I think its just assertion and a strawman till perimeters are defined. What is a cause? For example, how would you define it? Isnt it subjective? Also it asserts an idea that isnt yet provable, although science is making great strides, but science its self is determined by mankinds understanding. I think establishing the back ground of kalam would be more benefical before actually doing a discussion through it.
The Kalam cosmological argument
Posts
Total:
42
-->
@fauxlaw
Subset?
You have not addressed that "subset" because you misunderstand/misinterpreted what is presented
Only if one lists them in that order. What if the proper order is "G"od/"U"niverse?
This is your first error. Those two are equal ergo they are not and order, ergo in does not matter which of those two words are presented first as in the case of sequenctial set of numbers.
That is, after all, a proper order of the list of letters in the Roman alphabet to which the English language subscribes. Coincidence? For now?
The hierarchial set begins with
" U "niverse/" G "od wherein the italics emphasize that metapysical-1 is included. This is clear as read the set just as your read the beginning of many educational books that have 'content'. The title is Cosmic Trinity: " U "niverse/" G "od or " G "od/" U "niverse if it pleases your senses.
The two are one in the same and I have defined them clearly if you actually read with the whole set that follows with open mind instead of an ego the blocks your ability to follow scientificaly rational, logical common sense methdology.
The Universe/God is subset #3 of the above and you have yet to grasp that much less address it directly.
Fibonacci pattern: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55...
That is subset of metaphysical-1. You still misundertand and/or have and ego blockage to what is presented.
snip the next part as it is irrelevant to what I presented that that you have misunderstood from beginning to end and/or you ego place mental blockage in place. Closed mind.
Meaning, your numbers mumbo-jumbo holds for now, but not necessarily in eternity.
You have not found any falsehood. So you above is you ego speaking, not following facts as Ive have presented. Come back when you find any error of fact and truth in those numbers, as presented.
Which does wonders to 2D hexagons with 6 radii with prime numbers, except for 7 and 11.
Eternal truths and facts irrespective of your ego to accept facts and truths when presented to you. Ego based blockages to truth and fact all you have to offer, in regards to what Ive presented. Please share when your ego is not creating blockages to truth and facts, as presented to you.
-->
@ebuc
God i.e. the latter is a subset of the former ergo the former is the most wholistic set
It appears it is your introduction of the term, subset. I've merely offered a different paradigm reversing the order.
does not matter which of those two words are presented
which just proves the point of my paradigm shift.
This is clear as read the set just as your read the beginning of many educational books that have 'content'
Yes, it's clear that U & G may be interpreted in either order, as you agreed above. But if yu insist on your order, U & G, you must still know that by alphabetic sequence, even if only by that structure is the reverse is preferred.
That is subset of metaphysical-1.
i.e. the use of a Fibonacci sequence. By whose authority is Fibonacci a subset [you like that word, don't you?] of metaphysical? Your sock puppet?
You have not found any falsehood.
Did I say I did? I've merely demonstrated a wider scope of understanding than your metaphysical construct. "Argue for you limitations; they're yours" - Richard Bach
Please share when your ego is not creating blockages to truth and facts, as presented to you.
Is it ego to present alternatives, or is it ego to reject the possibility of alternatives?
-->
@OntologicalSpider
If it is both simultaneously true that radioactive isotopes decay without a cause, and we cannot apply the law of physics to the early universe, then there is no reason to apply the facts about radioactive isotopes as being relevant to this discussion in regards to causality and the early universe. Whatever models we have of physics or causality, or lack thereof will not be relevant based on this reasoning, because they, according to you, break down. This sword cuts both ways...
This was one of the most insightful and concise points I've ever seen a poster make! It was beautiful.
+1
15 days later
-->
@OntologicalSpider
The only conclusion hatt comes from those premises is "The universe has a cause".
The simplest response I can give is "Then I'll grant you the universe has a cause, that makes me no less of an atheist, so what?".
Rain has a cause, lightning has a cause, etc. I don't assign a God or any form of agency to these.
