Kalam Cosmological Argument: Modern Science confirms an Ancient Christian Truth.

[brewerb]

So if someone gave his life to save yours, let's say by taking a bullet for you, or pushing you out of the way of a train, is that what you would say to him? Love and Sacrifice are beautiful and divine precepts when one understands them well. The Greatness of Christianity is it inspires heroism, love and Sacrifice, after the example of its Divine Founder. Christ's teaching and example to Sacrifice contains great lessons of value for everyone from Parents to Soldiers. Parents should sacrifice for their children as Christ did. Even Soldiers should be ready to sacrifice like He did, laying down their lives, if needed, to protect other weaker persons who cannot defend themselves. What is extraordinary is the King dying for the servants, whereas usually the Soldiers/Secret Service etc would die for the King/President. But Christ said, "Greater Love has no Man than this, that a Man lay down His Life for His Friends", and "I have not called you Servants, but Friends", and "I am Jesus, Whom you seek. Since then you seek Me, let these others go", laying down His Life for them and setting everyone, especially His followers, an example.

So much for 'moving on'.

[pattylt]

(What does BGV mean? To me, it’s blood glucose value)

[Dānu]

(What does BGV mean?  To me, it’s blood glucose value)

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem

[Paleophyte]

Apologists arguing from Cosmology is endlessly hilarious. How can you even hear yourself think with the shade of Galileo laughing that hard?

3 Reasons to think Premise 1 is true:

1.1 Nothing produces nothing:

And yet that's precisely what you're talking about. A universe created from nothing.

1.2 Denying Premise 1 would be worse than Magic:

Not magic, just counterintuitive. Much like a flashlight would have gotten you burnt for witchcraft 500 years ago.

Causality is a feature of the universe, much like the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy that you refer to above. If the universe does not exist it's entirely possible that these laws don't apply. You'd have to develop a valid cosmological model that shows why these features of the universe should be applied when there's no universe and I'm guessing that sort of skull sweat is well above your pay grade.

What you're doing is a little bit like trying to buy a game of Monopoly using the Monopoly money that comes with the game. It's an amusing example of incorrectly using common sense to try and understand the least common, least sensible event.

Next, if things can just begin to exist without a cause, why only universes? Why not horses to houses to planets to plants to everything else? Why is nothing so discriminatory? Why does it produce only some objects but not others.

Because once you have a universe, or at least this one, you have rules like causation.

1.3 Denying Premise 1 denies Science and Logic: 

And while science and reason are beautiful tools, they too are features of the universe. No universe, no logic or reason. Maybe. Hard to be certain what preceded existence.

Now let's look at P1's flaws.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.

1. Have you examined every event in the universe to ensure the truth of this statement? Or are you conflating carpentry with cosmogenesis?

2. Depending on how you view it, nothing in the universe begins to exist. I know, sounds a bit odd, but that's pretty much what the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states. You can rearrange matter and energy into new and fascinating forms but you can't create or destroy the stuff. Carbon dioxide and water becomes trees, become lumber, becomes a chair. Nowhere in that process is anything created. Atoms and energy are simply rearranged. This can be shown trivially in any given step. At no point can you say "Ah-hah! This is the instant that the lumber ceases to be lumber and is a chair instead!" The lumber is still there in the chair, as are the growth rings of the tree and the isotopic composition of the elements that it fed upon.

3. Correctly stated, P1 should read "That which begins to exist from something within the universe has a cause within the universe." Note the bits in bold. They're going to cause you grief and a glorious non sequitur when you try to use them to create a universe from nothing and from the "outside". Simply put, you can't apply P1 to the origin of the universe.

In summary, you've failed to show your first premise and there's good reason to believe that it isn't true, and that even if it is it's inapplicable. It won't get better from there.

[SaxonX]

Some comebacks to Xavier

1.1 Nothing produces nothing:

Depends on what you mean by nothing if your nothing has no logical laws etc then there is no law that nothing comes from nothing and thus anything is possible. 

1.2 Denying Premise 1 would be worse than Magic:

No it's simply acknowledging a possible pre logical state were out current rules didn't apply that doesn't need to be magic it can't violate laws that don't exist yet .  

