Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you've heard of the cosmological argument. That's the best proof I've heard of. Logically, there is no other explanation for the existence of the universe.
The Cosmological Argument is actually one of the poorest arguments we have for causation.
A child of 12 years of age I hope could point out its undeniable flaw within about 9 miliseconds (I would hope).
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
The clear problem? You're defining the universe with our own conceived notions of existence. What VERY LITTLE we humans have been exposed to is what we're basing the entire universe off of. You must remember, and scientists, astrophysicists as well, is that our experience and our knowledge, though we think differently, is actually extremely limited.
Kalam's argument is based off of principles which seemed understandable to us then, but do not for many now, and will not later on.
The first principle, whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, is already in jeopardy of being fallible. There are physical occurances which could be coming from well, nothing. We simply do not have valid scientific evidence to describe many physicall occurances. To say that they come from nothing would be ill-advised, but to say they aren't is as well. Kalam didn't have to worry about that, but you on the other hand, you do.
Secondly, the second principle is the biggest of your worries. You need to prove why the universe had to begin. Because, tied into principle #1, our experiences are that occurances need causation. How valuable are our lowly experiences? That's sure a lot of weight you place on the insignificant human existence and our small, knowledge. Why can't the universe be an infinite constant? Is there evidence to the contrary? There are evidence of shrinking and expanding universes, of big bangs, of big crunches, but not of that. Giant leap of faith.
And principle #3 is based off both #1 AND #2 being correct.
Again, as I said in my previous post: It is not unwise to believe the Universe was created, but it is also not unwise to believe it wasn't. If you keep going on without respect for other, logical viewpoints (as logical as yours), no one is going to have any for yours either.
The Cosmological Argument is actually one of the poorest arguments we have for causation.
A child of 12 years of age I hope could point out its undeniable flaw within about 9 miliseconds (I would hope).
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
The clear problem? You're defining the universe with our own conceived notions of existence. What VERY LITTLE we humans have been exposed to is what we're basing the entire universe off of. You must remember, and scientists, astrophysicists as well, is that our experience and our knowledge, though we think differently, is actually extremely limited.
Kalam's argument is based off of principles which seemed understandable to us then, but do not for many now, and will not later on.
The first principle, whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, is already in jeopardy of being fallible. There are physical occurances which could be coming from well, nothing. We simply do not have valid scientific evidence to describe many physicall occurances. To say that they come from nothing would be ill-advised, but to say they aren't is as well. Kalam didn't have to worry about that, but you on the other hand, you do.
Secondly, the second principle is the biggest of your worries. You need to prove why the universe had to begin. Because, tied into principle #1, our experiences are that occurances need causation. How valuable are our lowly experiences? That's sure a lot of weight you place on the insignificant human existence and our small, knowledge. Why can't the universe be an infinite constant? Is there evidence to the contrary? There are evidence of shrinking and expanding universes, of big bangs, of big crunches, but not of that. Giant leap of faith.
And principle #3 is based off both #1 AND #2 being correct.
Again, as I said in my previous post: It is not unwise to believe the Universe was created, but it is also not unwise to believe it wasn't. If you keep going on without respect for other, logical viewpoints (as logical as yours), no one is going to have any for yours either.
There's a lot of reasons to believe the universe had a beginning. Most scientists today accept that it began at some piont (Big Bang theory).
As for the oscillating universe? Why would it contract? As it expands, doesn't the gravitational pull between the objects decrease as the distance increases? Logically, there would be no reason for it to contract.
There's a lot of reasons to believe the universe had a beginning. Most scientists today accept that it began at some piont (Big Bang theory).
As for the oscillating universe? Why would it contract? As it expands, doesn't the gravitational pull between the objects decrease as the distance increases? Logically, there would be no reason for it to contract.
LOL....I see that you were not able to wrap your brain around my post. Either that or you just didn't read this part,....Underlined to make it easier for you. Steven Hawking is probably the best mind on this subject today.
As Hawking notes, the finite universe has no space-time boundaries and hence lacks singularity and a beginning. Time might be multi-dimensional or imaginary, in which case one asymptotically approaches a beginning singularity but never reaches it. And without a beginning the universe requires no cause. The best one can say is that the universe is finite with respect to the past, not that it was an event with a beginning.
And a universe without beginning is a logistical impossibility. Little things like the law of entropy state that. I don't buy the idea of a universe with no beginning.
And a universe without beginning is a logistical impossibility. Little things like the law of entropy state that. I don't buy the idea of a universe with no beginning.
nobody is saying the universe has no begining. of course it has 'some sort of begining'.
I on the other hand, 'don't buy the idea of a God with no begining'!!!
And a universe without beginning is a logistical impossibility. Little things like the law of entropy state that. I don't buy the idea of a universe with no beginning.
Humility
I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the U.S. earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars, 1.8 TVs, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some point in his life, answered to the name “Bubba”. He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner or Currie. He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology than Hawking, Smoot, or Witten, and more about human fossils than Johanson or the Leakeys. He knows more “true” geology than geologists, more physics than physicists, more astronomy than astronomers–and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan.
Or perhaps kdbrich got something wrong....It's probable.
Very possible.
But I do know that everything that exists, does so because something caused it t exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
