[_ Old Earth _] The Kalam Cosmological Argument...Reasonable or Not?

[Not_Registered]

I don't doubt that it was the beginning of time. I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying it wasn't the beginning of the universe

Quantum Theory has a lot to say about that, I'm sure. I don't know how physicists explain it, I'm not well versed in QM.

The beginning of time, and the beginning of the universe are two separate issues. You're converging them as if they mean the same thing.

I don't know where you got this notion that the universe is distinct or detached from time. Science frequently defines the universe as our space-time continuum.

The only theories, that I am aware of, which posit that the universe existed "before" the big bang (which would be "before" time) involve QM. These QM theories have absolutely no empirical evidence to back them up, and most who propose them openly admit that, as of now, they are pure speculation (since there is no set QM theory). To grasp on to these theories as if they were fact would be a purely desperate attempt to support ones own preconceived and fixed beliefs. An act which many non-theists accuse theist of committing.

 

[Asimov]

I don't know where you got this notion that the universe is distinct or detached from time. Science frequently defines the universe as our space-time continuum.

I didn't say the universe is distinct or detached from time. I'm saying it doesn't have to have a beginning.

And if it did have a beginning, so what? Since the natural laws that we observe within the universe do not apply to the event in question, the cosmologlical argument falls flat (since it uses what we observe in physical law).

To grasp on to these theories as if they were fact would be a purely desperate attempt to support ones own preconceived and fixed beliefs. An act which many non-theists accuse theist of committing.

Desperate attempt?? No. If the naturalistic view of the origins of the universe are just as valid as "Goddidit", then why should I accept your belief over that of something that is just as good?

 

[bibleberean]

Christians don't need to give an explanation of why someone should believe "God did it"?

Only a fool can miss the fact that creation demands a creator and that design demands a designer and that laws demand a law giver.

God doesn't have the need to prove His existence. He is self evident.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Life begets life. God is the life giver. This is a Christian forum it really isn't my problem that non believers and atheists can't see passed their foolish hearts.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

It is a matter of being willing to see the truth. There is no way this universe and it's obvious design came about by dumb blind luck as the result of matter exploding.

That is the bottom line.

There is a reason skeptics will look for any other explanation than the obvious truth. They would rather believe they came from a chance chemical reaction than believe in a Creator.

That way there is no accountability. Without God they are free to play god.

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Isn't that why atheists spend their time in a Christian forum? They are up to no good.

They are evangelists for their religion. Atheism.

 

[Asimov]

Edited by bibleberean for clear rule violations.

Rule 2 - No Flaming:

You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.


Rule 8 - No Promotion of Other Religions:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than mainstream Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Debates of these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This is a Christian Forums as the name suggest. If you cannot abide with this, please do not use our site.

Most of the atheists in this forum obey the rules and they are welcome to post here.

 

[Not_Registered]

I didn't say the universe is distinct or detached from time. I'm saying it doesn't have to have a beginning.

That doesn't make any sense. Of course time isn't detached from the universe. It defines the lifespan of the universe. So, to say time has a beginning, but the universe doesn't is contradictory, or at least inaccurate. It would be like me saying my "life" began in 1982, but I was physically born in 1980.

This is not the only contradiction you make, as indicated below.

Quotes from Asimov:

• "Since the natural laws that we observe within the universe do not apply to the event in question..."[/*:m:6bb34]
• "If the naturalistic view of the origins of the universe are just as valid as 'Goddidit', then why should I accept your belief over that of something that is just as good?"[/*:m:6bb34]

You say "natural laws" don't apply to the "event in question" (the big bang I assume). Then you claim the "naturalistic view" (which I assume are based on the "natural laws") of the origin of the universe (which the big bang applies to) is a valid view; and this is said just after you claim that "natural laws" don't apply to the "event in question" (which I'm assuming is the big bang - or origin of the universe).