1.3 Denying Premise 1 denies Science and Logic: 

Science and logic are features of the universe prior to the universe they hold no sway again this isn't magic because you violate laws that don't exist yet 

 Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.

There is no evidence that this logic holds to the universe merely things within it. You cannot apply rules that apply within the universe to the universe itself.

[Paleophyte]

1. The Big Bang Theory: It was objected that the Big Bang Theory does not prove the Universe began. Let me ask those objectors, What, according to you, existed 100 BN years ago? If the Universe is of finite age, that means the Universe began at a finite time ago in the past, i.e. the universe is not eternal, i.e. the universe was created.

We don't know. The earliest that we can currently observe is 13.7 billion years ago. We have several cosmological models that invoke eternal universes. If you don't like them I'll see your William Laine Craig and raise you a Stephen Hawking. The observable universe appears to have begun 13.7 Billion years ago but the entirety of the universe may be much older and possibly eternal.

2. The BGV Theorem:

Is just one of many cosmological models. Kindly stop cherry picking the data. If you're going to argue from physical cosmology you're going to have to mention that there are a whole host of models, many of which have eternal universes. Anything else is either ignorance or dishonesty.

3. The impossibility of an infinite series formed by successive addition: Again, the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite of past moments can be mathematically demonstrated.

Start counting. 1, 2, 3, 4... Can you guess the next one? The series of integers has no upper or lower bound and is countably infinite but you can do math with it starting in kindergarten.

So let's look at P2 a little closer:

2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.

1. That isn't shown, as mentioned above.

2. If it did, then the "cause" wasn't within the universe and it was created from nothing. That will make it loads of fun to combine with P1 and their bastard love-child will be "Goddunnit!"

Your premises keep collapsing. Did you get them discount? It's almost as if your cosmology came from a millennium before Hubble was born.

[Paleophyte]

Assume that tomorrow NASA holds a press conference announcing concrete evidence from the JWST that the universe is eternal and the Big Bang was merely the most recent of an endless series of such events. Does anybody here believe that the very next day that William Laine Craig and all of his ilk would get up on stage and say, "Sorry folks, looks like there's no god after all. Damn I feel silly."

To an apologist, evidence is selective and unidirectional. It's only useful if it points toward whatever Iron Age superstition they had the misfortune to be born into.

[SaxonX]

Another comeback to Xavier

1. The Big Bang Theory: It was objected that the Big Bang Theory does not prove the Universe began. Let me ask those objectors, What, according to you, existed 100 BN years ago? If the Universe is of finite age, that means the Universe began at a finite time ago in the past, i.e. the universe is not eternal, i.e. the universe was created.

Because it doesn't the big bang has in no way been shown to be the beginning of the universe. Again prove any of those concepts exist prior to the universe  you can't use concepts based on the universe and apply them to a time before the universe or even the universe itself

3. The impossibility of an infinite series formed by successive addition: Again, the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite of past moments can be mathematically demonstrated.

One that's not actually true and even if it was you are again using mathematical concepts within the universe that are based on the universe and applying them to a time before the universe. Sorry that dog don't hunt till you show either those concepts apply outside the universe or to the universe itself.

[SaxonX]

So if someone gave his life to save yours, let's say by taking a bullet for you, or pushing you out of the way of a train, is that what you would say to him? Love and Sacrifice are beautiful and divine precepts when one understands them well. The Greatness of Christianity is it inspires heroism, love and Sacrifice, after the example of its Divine Founder. Christ's teaching and example to Sacrifice contains great lessons of value for everyone from Parents to Soldiers. Parents should sacrifice for their children as Christ did. Even Soldiers should be ready to sacrifice like He did, laying down their lives, if needed, to protect other weaker persons who cannot defend themselves. What is extraordinary is the King dying for the servants, whereas usually the Soldiers/Secret Service etc would die for the King/President. But Christ said, "Greater Love has no Man than this, that a Man lay down His Life for His Friends", and "I have not called you Servants, but Friends", and "I am Jesus, Whom you seek. Since then you seek Me, let these others go", laying down His Life for them and setting everyone, especially His followers, an example.

