Any Sup Forums faggots want to give it another go at refuting the KCA? (hint: There is still no composition fallacy.)

Any Sup Forums faggots want to give it another go at refuting the KCA? (hint: There is still no composition fallacy.)

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

Other urls found in this thread:

spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/wes2craig1.pdf
arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf
steve-patterson.com/the-logic-of-the-infinite-regress/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>God, by definition existed without cause
>God created the universe.

>>God, by definition existed without cause
>>God created the universe.

Logically speaking.

Every time you've made this thread you got BTFO.
Are you some kind of masochist?

>Every time you've made this thread you got BTFO.
>Are you some kind of masochist?

How do you figure? I have heard not a single argument that defeats the KCA on Sup Forums. If you have one please provide. Are you in denial?

Where is Cathy Newman when we need her?

spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/wes2craig1.pdf

>The universe began to exist
That's a claim which is not proven

If the kca is conceeded, what good does that argument do? What have you advanced?

>spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/wes2craig1.pdf

Ah thanks. But I think Wes misunderstands the argument. He seems to think that if the argument isn't 100% convincing then it is not rational or a good argument.

>That's a claim which is not proven
It seems more likely true that not. It is most certain that the universe did begin. And to begin, you need a cause.

>What have you advanced?

What does any understanding of reality advance?

Weak dodge bro

>It seems more likely true that not
Intuition and assumptions are not proof of anything, so it can be fallacious to use as a premise
>It is most certain that the universe did begin.
Based on what evidence? The fact that the universe exists doesn't necessarily mean it started to exist at a given point.

1. Whatever begins a thread on Sup Forums is a faggot
2. OP created a thread
Therefore:
3. OP is a faggot

>Intuition and assumptions are not proof of anything, so it can be fallacious to use as a premise

That might be true if it was intuition. The evidence is that the universe began.

>Based on what evidence? The fact that the universe exists doesn't necessarily mean it started to exist at a given point.

Here you go.

Stephen Hawking said it well, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."

Part of the evidence Stephen Hawking uses (plus additional):

1. General theory of relativity (Einstein)
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics

We get additional information from:

3. The Big Bang Theory which is supported by
4. The Red Shift (Hubble)

And there is

5. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem

Alexander Vilenkin (speaking on the BGV) goes on to say: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

>Weak dodge bro
If you would like to engage the argument of the thread, please do so.

KCA is pointless, I just want to know where you think it should lead

If you have a specific claim from Wes that you would me to address, please let me know.

>KCA is pointless,
Pointless to you. But not to me.

Does anything have meaning to you?

What meaning does Kalam have for you?

They are talking about the big bang theory, about how the universe was possibly expanded into it's current form. It doesn't mean the universe didn't have any prior existence, or came from nothing, it's a theory of how matter might have been distributed into the current universe from matter that existed in space in a cosmic event billions of years ago.

You can't prove the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe needs no cause. It does however need a cause for expansion, which most accredited scientists agree was the big bang.

How does God play into this argument?

>What meaning does Kalam have for you?
It is an argument that represents evidence for God (just one set of evidence in a whole group of evidence). If there is a God, then I, we, the cosmos isn't just space snot disappearing into the cold oblivion of heat death.

Kalam makes no mention of a god. Where does god enter this argumrnt? Thats where your going full retarded.

>It doesn't mean the universe didn't have any prior existence
Interesting. The BGV would refute that. The BGV states that any universe that is expanding must have a beginning.

It doesn't.

>You can't prove the universe had a beginning,
Really? The BGV is a proof:

>Where does god enter this argumrnt?

It's a logical conclusion.

Whatever caused the universe must be extremely powerful. It must be timeless - there was no time before the universe. It must be spaceless - there was no space. It can't have material because no material existed before the universe. It has to be personal.

It's a logical conclusion:

Whatever caused the universe must be extremely powerful. It must be timeless - there was no time before the universe. It must be spaceless - there was no space. It can't have material because no material existed before the universe. It has to be personal.

define cause plox

BGV? I saw you post the same to someone else but an acronym doesn't explain how the theory circumvents the universe's recycling nature.

Does it refute the idea that a universe existed before the beginning of the allegedly currently expanding universe?

