Oh Lordy…why dont you Google it? Start with Mackie, then read your book on quantum physics. You might want to figure out what a “false premise” is at the same time. Then you can unravel the Kalam nonsense or “cosmological argument” for yourself and see clearly that it is lame apologetics.
In the meantime prepare for a tsunami of ridicule.
BTW, you do realise that even if the Kalam argument is correct in that the universe was “created” it does NOT mean that Allah, YHWH did it, nor that Mohamed or jesus were prophets. It merely means that you replace one mystery with another.
On that note it might do you well to look up “pre-supposition”. Apply it to your mind set.
The Kalam argument is based on the Prime mover/first cause argument. Although it seems to have been invented by the ancient Greeks,it as also used by Muslim scholars from around the eighth century.
Pretty sure each of this arguments has been refuted centuries ago. By all means, feel free to look it up for yourself .
In the meantime, perhaps have a glance at the video linked below:
I suggest you work on being less dogmatic. You have beliefs, I am OK with that. But many in here have gone to quite a bit of time and effort to explain such things as the singularity, and yet, you keep attempting to return to the desired answers. Let me explain, science has never found a god as the explanation for the origin of this universe. It is painfully obvious all of your questions attempt to place a god as the creator of this universe.
As Old Man suggested, you are either not taking the trouble to comprehend what others have posted, or you just refuse to accept that one can not casually plug in “god” if given the opportunity.
Please understand this: science is a rational process, a tool that has proven itself to be the most reliable, effective and efficient method in explaining natural phenomenon. Science does use inference, but it follows the data, no matter where it leads. Those using science do not make up shit, they seek the best explanation based on the data and known laws. Science does not discount a god, but it has managed to explain what we know without one.
And there has never been a scientific discovery that has revealed a god. We have been able to explain natural phenomena without a god.
Maybe one day science will reveal a god. But it will not invent a god or just plug in a supernatural cause just because there is a gap in our knowledge or it satisfies those seeking a supernatural cause. Before we can pronounce that a god created the universe, we must study the data, verify the experiments, test the results, apply science.
That is why dark matter is called “dark”. We use the word “dark” to signify we do not know what it is … yet.
You would have to demonstrate the singularity came into existence. Time, matter, causality, all break down at Planck time. All of our physics breaks down at Planck time. Nothing you know works beyond that point.
We keep going over and over and over the same shit! PHYSICS BREAKS DOWN AT PLANCK TIME. THERE IS NO CAUSALITY, THERE IS NO TIME.
"Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds. " The universe was here before it was here as we know it today. Asserting a cause MUST BE DEMONSTRATED.
You must also eliminate Bouncing cosmology causes. Everyone pretty much agrees that the universe is expanding. Whether or not it is expanding from a singularity is being debated. Can you demonstrate the universe is not eternal?
You are just making inane assertions about the universe, about which, you appear to know nothing at all. You certainly do not know more than the cosmologists … SO… why not go to a cosmology forum and fuck with them… This is an Atheist forum, just in case you have been too dense to notice!
quote=“Cognostic, post:205, topic:368”]
"Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds. "
[/quote]
The universe came into existence, it has to have a cause. For every effect, theirs a cause. This is what I logically conclude. I don’t understand how this doesn’t make sense to you. Your right, I should go to a cosmology forum. I’ll ask them what the singularity is, and if the singularity even logically makes sense. Thank you for your advise.
If you understood logic, you’d recognise you are trying to apply a phenomenon observed within the temporal material universe, to an entirely speculative scenario outside of those understood conditions.
Now here I have to agree, your inability to understand this seems genuine. Though this strikes me as an argument from incredulity fallacy.
Science and logic are not the same thing of course, but nothing in science contradicts logic, and I think directing your questions at people who have a scientific grasp of physics, and what it currently understands about the origins of the universe is a good idea. Certainly better than coming here with it, since atheism is simply the lack of belief in theistic claims for a deity, and therefore doesn’t rationally need to produce contrary evidence or scenarios to religious claims.
Though of course you could simply note that every global news network seems not to be running the banner headline that science has evidenced a deity…
“laws of Physics break down at the singularity” THERE IS NO CAUSE OR EFFECT WTF is so hard to understand about that. You can not DEMONSTRATE a universe “Coming Into Existence.”
READ IT MORE CAREFULLY - The universe “came into existence” from itself. The singularity was already there. You can not assert “cause” without demonstrating that cause.
WE DON’T KNOW!!! No inane assertion you make is going to change that. We don’t actually even know if there was a singularity. This is merely what the best evidence leads us to think,. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP?
That is quite right. You are SAYING there are 3 possibilities…but YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. There may be hundreds of possibilities that you know nothing about.
The REASON you are sticking to “3 possibilities” is because it fits your warped and infantile ideas, and confirms what you fondly imagine as “logic” (it aint) to magic your “creator” into existence.
Look up presupposition…you may get a clue where your thought processes are corrupted.
Oh and maybe look up Cognitive Dissonance…you are surely heading there.
" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ” - Hamlet (1.5.)
Take your blinkers off and start to actually think. “Logically speaking” YOU DON’T KNOW HOW MANY POSSIBILITIES THERE ARE. You are limited by the paucity of YOUR knowledge and YOUR presuppositions to just 3 possibilities.
And to say “logically speaking” do you read what you write before posting? Is it some stream of consciousness?
Well one way you suggested was it coming from nothing. Another way you suggested was it coming from something. I’m asking about combining them to create a different option. Perhaps some parts coming from something, and some parts coming from nothing?