There is nothing brave of heroic about an immortal all powerful being  sacrificing himself to himself to find a loophole in a rule he himself made. All the examples above died with the uncertainty of immortality Jesus already knew he was going to live forever it's easy to be brave with universal cheat codes

[SaxonX]

Yet more Xavier

Lol. So merely disagreeing with an ideology is bigotry?

people being trans isn't an ideology it's a state of being not accepting that being and it's legitimacy is hatful and dehumanizing 

Ok, then, it's Christophobic  bigotry for you to just disagree with Christianity,

Nope Christianity is an ideology  and there is no such thing as Christophobia doesn't exist 

We Christians love everyone, but we disagree with certain ideologies, like gender-bending, reality-denying ones, that claim men can become women, and vice versa.

Not accepting Trans-people for who they are is hate and again not an ideology nor is it a denial of reality that would be what your doing men aren't becoming woman they are already women so no this isn't disagreement it's simply idea ideological based  hate 

But the real danger is in promoting this to children without parental consent, which even some Atheists have called out, as I said.

Acceptance isn't promotion and you can't make people Trans so this is simply a dumb statement. Also bigot parents should be told to either homeschool their kids or STFU a childs identity doesn't require parental consent. Also some atheists can be bigots too and are just following model of Christian bigots.

[pattylt]

My “theory” of our universe is that it was formed from the end of life of the previous universe. Think of a ring of pearls with no clasp…no beginning and no end..each ending forms the new beginning. I have as much proof of my theory as Christian’s do of theirs.

I know a few trans. Not a single one denies that are biologically the opposite sex. What they deny is that they are that gender and realized it from a young age. They are living their life as their brain tells them they are. Those that had surgery to match their inner view happened after reaching adulthood. No one is chopping off a penis of a 14 year old and Christian’s lying about this is disgusting. They are all pretty tired of Christian’s telling them what they are and how they should live…they aren’t telling you how to express your inner gender.

If a child isn’t comfortable telling their parent about their gender confusion, that’s because the parent has made them aware that they shouldn’t. It’s funny how Christian’s are demanding that parents have a right to their child’s gender awareness…until a parent is supportive of their child’s issues. Kids commit suicide, and frequently, because of their parents unacceptance. Children with accepting and supporting parents rarely are suicidal and when they are, it’s due to societal pressures…you know, Christians telling them what they should feel or be. And once they are adults, no one has any right to tell them anything about their gender or sexuality.

Why do Christian’s spend so much time and energy worrying about others organs or sex partners? Why are they unable to just leave this small percentage of citizens alone? It’s like they get tingly just thinking about it!

Edit to add: you know who else has had gender affirming surgery? Elon Musk. He’s had hair transplants, jaw surgery and testosterone therapy. Why is that gender affirming perfectly ok with Christians but not reassignment surgery?

[SaxonX]

I think such speculations is ultimately armchair speculations as any model or theory we create about a time before the current universe or it's features rests on concepts and idea's that may not remotely apply.

[Astreja]

So if someone gave his life to save yours, let's say by taking a bullet for you, or pushing you out of the way of a train, is that what you would say to him?

That's not what we have with Christianity.  We have someone claiming that we've been rescued, but there was never any bullet and there was never any train.

The alleged rescuer is also in question.  Did Jesus actually exist?  If he was killed by the Romans it was most likely for behaving badly, trying to stir up an insurrection in Jerusalem.  I believe that if there ever was a historical Jesus, he remains dead to this day and couldn't even save himself.

I feel absolutely no emotion, and definitely no gratitude, in respect of a long-dead man who lived two millennia before my time.  Someone who never met me and never even imagined that I could exist.  Someone who didn't give a rat's ass about rescuing people from Original Sin or an eternal hell, because he himself wouldn't have believed in such nonsense.  Someone who sacrificed nothing of significance if he was brought back from the dead.  He almost certainly wouldn't have seen himself as a sacrifice.

I reject Christianity and all its emotionally manipulative mythologies unconditionally.