Aside from your contradictory statements, I'm not sure what this "naturalistic view" is that you refer to. You have frequently mentioned QM in your explanation for the origins of the universe. QM is FAR from natural, so I assume you can't possibly be referring to that. Then I must ask you to expound on this "naturalistic view."

 

[Asimov]

I didn't say the universe is distinct or detached from time. I'm saying it doesn't have to have a beginning.

That doesn't make any sense. Of course time isn't detached from the universe. It defines the lifespan of the universe. So, to say time has a beginning, but the universe doesn't is contradictory, or at least inaccurate. It would be like me saying my "life" began in 1982, but I was physically born in 1980.

I can't get any further into this, due to lack of expertise in this area. So I'll concede my point.

 

[Quath]

A lot of the problems with this is in the semantics.

For example, for the definition of eternal as "outside of time." Since time is part of the universe, this is like saying "outside the universe." So you have defined something in which the universe can not exist and say that it does not exist there.

However, if you go with the definition of eternal as "lasting for an indefinitely long period of time" or "having infinite duration " or "valid or existing at all times" as defined by other dictionaries, then you can talk about this is another way.

If you could step outside of the universe into some higher spatial dimension. Our universe would look like a static object floating into that space. Unless there is a super time, this structure would be there "always" because there is no time to go by. So it would be eternal if you went out of space and time and could "see" the universe.

One way to try to visualize this is to imagine that the universe is finite in size like a sphere. Then imagine you can see two dimensions like X and Y and the third dimension would be time. If it has a big bang followed by a big crunch, it would look like a football with one end being the big bang and the other end being the big crunch. The football would hover in this imaginary space without ever changing.

Quath

 

[Not_Registered]

A lot of the problems with this is in the semantics.

Yes, unfortunately that is true. Semantics becomes an issue when you try to equate terms that aren't interchangeable. In the following quotes, statements in blue are true and statements in red are false.

Quotes by Quath:

• "The universe has always existed and has a beginning."[/*:m:a55ea]
• "It has a beginning at the Big Bang event."[/*:m:a55ea]
• "So for all of time, the universe has existed."[/*:m:a55ea]
• "So while time existed the universe existed. Therefore the universe has always existed, right?"[/*:m:a55ea]

You interchange the concepts of existing for all time and always existing as if they have equivalent meanings. They don't.

Not only do you interchange concepts that are not equivalent, but you also contradict yourself. You cannot say the universe "has a beginning" and then say it "has always existed." You can say it existed "for all of time," because time had a beginning. But, always has no beginning (in the sense that you are using it). You are using always to indicate eternality. If not, and you are just meaning it to indicate "at all time" (like most dictionaries define always), then you are correct. But, I don't think this is your intention. To clarify, if you are using the term "always" to indicate for all time then you are correct, but if you are using it to denote eternality, then you are incorrect.

I have already reposted my explanation on why saying "the universe has always existed" is incorrect. I will repost, again, my explanation, because it provides further clarification. I will prelude it by saying this: To say the universe "always existed" (if denoting eternality), has two problems: (1) It goes against the belief that the universe had a beginning and (2) it presupposes that existence isn't possible outside of time.

• Quote from Not_Registered:
  "It has a beginning. Something that has a beginning, cannot, by definition, be eternal (or always exist). The statement 'for all of time, the universe has existed' is vacuous, in that it says or proves nothing. It’s like me saying, 'For all of my life, I existed.' Yeah, so what? My life defines my existence, so that statement is tautological. It says nothing. Time defines the universe's existence. So to say 'for all of time, the universe has existed' is to make a tautological statement. You can conclude nothing from it. Just as my life defines my existence, time defines the universe's existence. So what? To try and conclude something from this one must presuppose something, namely that existence isn't possible outside of time.... I could say, 'I existed all of my life; therefore, I have always existed.' However, this presupposes that existence isn't possible outside of my life. In the same manner, to say, 'the universe existed all of time; therefore, it has always existed' is to presuppose that existence isn't possible outside of our space-time continuum."