How do you know that there was no time and space before our universe? How do you know this thing was personal? Why are you making theae assumptions all of the sudden after KCA?

>BGV? I saw you post the same to someone else but an acronym doesn't explain

Here you go:
BGV? I saw you post the same to someone else but an acronym doesn't explain

>circumvents the universe's recycling nature.
Please provide evidence for this claim.

>Does it refute the idea that a universe existed before the beginning of the allegedly currently expanding universe?

BGV states that any universe that is expanding had a beginning.

>allegedly currently expanding universe
Red Shift (Hubble)

>universe existed before the beginning of the allegedly currently expanding universe?

Please provide evidence that was a previous universe.

But if there was a God how did a God begin to exist and suddenly start creating?
>1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

So it doesn't refute that the universe could have existed prior to what is being called the beginning?

You gonna cite a source for BGV, since google is failing? The evidence is in the laws of thermodynamics, not to mention casually watching the universe in action. In layman terms anyway.

>How do you know that there was no time and space before our universe?

According to the Bing Bang theory timespace came into existence at the same moment as energy and matter.

>How do you know this thing was personal?
Only minds and abstract objects can exist outside of timespace. The number 7 never caused anything.

>Why are you making theae assumptions all of the sudden after KCA?
Logical reasoning.

>So it doesn't refute that the universe could have existed prior to what is being called the beginning?

The BGV does not refute the possibility of multiple universes. But we have no evidence for such a thing. NONE.

>Please provide evidence that was a previous universe.
Not really evidence here because there is no proof this ideology is good logic or proof, but something called the KCA states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, so it could have originated from the previous space and matter

Holy shit. Are you god? How else would you know that minds can exist outside of space and time...

>You gonna cite a source for BGV,
arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

>But we have no evidence for such a thing. NONE.
>Just like the thing which supposedly caused the universe to begin

>Holy shit. Are you god?

Dude. The Greeks figured it a long time ago. Not me.

>>Just like the thing which supposedly caused the universe to begin
Not at all. We have plenty evidence. It's constantly verified by science and reality that whatever begins has a cause. It's not made up at all like the concept of the multiple universes.

>Interesting. The BGV would refute that.
>The BGV does not refute the possibility of multiple universes
The cognitive dissonance is really piling up

>It's not made up at all like the concept of the multiple universes.
Contingent existence would be a better term, this isn't about multi-verses.
See

Read the gist of it and saved for later thorough reading

>mfw I literally just came to a similar conclusion not even 2 nights ago
>mfw they are assuming MUCH

Don't bother, he doesn't respond well to requests for proof. If you deny everything everyone else says relentlessly, you technically won (even if it's because you refuse to acknowledge there are any other players).

>cognitive dissonance

Really? It seems that you don't understand the claim.

The BGV proves that any universe that is expanding has a beginning. It is not proof of the Multi-Universe theory. You would have to come up with a different proof or set of evidence to get to more than one universe.

>I don't understand the cause therefore there is none

The concept of "God" is a punt for where evidence and our understanding lack, but we insist upon having answers at any cost.

>It is not proof of the Multi-Universe theory. You would have to come up with a different proof or set of evidence to get to more than one universe.
You are the one that brought up multi-verse theory, when it wasn't part of the argument

First flaw in logic. That which exists does not need to have a cause. Try again.

>so it could have originated from the previous space and matter
>Contingent existence would be a better term, this isn't about multi-verses.

Pretty good. Thinking about this. It does seem that the BGV takes care of this.

>That which exists does not need to have a purpose
FTFY

>he doesn't respond well to requests for proof.
I've posted the evidence. Maybe you can read the thread.

>The concept of "God" is a punt for where evidence and our understanding lack

It's only a punt if you can't logically reason from evidence:

Whatever caused the universe must be extremely powerful. It must be timeless - there was no time before the universe. It must be spaceless - there was no space. It can't have material because no material existed before the universe. It has to be personal.

>That which exists does not need to have a cause.
Please provide evidence for your claim.

This thread againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Quantum mechanics. Something can come from nothing. Also, “space” could have always existed.
Universes not. The universe is not “space”.

>Quantum mechanics. Something can come from nothing. Also, “space” could have always existed.
>Universes not. The universe is not “space”.