34 days later
-->
@drafterman
There can never be an infinite amount of events in the pastWhy not?
Because now would never come to exist because an infinite amount of time would have had to elapse to get to now. Since nothing physical/temporal can ever reach an infinite state this is a truism.
It has to start somewhereWhy?
As noted above, an infinite regress is impossible. As such a beginning is logically necessary.
-->
@DeusVult
Events have a place and a duration...That is the indeterminate nature of our assumed reality.
Events require a participant and the question is the participant rather than the possibility of an event occurring.
So I would suggest that the possibilities are infinite, in so much as they are not subject to either creation or annihilation.
Whatever the participant may be, to account for it, seemingly demands either impossibility of creation (something from nothing), or infinite existence. Though infinite existence is also seemingly impossible for the same reasons.
The Kalam argument does not address these simple but fundamental dilemmas.
As I stated previously The Kalam argument is one of several similar discourses, the purpose of which is to establish a politico-religious agenda based upon an intrinsically flawed creation hypothesis.
-->
@zedvictor4
The infinite is not possible with matter as matter is by definition finite in nature.
The argument is that the spirit is not necessarily finite as it does not have the same nature, hence why God is not matter. The Kalam does not define God, only His necessity as something outside of the physical universe.
31 days later
I consider the argument unsound because I don't accept premise 2 and I don't consider the argument to be valid because the conclusion contains the word 'transcendent' which isn't justified by the premises.
9 days later
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I dont know who Kalam is but they lack rational, logical common sense.
Universe = God is pretty simple, even for the simple minded. So where is the riff { problem/conflict }.
Ego is the riff/problem/conflict. Remove the ego and allow rational, logical common sense to observe and consider what is known and what we can derive from what is known, via rational, logical common sense.
These are the pathways to truth. Kalam appear to be on a pathway that does not lead to any cosmic truths.
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I thought I'd discuss the Kalam a bit.. As this seems to be one of the most discussed arguments for the existence of God.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Ok.
2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.
Ok.
Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?
As you've stated it here, you've merely "proved" the NOUMENON (human epistemological limits).
How do you propose we draw a straight line from this "argument" (premise) to any particular "religion"?
Wouldn't it make Pangu and Brahman just as likely as Nanabozho?
-->
@OntologicalSpider
.."1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause"...
Initial sequence of events is a beginning time period --ex 4 to 10-- yes, tho it is in error to think of our finite, occupied space Universe as having a beginning, which implys an occupied space something-ness appearing out of non-occupied space nothing-ness.
Transpose the 1st law of thermodynamics to my above, i.e. occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed ergo occupied space Universe is eternally existent, in what changing states/phases of existence.
..."2. The universe began to exist."...
No it did not and there is no evidence much less a proof as well as it violates one of the known --or so believed--- cosmic physical laws.
...."3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause."....
Our finite, occupied space Universe is self perpetuating ergo the only true perpetutal motion machine, that, has three primary types of space, that all three involved in the eternal pepetuation of occupied space, that cannot be created nor destroyed;
( ) = Gravitational space ---mass-atractive/contractive } ergo Inward twowards self and other--- that, speculatively is the outer, , nepositive geodesic shape aspect of a torus ( )( ) ergo Gravity is always and eternally on the outer perimeters of our finite, Universe, irrrespective of the myriad set of tori that compose our Universe,
/\/\/ = sine-wave pattern associated with all fermionic and bosonic particles of Universe and this pattern is a inverting --><-- resultant of the above ---and Dark Energy that follows below-- and is specifically identifed with the numerical sequence 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 etc that is coincidentally associated with fermionic particles of quarks, electrons, neutrinos etc,
)( = Dark Enegry and is the inner negative shaped geodesic Space of a torus.
(>*<) i (>*<) and metaphysical-1 ego { i } and bilateral * * consciousness is the most complex resultant of our Observed Time { quantised/quantified } reality { /\/\/\/ }, with woman being the most complex entity of Universe