 

[Not_Registered]

However, if you go with the definition of eternal as "lasting for an indefinitely long period of time" or "having infinite duration " or "valid or existing at all times" as defined by other dictionaries, then you can talk about this is another way.

The definition "having infinite duration" still doesn't accommodate your interpretation of eternal, because something that is infinite has no boundaries (whereas time is bounded at the big bang). The definition "lasting for an indefinitely long period of time" is equivocal and depends on one's concept of indefinite. The definition "valid or existing at all times" seems to accomplish what you hand in mind; namely, granting interchangeability to the concepts existing for all time and eternality. Okay, if this is your intentional meaning of eternal, then I agree. If you believe eternal to be "existing for all time," then I agree that the universe is eternal (by your usage). However, why use the term eternal, at the risk of confusing others. Just say, "Exist for all time."

It would not be wise to use the word eternal (if your usage of the term is to mean "for all time"), because most people perceive eternal to denote a beginningless/endless duration (which time is not). You distort, or conceal, your actual meaning by using the word eternal (but really meaning "for all time"). It would be like someone's mom asking them if they "lied" today, and they said no (but in fact they had told a fib). However, for that moment their definition of "lied" was to be placed at rest, in which case they had not "lied" today. They have distorted, or concealed, their actual meaning by not being clear about their interpretation, or usage, of the term.

Also, I assume you got you alternate defintion of eternal, from m-w.com as they match perfectly. Or, at least the sources for your alternative defintions and the sources for the definitions found at m-w.com are the same. However, m-w.com also list timeless as a meaning for eternal, which is defined as "having no beginning or ending." Also, their first definition (which is usually the most common usage) is "having infinite duration." This usage of the term "eternal" indicates a boundless duration and lines up with my usage, which is having no beginning or end.

One way to try to visualize this is to imagine that the universe is finite in size like a sphere. Then imagine you can see two dimensions like X and Y and the third dimension would be time. If it has a big bang followed by a big crunch, it would look like a football with one end being the big bang and the other end being the big crunch. The football would hover in this imaginary space without ever changing.

If the length of the football denotes time, the football would have to be infinite in length, but still have a beginning (according to you).

 

[Quath]

But, always has no beginning (in the sense that you are using it). You are using always to indicate eternality. If not, and you are just meaning it to indicate "at all time" (like most dictionaries define always), then you are correct. But, I don't think this is your intention. To clarify, if you are using the term "always" to indicate for all time then you are correct, but if you are using it to denote eternality, then you are incorrect.

I think you are treating eternality as some kind of super time. Like a time outside of time. If there is such a thing, you are correct that you can talk about time before and after the universe begin on some different time scale. However, as far as I can tell that is made up.

So to clarify, when I say "always" I mean for all of time. If there are higher dimensions outside our universe, the vocabulary will be imprecise. But what i mean is "at all times; all the time and on every occasion" or "forever; throughout all time."

I will prelude it by saying this: To say the universe "always existed" (if denoting eternality), has two problems: (1) It goes against the belief that the universe had a beginning and (2) it presupposes that existence isn't possible outside of time.

• 
  Those are semantics also. "Beginning" denotes a starting point in time. However, if time starts, there is no "before" it. A better word may be "outside."
  
  Existance could be possible outside of time, but we would have a hard time understanding it unless it was a static structure.
  
  

  The definition "having infinite duration" still doesn't accommodate your interpretation of eternal, because something that is infinite has no boundaries (whereas time is bounded at the big bang).

  This kind of depends on if there is a big crunch or not. If not, then time could be infinite. (This would be like a number line where you cover half of infinity, which is still an infinite amount.) But I agree with you that "valid or existing at all times" works best for what I have been saying.
  