A Quantum mechanics guy again....

"The case of virtual particles “popping into existence” does not overturn this intuition because these entities do not emerge from “nothing.” They instead emerge from the quantum vacuum, or a field with a very low energy level. Columbia University Philosopher and theoretical physicist David Albert writes:

“[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff...the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."

So since according to you god exists, he must have begun to exist. If he began existing, his existence must have a cause.
Supergod incoming

>It's constantly verified by science and reality that whatever begins has a cause.
When has science ever studied the beginnings of what exists? The only examples we have in this universe of something beginning to exist is existence coming from some other something, not from nothing. So we don't know the nature of such things based on science and reality.

>KCA

>So since according to you god exists, he must have begun to exist. If he began existing, his existence must have a cause.
>Supergod incoming

A terminator is required. There must be an Uncaused Cause. An infinite regress is logically incoherent and impossible.

steve-patterson.com/the-logic-of-the-infinite-regress/

Y'all niggers act like you don't know about time, and that the term "begin" can only exist in a universe where there's a time-dimension, which renders the KCA useless.

Yep. In my opinion/theory “space” as we know it has always existed. There was no before space. What caused space. Universes probably were caused by a temporal distortion, something left over from a prior “space anomaly” that we have no understanding of, yet. In my opinion, this universe was “caused” by something else within space.

You're the one claiming that everything that exists needs a cause, burden of proof is on you.

Why can't that uncaused cause be the big bang? Why not put it on the earliest known event in the line rather than a made up character you created?

>When has science ever studied the beginnings of what exists?
Please. Science is the study of causes and effects.

> not from nothing.
I haven't made the claim that something came from nothing.

>So we don't know the nature of such things based on science and reality.
We do know. Maybe you don't, but most people do.

>extremely powerful
By our scale
>must be timeless
To our eyes
>must be spaceless
So lacking mass of any kind but matter doesn't spontaneously exist, so there had to be some form of matter at the cusp of the bang

The wording here begs a 4th dimensional interlude but there's no proof of a need for it. The fact of the matter is that we only understand the surface of physics interaction at that scale.

It has a cause because you assigned it a cause or purpose. That does not mean it was created for that purpose.

Look everyone it's Cathy Newman. Post tits.

>Universes probably were caused by a temporal distortion, something left over from a prior “space anomaly” that we have no understanding of, yet.

Pretty good. But what do you do with the infinite regress that you just created?

So the guy doesn't like the nature of dealing with uncertainties, and therefore rejects them.
These debates are like an existential Gödel's theorem.

>Why can't that uncaused cause be the big bang?
Ok. It would have to have these properties.

Whatever caused the universe must be extremely powerful. It must be timeless - there was no time before the universe. It must be spaceless - there was no space. It can't have material because no material existed before the universe. It has to be personal.

I didn’t create it. Humans can’t grasp the idea of “something” have always existed, and will always exist. That being, what we call space.

Well, premisse 1 is potentially false, you know?

Also,

Suppose for the sake of contradiction that God exists,
Introduce disjunction: Either God began to exist or he didn't.

Assume the former,
Apply premisse 1, God has a cause, thence God is not the creator, but a creation. ergo contradiction.

The latter must then hold, God has existed forever.

Why can God have existed forever but the universe can't? It is clear that The God hypothesis violates the strong version of P1
>∀x:x has a cause.
Why assume God at all?

>>That which exists does not need to have a cause.

Oh so you wasn't making a claim. We just imagined it....


1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
2. If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing. But we don't see any such thing ever happening. Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
3. Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one. Premise one is never falsified by any science. This is inductive reasoning.

>The fact of the matter is that we only understand the surface of physics interaction at that scale.

Ok. So what?

the fuck is a KCA?

>Science is the study of causes and effects.
But that's the point, they can only observe such things in our limited spectrum of empirical science
>We do know. Maybe you don't, but most people do.
But no one really knows

Pleas explain why it has to be personal

>Humans can’t grasp the idea of “something” have always existed, and will always exist. That being, what we call space.