[AutisticWill]

So if someone gave his life to save yours, let's say by taking a bullet for you, or pushing you out of the way of a train, is that what you would say to him?

That's not what we have with Christianity.  We have someone claiming that we've been rescued, but there was never any bullet and there was never any train.

The alleged rescuer is also in question.  Did Jesus actually exist?  If he was killed by the Romans it was most likely for behaving badly, trying to stir up an insurrection in Jerusalem.  I believe that if there ever was a historical Jesus, he remains dead to this day and couldn't even save himself.

I feel absolutely no emotion, and definitely no gratitude, in respect of a long-dead man who lived two millennia before my time.  Someone who never met me and never even imagined that I could exist.  Someone who didn't give a rat's ass about rescuing people from Original Sin or an eternal hell, because he himself wouldn't have believed in such nonsense.  Someone who sacrificed nothing of significance if he was brought back from the dead.  He almost certainly wouldn't have seen himself as a sacrifice.

I reject Christianity and all its emotionally manipulative mythologies unconditionally.

T.T [tearing up IRL]

I loooooove yooooooou! Thank you for this!

[Hugs you]

[The room applauds!]

[AutisticWill]

...

I know a few trans.  Not a single one denies that are biologically the opposite sex.  What they deny is that they are that gender and realized it from a young age.  They are living their life as their brain tells them they are.  ...

If a child isn’t comfortable telling their parent about their gender confusion, that’s because the parent has made them aware that they shouldn’t.  It’s funny how Christian’s are demanding that parents have a right to their child’s gender awareness…until a parent is supportive of their child’s issues.  Kids commit SUICIED, and frequently, because of their parents unacceptance.  Children with accepting and supporting parents rarely are suicidal and when they are, it’s due to societal pressures…you know, cHRISTIANS telling them what they should feel or be.  ...

Why do Christian’s spend so much time and energy worrying about others organs or sex partners?  ...

...

It's becouse christians don't love anybody -- they only love jesus.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Apologists arguing from Cosmology is endlessly hilarious. How can you even hear yourself think with the shade of Galileo laughing that hard?

Show ContentSpoiler:

3 Reasons to think Premise 1 is true:

1.1 Nothing produces nothing:

And yet that's precisely what you're talking about. A universe created from nothing.

1.2 Denying Premise 1 would be worse than Magic:

Not magic, just counterintuitive. Much like a flashlight would have gotten you burnt for witchcraft 500 years ago.

Causality is a feature of the universe, much like the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy that you refer to above. If the universe does not exist it's entirely possible that these laws don't apply. You'd have to develop a valid cosmological model that shows why these features of the universe should be applied when there's no universe and I'm guessing that sort of skull sweat is well above your pay grade.

What you're doing is a little bit like trying to buy a game of Monopoly using the Monopoly money that comes with the game. It's an amusing example of incorrectly using common sense to try and understand the least common, least sensible event.

Next, if things can just begin to exist without a cause, why only universes? Why not horses to houses to planets to plants to everything else? Why is nothing so discriminatory? Why does it produce only some objects but not others.

Because once you have a universe, or at least this one, you have rules like causation.

1.3 Denying Premise 1 denies Science and Logic: 

And while science and reason are beautiful tools, they too are features of the universe. No universe, no logic or reason. Maybe. Hard to be certain what preceded existence.

Now let's look at P1's flaws.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.

1. Have you examined every event in the universe to ensure the truth of this statement? Or are you conflating carpentry with cosmogenesis?

2. Depending on how you view it, nothing in the universe begins to exist. I know, sounds a bit odd, but that's pretty much what the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states. You can rearrange matter and energy into new and fascinating forms but you can't create or destroy the stuff. Carbon dioxide and water becomes trees, become lumber, becomes a chair. Nowhere in that process is anything created. Atoms and energy are simply rearranged. This can be shown trivially in any given step. At no point can you say "Ah-hah! This is the instant that the lumber ceases to be lumber and is a chair instead!" The lumber is still there in the chair, as are the growth rings of the tree and the isotopic composition of the elements that it fed upon.