  

  Also, I assume you got you alternate defintion of eternal, from m-w.com as they match perfectly. Or, at least the sources for your alternative defintions and the sources for the definitions found at m-w.com are the same. However, m-w.com also list timeless as a meaning for eternal, which is defined as "having no beginning or ending." Also, their first definition (which is usually the most common usage) is "having infinite duration." This usage of the term "eternal" indicates a boundless duration and lines up with my usage, which is having no beginning or end.

  I used http://www.onelook.com which queries many dictionaries. I highly recommend it.
  
  I guess the problem I have with your definition os "boundless duration" is "duration" is "the property of enduring or continuing in time." So it is undefined outside of time.
  
  

  If the length of the football denotes time, the football would have to be infinite in length, but still have a beginning (according to you).

  Yeah. That is why I assumed a big crunch so it would not be infinite. But if it were infinite, it would look something like snowcone that goes to infinity.
  
  Quath

 

[Featherbop]

The fact that we have never created or observed it created does not indicate that matter and energy is eternal. We cannot create it, nor can we destroy it, we can simply change its form. Assuming from this point that the two are eternal is faulty. First, there has been no logical reason given to suggest that becuase M&E cannot be destroyed, that it cannot have a beggining point(i.e, creation). Second, it is simply too easy for one to argue this, because there is no way to give evidence against the argument(and none for it, of course either). No one has existed since the beggining, or for eternity. How can one test something to determine its eternity? It is not possible.

Now, I would like to comment on this: Everything that exists must have a beggining.
Now, I do agree with this, as long as it implies this concept for tangible 'things'. "Things" that do not exist tangibly, materially, etc., I see no reason for all of these to have a beggining. I.e, God. Things do not appear randomly, or without cause. If one assumes that a Creator does not exist, why can things not appear and vanish with no cause? Even further, why could all tangibly existing things do so at the 'beggining' only? There should be any random universes beggining existence without cause or creation. Well, of course, this is not feasible, so those who do not like the idea of Creator God attempt the slightly more feasible scenario of the eternal Matter and Energy(Although extremely unfounded).

Of course, though, the issue of whether or not M&E is eternal is not something that is really able to be settled now...

 

[Quath]

You can tell what happened about something unobserved by the evidence left behind. If you find a bone, you can conclude it probably came from something that once lived. If you see an impact crator on the moon, you can assume an asteroid hit it.

For the Big Bang, the observations are everything is moving away from each other. So if you rewind time, everything should be moving towards each other. The universe appears homogenous and flat from observation. (Basically, it appears to go to infinity and does not curve and wrap around like a sphere.) So as things merge together, heat rises. Things get so hot, that every atom becomes a plasma and as the heat rises more, atoms break apart.

If you get hot enough and dense enough, spacetime (which is warped by enery/matter) gets extremely warped. We don't have a theory that tells us what happens at the point when the nerggy density gets too high, but we know some limits to it. For one, time would eventually disappear or go to the quantum level. (This is all watching the universe play backwards.)

Now the only way for this to be wrong is our observations are wrong or we have an incorrect theory such as the general theory of relativity. But what it points out is that we can envision a mechanism that shows how the world could be created that does not contradict what we observe and it does not require a magical being to do this.

As for eternalness of the universe, if you step outside this universe into a higher spatial dimension, our universe would be laid out like a painting that does not move. You could look at different times by looking "left or right." This is what I think most people mean when they think of "eternal." Outside our universe, our universe can be seen as eternal.

Quath

 

[Not_Registered]

I think you are treating eternality as some kind of super time. Like a time outside of time. If there is such a thing, you are correct that you can talk about time before and after the universe begin on some different time scale. However, as far as I can tell that is made up.

You are confusing "treating eternality as some kind of super time" with the consequence of a definition. I really don't see what is so difficult about this. In all my debates, I have never seen someone argue for the eternality of the universe in relation with the big bang. Never. I have seen people argue for the eternality of the universe along with promoting the static stead-state universe. This makes sense. If you want to say the universe had no beginning (which the static stead-state universe asserts) and say it is eternal then that is at least logical, if not scientific.

