agree ? don't care ? something something Jesus ?

Was there a point in some deminsion that 'time' and 'space' as we know them did not exist, and yet now do exist?