3. Correctly stated, P1 should read "That which begins to exist from something within the universe has a cause within the universe." Note the bits in bold. They're going to cause you grief and a glorious non sequitur when you try to use them to create a universe from nothing and from the "outside". Simply put, you can't apply P1 to the origin of the universe.

In summary, you've failed to show your first premise and there's good reason to believe that it isn't true, and that even if it is it's inapplicable. It won't get better from there.

[Minimalist]

They only love the idea of 'jesus,' Will.  As far as following anything they claim the fucker said, well....you can forget that shit.

[Paleophyte]

Kalamitous Komedy

A cautionary tale of using "common sense" in uncommon situations and abusing reason

1 That which goes up must come down. This is basic sense and if you deny it you're denying Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation.

2 Meteorites come down. This is also a reminder that the annual Perseid meteor shower will be peaking on the 12th and 13th and is expected to be unusually good viewing this year.

3 From 1 and 2, it's obvious that if meteorites come down, they must have first gone up.

4 Many meteorites are very massive, with the Hoba meteorite weighing in at 60 tonnes. Since this is too heavy to be lifted by even the mightiest of giants, much less hurled into the heavens, we may infer the existence of a First Hurler, which we call God.

All hail Pele, Goddess of volcanoes, fire, and meteorites, Creator of the Hawaiian Islands and Extinguisher of the Dinosaurs!

[SaxonX]

Kalam Advocate - Things that apply within the universe must apply to the universe and before it 

Rational Person - You know this how? 

Kalam Advocate - Things that apply within the universe must apply to the universe and before it

Rational Person - You know this how? 

Kalam Advocate - Things that apply within the universe must apply to the universe and before it

Rational Person - You know this how? 

Etc

[SaxonX]

The arrogant presupposition that reality needs to make sense to us or match our expectations is the height of absurdity. Maybe the beginning of the universe will never make sense to us because our minds are limited to the intuitions of this universe and can't grasp anything beyond it.

[Deesse23]

Kalam: Everything needs an explanation, except for the thing i am using to explain everything.

[Xavier]

Ok.

1. The trans issue: "U.K. Study Criticizes Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Minors Four-year study says there is no good evidence for giving transitioning drugs, adding to growing caution in U.S. and Europe ... LONDON—The underlying medical evidence for gender treatments for adolescents is “remarkably weak,” according to a landmark review commissioned by the U.K.’s National Health Service" https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/uk-study-cr...s-703c2ad7 So, you have numerous European countries, UK, Sweden etc, for secular reasons, banning trans surgeries for minors. That's because they deemed them harmful. Even Elon Musk recently said he was tricked into giving Puberty Blockers to his son Xavier, basically sterilization drugs, which he regrets. We Christians believe adults can make their own decisions. But there is often regret after these surgeries, and the damage done to one's genitals etc is largely irreversible. If children need to wait till 18 to get a driver's license, it is reasonable that they need to wait for adulthood to make these decision.

Bigotry means you have some unreasonable dislike or hatred of some people. Christians are forbidden by Christ to hate anyone. We don't hate anyone. We love everyone. We tell people certain procedures like trans surgeries for minors may be harmful. That's all. Whether they choose to do it or not, we love them just as Christ loved us, as He commanded.

2. The vicarious Redemption: Gandhi said about Jesus: "A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act." In the Old Testament, after nearly 500 years of their slavery under Pharoah, God powerfully delivered His people from pharoah's hand. But from Heaven. Then in the New Testament, God delivered/redeemed us at the cost of an enormous Sacrifice. If a Father gives up His Life to save His Children from bandits, would it be reasonable to say, "Meh! Who cares". The Kalam Argument shows a Monotheistic Creator God exists and thus narrows down the number of possibly true religions to just 3, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Further arguments, like the historical evidence for Jesus, Messianic prophecies like Isaiah 53, and the evidence for the Resurrection, show the Truth of Christianity, as we will see in other threads. For now, God distinguishes Himself from other gods by being the Savior of His People. Only a God who sacrifices and suffers is worthy of being called a Savior. Jesus is.