All the people that argue using the big bang (which is the vast majority - because the static steady-state universe is almost unanimously unaccepted in the science field), either argue that the universe was in some quantum state before the big bang or that it was formed ex nihilo via vacuum fluctuations (which actually isn't creation ex nihilo). While implausible and not supported by empirical evidence, these positions are at least logical. The argument that the universe had a beginning, but is also beginningless (which is what eternal means) is absurd.

I would gladly make a wager that 99.9% of people interpret eternality as having no beginning or having no end. Eternality is not limited to describing our space-time continuum as you try to make it. It isn't some physic's terminology invented to describe the universe we live in, yet you continually try to limit its meaning. I cannot understand why, except that you see no other way to circumvent the necessity of an uncaused cause.

Okay. Fine. You want to alter the meaning of eternality in an effort to distort, or conceal, your actual meaning (i.e. "for all time")? Okay, I'll allow that. Instead, then, I'll use the word beginningless. As you have concurred numerous times, the universe does have a beginning, and so, is not beginningless. Now, let me refer you to this variation of the KCA, which removes all the cumbersome vocabulary and concepts (such as eternality) and presents the KCA in a simplified manner. It presents the KCA as such:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.[/*:m:28129]
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.[/*:m:28129]
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.[/*:m:28129]

It argues for the (a) option of each premise. This form of the KCA is very simplistic and portrays the essence of the argument very clearly. It doesn't allow for alternate interpretations. Beginningless has one meaning.

I guess the problem I have with your definition [of] "boundless duration" is [that] "duration" is "the property of enduring or continuing in time." So it is undefined outside of time.

Let's talk of a "boundless duration." A "boundless duration" would be boundless. It would not be bounded by a beginning or ending, but time is bounded (at the big bang and at now). Time has the potential to extend infinitely into the future, but it doesn't. It is bounded by the present, and it extends as each moment passes. It is also bounded in the past (by the big bang). Therefore, time is not a "boundless duration." Subsequently, time is not eternal.

Sidenote: Thanks for onelook.com.

 

[Quath]

Thanks for clearing up a lot of stuff you wrote. I think I am on the same page with you. So let me see if I can clear up some of the confusion from what I said.

I see this mathematically. Say that time starts at 0 and goes to infinity for the sake of argument. Say that space goes to infinity as well.

So make up some dimensions outside the ones we know that holds anything that exists but not within the universe as we know it. Who knows what kinds of physics would apply. It could be a spatial or time like dimension. If it was a time like dimension, then suddenly words like always or static or beginning could have double meanings because we are dealing with two different times. (Our universe would be static in the super time dimension but dynamic in the time we know.)

So maybe it would be better to describe it as a spatial dimension. It makes for an odd dimension because there is no time. So you can't look left then right because that implies time. Everything is instant and there is no motion. But lets pretend we can know everything.

What does eternal mean here? I don't think we have a concept of what it would mean is a higher spatial dimension.

-----

So let me switch tracks for a second. Say the universe was created. Does the thing that create it have to be intelligent? For example, imagine two hyper dimensional objects colliding and creating the Big Bang. These objects could have the intelligence of a rock and could exist for all the same reasons people say that God could exist (eternal, outside the universe, etc.).

You could go further and call these objects some kind of quantum waves and you are almost back to the Big Bang description.

Quath

 

[Not_Registered]

So maybe it would be better to describe it as a spatial dimension. It makes for an odd dimension because there is no time. So you can't look left then right because that implies time. Everything is instant and there is no motion. But lets pretend we can know everything. . . . What does eternal mean here? I don't think we have a concept of what it would mean is a higher spatial dimension.

Funny you should mention this. William Lane Craig seems to have a similar view of time in relation to God. The article can be seen here. Below is an excerpt, which has similar notions as the comments you made.