Amazing. There is only one guy that ever existed that understands infinity and he's right here in Sup Forums/b/

steve-patterson.com/the-logic-of-the-infinite-regress/

>everything that exists has a cause
>except god, LOL
>???
>checkmate atheists

God, or “God” is a concept/idea created by man in their brains. Pineal gland DMT, serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, gaba, Acetylcholine. Very possibly others that we haven’t discovered yet. Hallucinations, delusions. Look at all that man has created, engineered. Hey, believe what you want. Don’t preach. Don’t effect others.
I hope there is a God. Logic says no.

It's the equivalent the old, "bringing a knife to a gun fight" adage. Not saying we shouldn't try but we shouldn't build theory on pure assumption either.

>Well, premisse 1 is potentially false, you know?

There seems to be no reason to think it is false.
1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
2. If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing. But we don't see any such thing ever happening. Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
3. Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one. Premise one is never falsified by any science. This is inductive reasoning.

>Either God began to exist or he didn't.
God would be the Uncaused Cause which is required.

>God has a cause, thence God is not the creator

If God had a cause -- then whatever had a cause is not God. Contradiction solved.

>Why can God have existed forever but the universe can't?

God is not matter or energy and can exist outside of spacetime.

there was no time and space before the big bang.
>at least no geodesic from where there was time and space was accessible. Differential Geometry is a bitch

As for matter, it is not yet very well understood where it `came` from. I'll grant you this one

>personal
just why

justify step 2. It could very well be that ex nihilo happens only in very specific scenarios. In fact, that's pretty much where Inflation theory and modern cosmology points to.

In fact, depending on the exact nature of the geometry of the universe, there could be potential energy in its shape at the first instants of its existence and that itself was converted to `stuff`.

>Premise one is never falsified by any science.
Shit dude, Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect, amongst other quantum phenomena

Dog chasing it’s tail.

>But that's the point, they can only observe such things in our limited spectrum of empirical science
Yep that's why you need logic, reason, philosophy and other things to help us understand reality.

>But no one really knows
It's so certain that we rely on the presupposition for almost everything. If you think otherwise, it is worse than magic.

>There seems to be no reason to think it is false
Circular logic. Nothing more to see here folks.

>Pleas explain why it has to be personal
Well it happened at all. If it didn't happen by necessity there had to be a mind.

Minds and abstract objects are the only thing that can exist outside spacetime. The number 7 never did anything.

Humans have the natural, inherent desire to want to have to have solid answers, put into neat boxes. That’s how we can better understand things. We try to do this with science and mathematics, and are virtually obsessed with finding the answers. A human fallacy.

there was no time and space before the big bang.
>at least no geodesic from where there was time and space was accessible. Differential Geometry is a bitch

As for matter, it is not yet very well understood where it `came` from. I'll grant you this one

>personal
just why

justify step 2. It could very well be that ex nihilo happens only in very specific scenarios. In fact, that's pretty much where Inflation theory and modern cosmology points to.

In fact, depending on the exact nature of the geometry of the universe, there could be potential energy in its shape at the first instants of its existence and that itself was converted to `stuff`.

>Premise one is never falsified by any science.
Shit dude, Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect, amongst other quantum phenomena

>God would be the Uncaused Cause which is required.
I'm just introducing disjunction, this is always possible. That's BASIC logic.

>If God had a cause -- then whatever had a cause is not God. Contradiction solved.
1) it is a proof by contradiction, if you don't know that, kys
2) Repeat argument for the new 'God'.

>God is not matter or energy and can exist outside of spacetime.
Do you even know there is something _outside_ spacetime, that literally makes no sense if you _know_ what spacetime means.

Spacetime is a manifold where you can do some diff geometry and calculus, spacetime has geodesics which to us, look like the paths of inertial objects on space. Objects in spacetime can only be affected by things in their past light cone, which is a region of spacetime. There is no description of outside of spacetime because it is closed under causality.

>>>checkmate atheists

>everything that BEGINS to exists has a cause

Cathy is that you?

steve-patterson.com/the-logic-of-the-infinite-regress/

>Yep that's why you need logic, reason, philosophy and other things to help us understand reality.
Well then, start applying it to your thinking
>If you think otherwise, it is worse than magic.
OK chief, I need to stop admitting we don't know the things we don't know, it's "worse than magic"