3. Back to the Kalam: (i) Nothing produces nothing:  Paleophyte wrote: "And yet that's precisely what you're talking about. A universe created from nothing." Yes, but not BY NOTHING. Either, "nothing created everything", or "nothing produces nothing, therefore some Being pre-exists the Material Universe". If nothing ever existed, then even today nothing would exist.

(ii) "Laws apply only within the Universe": The laws of science and physics, and contingent truths like that, granted. But the laws of logic and mathematics, which are necessary truths that always hold, denied. Why would we think that a logical Truth like a temporal effect always requiring a prior cause depends on particular laws within the Universe? It is basic logic that a cause must precede its effect. It appears to be a fundamental Truth independent of physical laws. At the least, the premise is more reasonable than its denial.

(iii) Newton's Apple etc: Was Newton correct in deducing that the event of the apple falling on his head required a prior cause, or not? It is true that this is a Scientific Law, but he was unaware of any such law when he deduced it. He simply applied a logical principle, "every temporal effect must have a prior cause". That is basically Premise 1 of the Kalam.

4. Dr. Craig and Alexander Villenkin: Alexander Villenkin told Bill Craig: "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV Theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately" Email to William Lane Craig (Dated September 6, 2013). See source in the video below. Note that the BGV Theorem is applied only to demonstrate Premise 2 of the Kalam. God Bless.

[brewerb]

[LastPoet]

What i don't understand is why can't the religious be happy with their beliefs. Why can't they just live life by their standards and leave others live by their standards? I kmow a big lot of religious people personally from most mainstream religions, they know i am an atheist, not one tried to convert me. They chat about how they are happy about it etc and i say "good fir you". The conversation then moves to more mundane subjects. Well, maybe JWs, but I read them when knocking and just say that I am not interested in ehat they sell.

[Deesse23]

Bigotry means you have some unreasonable dislike or hatred of some people. Christians are forbidden by Christ to hate anyone. We don't hate anyone. We love everyone. We tell people certain procedures like trans surgeries for minors may be harmful. That's all.

Stop moving goalposts. You said "trans ideology". Now, to be clear: Do trans people exist? Are they what they identify as? Or do they do have "issues", and, of course, you love them, their "issues" notwithstanding

3. Back to the Kalam: (i) Nothing produces nothing:  Paleophyte wrote: "And yet that's precisely what you're talking about. A universe created from nothing." Yes, but not BY NOTHING. Either, "nothing created everything", or "nothing produces nothing, therefore some Being pre-exists the Material Universe". If nothing ever existed, then even today nothing would exist.

We wont just let you ignore replies just because you dont like them. So here you go:

Nothing can be created from nothing, says Lucretius, if only because the conservation of energy makes it impossible to create nothing from nothing. For any isolated system, energy is proportional to mass and must be positive. Any initial state, prior to the creation of the system, must have the same energy as the state after its creation.

There is a loophole in this reasoning. The energy of the gravitational field is negative;17 it is conceivable that this negative energy could compensate for the positive energy of matter, making the total energy of the cosmos equal to zero. In fact, this is precisely what happens in a closed universe, in which the space closes on itself, like the surface of a sphere. It follows from the laws of general relativity that the total energy of such a universe is necessarily equal to zero. Another conserved quantity is the electric charge, and once again it turns out that the total charge must vanish in a closed universe.

(ii) "Laws apply only within the Universe": The laws of science and physics, and contingent truths like that, granted. But the laws of logic and mathematics, which are necessary truths that always hold, denied. Why would we think that a logical Truth like a temporal effect always requiring a prior cause depends on particular laws within the Universe? It is basic logic that a cause must precede its effect. It appears to be a fundamental Truth independent of physical laws. At the least, the premise is more reasonable than its denial.

Bold clalms/assertions. Prove them
"why would we think.."  just shows a disturbing lack of your imagination, aka. "argument from incredulity", or another hidden claim of "other universes must work like ours, regarding temporal effects".

4. Dr. Craig and Alexander Villenkin: Alexander Villenkin told Bill Craig: "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV Theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately" Email to William Lane Craig (Dated September 6, 2013). See source in the video below. Note that the BGV Theorem is applied only to demonstrate Premise 2 of the Kalam. God Bless.

But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God.