• Excerpt from Craig's article:
  "But Hackett argues convincingly that a personal God need not experience a temporal succession of mental states. He could apprehend the whole content of the temporal series in a single eternal intuition, just as I analogously apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God could know the content of all knowledge - past, present, and future - in a simultaneous and eternal intuition. . . . On a relational view of time, God would exist changelessly and timelessly prior to the first event, creation, which marks the beginning of time."

So make up some dimensions outside the ones we know that holds anything that exists but not within the universe as we know it.

We should "Make up some dimension outside the ones we know?" From your perspective, we cannot do this, because the universe is all that exist. Thus, it would make no sense to make up dimensions outside of the universe.

So let me switch tracks for a second. Say the universe was created. Does the thing that create it have to be intelligent? For example, imagine two hyper dimensional objects colliding and creating the Big Bang. These objects could have the intelligence of a rock and could exist for all the same reasons people say that God could exist (eternal, outside the universe, etc.).

Before stating how your proposed solution solves nothing, I must first comment on the proposed solution itself. It should be noted that these objects exist in some universe outside of our universe, which differs from the concept of an uncaused cause or God.

I have said I don't believe the KCA to be valid in showing that the theistic God must be the uncaused cause, but there are some aspects of the uncaused cause we can know. It must be always existing, or timeless; and thus, it must be outside of time. It must also be outside of space; thus, it must be immaterial. These two characteristics seem likely, because seeing that the uncaused cause is outside of the universe, it cannot be constrained by its limits (i.e. it can't be constrained by time or space). Finally, it must also be absolute (i.e. there cannot exist something greater than it). It is all that is and thus cannot be limited. Also, all things that come to be are derived from it; thus, it must be greater than all these things, or, plainly put, it must be the greatest of all things.

Now we may proceed to analyzing this hypothetical scenario of yours. It can be said that this hypothetical scenario solves nothing because, by suggesting that two hyper dimensional objects collided and caused the big bang, you have just extended the impossible dilemma, proposed by the KCA, (i.e. impossibility of an infinite regress) a step back. Instead of asking what created the big bang, we now ask what created these objects. We must ask this because these objects don't adhere to the particular aspects (mentioned above) necessary for the uncaused cause.

You could go further and call these objects some kind of quantum waves and you are almost back to the Big Bang description.

Firstly, quantum waves are objects constrained by the physics of this universe (they are contained within it) and thus cannot be the cause of it. Secondly, as previously stated, these objects don't adhere to the aspects necessary for the uncaused caused, namely, being immaterial and absolute.

Does the thing that create it have to be intelligent?

I would say that, if one does exist, the Creator of the universe wouldn't seem to be inept. Unless, of course, the creation of the universe was accidental (such as in the scenario you posed). I, however, don't believe an accidental universe to be plausible, but this begins to overlap into the teleological realm.

 

[DivineNames]

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

"Now in the case at hand, if originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of the void, rather than, say, hydrogen atoms or even rabbits? How can one talk about the probability of any particular thing's popping into being out of nothing?"




Hydrogen atoms and rabbits seem to assume space-time. Have they ever been experienced outside of it? Its going to be difficult to think of things that don't of course.

If something is going to "spring spontaneously out of the void" I am guessing it would have to be a "medium of existence" (best term I can think of).

It may be radically different to our space-time, but you would think that anything that comes "out of the void" would have to be equivalent to space-time.


(This all assumes its possible for things to come out of absolute nothing, which I am not suggesting is actually the case)

 

[Quath]

We should "Make up some dimension outside the ones we know?" From your perspective, we cannot do this, because the universe is all that exist. Thus, it would make no sense to make up dimensions outside of the universe.

This is just for reference, not actually supposing there is a real dimension.

Instead of asking what created the big bang, we now ask what created these objects. We must ask this because these objects don't adhere to the particular aspects (mentioned above) necessary for the uncaused cause.

It seems that you are arguing that creation has to be an intelligent activity. However, I don't see that as the case. A snowflake looks like it was carved by little faries. However, we know it was made by a simple process. Sometimes simple processes can give complex results.

Firstly, quantum waves are objects constrained by the physics of this universe (they are contained within it) and thus cannot be the cause of it. Secondly, as previously stated, these objects don't adhere to the aspects necessary for the uncaused caused, namely, being immaterial and absolute.

I agree that quantum waves do not exist outside spacetime as we know it. However, quantum-like waves could exist. I have no idea what they would be like, but the idea is they could follow quantum wave like rules. Such as something can come into existance uncaused so long as it does not violate some constraint. For our universe, there are many constraints like Heisenberg uncertainity principle, charge consevation, etc.

For this other type of quatum wave, maybe the constraint is "everything has to add to nothingness." Maybe a universe and an anti universe appears. Maybe space expands and contracts and disappears like virtual particles do in our universe within a certain amount of time.

Quath

 

[Not_Registered]

It seems that you are arguing that creation has to be an intelligent activity. However, I don't see that as the case. A snowflake looks like it was carved by little faries. However, we know it was made by a simple process. Sometimes simple processes can give complex results.

Your comparing the universe to a snowflake? Not the best analogy.

For this other type of quatum wave, maybe the constraint is "everything has to add to nothingness." Maybe a universe and an anti universe appears. Maybe space expands and contracts and disappears like virtual particles do in our universe within a certain amount of time. [emphasis added for effect]

That's a lot of maybes. Maybe it should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Quath]

Your comparing the universe to a snowflake? Not the best analogy.

I am showing that human bias is to see stuff where there is nothing from a face on Mars to seeing Elvis alive to seeing design where there is none (snowflake).

That's a lot of maybes. Maybe it should be taken with a grain of salt.

The maybes show there are other possibilities that do not require a creator. If it is possible, then we can't say there has to be a creator.

Quath

 

[Not_Registered]

I am showing that human bias is to see stuff where there is nothing from a face on Mars to seeing Elvis alive to seeing design where there is none (snowflake).

Human bias is to "see stuff" is not a clear statement. In the case of the creation of the universe we could say that non-theist "see stuff," but that stuff isn't a Creator. That stuff, in the case of a non-theist, is a mega-universe or quantum waves. Also, seeing Elvis has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about (because it doesn't involve design).

A more accurate statement would be human bias is to "see design where it looks like it is necessary," instead of to "see stuff." And yes, humans did believe someone designed a face on Mars and humans do believe someone is probably designing crop circles (whether that someone be aliens or pranksters). Humans believe those situations need design because the results seem complex. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume all crop circles appear because of natural reasons. Similarly, if you go to a junk yard and see an old dilapidated vehicle, you wouldn't think a bunch of scrap metal fell into a pile and formed the vehicle. You would probably think the vehicle was made and was placed there.

The maybes show there are other possibilities that do not require a creator. If it is possible, then we can't say there has to be a creator.

I have agreed with this numerous times. But, in the same manner, if it is possible, then we can't say there has be quantum waves.

I believe, based on the KCA and an awareness that whatever uncaused cause created the universe it must be outside of the universe, we can only deduce certain aspects of that uncaused cause. The aspects or characteristics that I believe to be necessary for the uncaused cause are stated in one of my previous post, shown below.

• Quote from Not_Registered:
  "I have said I don't believe the KCA to be valid in showing that the theistic God must be the uncaused cause, but there are some aspects of the uncaused cause we can know. It must be always existing, or timeless; and thus, it must be outside of time. It must also be outside of space; thus, it must be immaterial. These two characteristics seem likely, because seeing that the uncaused cause is outside of the universe, it cannot be constrained by its limits (i.e. it can't be constrained by time or space). Finally, it must also be absolute (i.e. there cannot exist something greater than it). It is all that is and thus cannot be limited. Also, all things that come to be are derived from it; thus, it must be greater than all these things, or, plainly put, it must be the greatest of all things."