The KCA!

[POI]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

[POI]

Irrelevant questions to the KCA....The KCA focuses on that it happened, not why it happened.

Because the second we ask why, things really get messy for the theist.

P1 states: Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Why can't 'the universe' be exempt from P1? How do we know naterialism is not eternal, just like the invisible God you assert? We know naturalism/materialism exists. It's everywhere. Every demonstrable example of cause/effect demonstrates to be nature causing more nature. If you want to pertain to the confines of the KCA alone, one needs to investigate if something did or did not 'cause' our observable universe, and nothing more. And it's quite plausible that IF there was indeed a 'cause', this 'cause' may very well be one of nature, as opposed to supernature, as our observable universe may have been the result of another prior universe, or other, or other, and an infinite number of naturalistic assumptions.... Once you start to argue infinite regress, you are then outside the argument of the KCA, as the 'problem of infinite regress' may proceed well prior to our observable universe alone.

[SiNcE_1985]

Irrelevant questions to the KCA....The KCA focuses on that it happened, not why it happened.

Because the second we ask why, things really get messy for the theist.

Then formulate an argument which demonstrates this messiness.

Until then, all you have is hot air.

P1 states: Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Why can't 'the universe' be exempt from P1? How do we know naterialism is not eternal, just like the invisible God you assert? We know naturalism/materialism exists. It's everywhere.

Ohhh, so now who is special pleading???

Wow, that didn't take long

And the universe can't be exempt from P1 because of reasons already mentioned.

That's why.

Every demonstrable example of cause/effect
demonstrates to be nature causing more nature.

Yeah, but this causal chain cannot be extended backwards to past infinity/eternity.

For reasons already mentioned.

If you want to pertain to the confines of the KCA alone, one needs to investigate if something did or did not 'cause' our observable universe, and nothing more. And it's quite plausible that IF there was indeed a 'cause', this 'cause' may very well be one of nature, as opposed to supernature, as our observable universe may have been the result of another prior universe, or other, or other, and an infinite number of naturalistic assumptions.... Once you start to argue infinite regress, you are then outside the argument of the KCA, as the 'problem of infinite regress' may proceed well prior to our observable universe alone.

I already addressed this.

Had you read my case, you wouldn't be on here asking questions to stuff that was already addressed.

I asked you to create the thread, and you did...just to not read it?

What kind of sense does that make?

[POI]

Then formulate an argument which demonstrates this messiness.

Well, I could just reference one or two of the last ones you lost, if that works for you? There is no need to create even more threads exposing the many flaws of Christianity.

the universe can't be exempt from P1 because of reasons already mentioned.

It CAN'T be exempt? Are you sure about that?

Yeah, but this causal chain cannot be extended backwards to past infinity/eternity.

But you just stated we are discussing the KCA. Which means all one has to propose is the possibility that nature caused more nature, in regard to the beginning of our known universe, and viola, 'the problem of infinite regress' immediately becomes irrelevant. If you instead want to completely pivot, and also discuss what you think lurks some or many progressions prior to our known universe, be my guest. But then the assumptions become even more baseless. We know nature exists. We also know nature causes nature, as we have countless examples of nature causing nature. Alternatively, we have absolutely no examples of supernature. Only assertions. IF the universe did have a cause, our observable universe's cause could very well be from prior nature. And appealing to another topic, simply takes us to another topic. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. So pick a lane.

[SiNcE_1985]

Then formulate an argument which demonstrates this messiness.

Well, I could just reference one or two of the last ones you lost, if that works for you? There is no need to create even more threads exposing the many flaws of Christianity.

If this was the Cold War, I'll be Harry Truthman.

And you'll be Joseph Stalling.

All I see is stalling.

It CAN'T be exempt? Are you sure about that?

I said what I said.

But you just stated we are discussing the KCA. Which means all one has to propose is the possibility that nature caused more nature, in regard to the beginning of our known universe, and viola, 'the problem of infinite regress' immediately becomes irrelevant.

Anyone can propose any possibility...can you demonstrate it though?

No, you can't.

Next..

If you instead want to completely pivot, and also discuss what you think lurks some or many progressions prior to our known universe, be my guest. But then the assumptions become even more baseless. We know nature exists. We also know nature causes nature, as we have countless examples of nature causing nature. Alternatively, we have absolutely no examples of supernature. Only assertions. IF the universe did have a cause, our observable universe's cause could very well be from prior nature.

1. We know computers exists.

2. Therefore, computers owe their existence to prior computers.

Fallacious reasoning. Logically absurd. Circular reasoning.

Next..

And appealing to another topic, simply takes us to another topic. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. So pick a lane.

You've got nothing, sir.

Anyways.

The KCA is rebuttal proof.

Because you can't rebuttal truth.

[POI]

1. We know computers exists.
2. Therefore, computers owe their existence to prior computers.
Fallacious reasoning. Logically absurd. Circular reasoning.
Next..

For someone who likes to 'pat' themselves on the back, you sure miss simple points. I'll try, yet again. The KCA's objective is to argue for a 'cause' to our 'universe'. Period. Assuming you can get on board with this, allow us to proceed... EVEN IF 'infinite regression' IS a thing, it is not relevant to the KCA (at all) unless you want to argue that this causal chain STARTED where the "BB" began. Since the KCA argues for the beginning of our known observable universe, this argument rises and falls with our universe. To argue the topic of 'infinite regress' only becomes relevant if you believe the buck stops at OUR 'universe creation.' And yet, 'science' just does not know yet what lies on the other side of our universe. The question then becomes, is it even knowable? The answer lies in a somewhat false dichotomy - (nature or super nature). You assert 'super nature.' The scientists assert "I don't know." I know you wish to deem 'science' conspiratorial and all, in regard to the "G-word". But this is your own axe to grind.

[SiNcE_1985]

For someone who likes to 'pat' themselves on the back, you sure miss simple points. I'll try, yet again. The KCA's objective is to argue for a 'cause' to our 'universe'. Period. Assuming you can get on board with this, allow us to proceed...

Yes, please school me on the KCA.

I just yearn for knowledge.

EVEN IF 'infinite regression' IS a thing

What do you mean "even if"?

If you don't believe infinite regression is a thing, then the expectation in this "debate" is for you to counter my points which makes the case that it is.

But you can't.

Because you can't make a counter-point to the truth.

, it is not relevant to the KCA (at all) unless you want to argue that this causal chain STARTED where the "BB" began.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing ...I'm arguing that this casual chain STARTED where the BB began.

That's what I'm doing.

So now what? What chu got for me?

Since the KCA argues for the beginning of our known observable universe, this argument rises and falls with our universe.

Not necessarily, but that point is neither here nor there.

To argue the topic of 'infinite regress' only becomes relevant if you believe the buck stops at OUR 'universe creation.' And yet, 'science' just does not know yet what lies on the other side of our universe. The question then becomes, is it even knowable?

I don't think you understand the implications of infinite regression.

I am saying, infinite regression is logically impossible; in HEAVEN, and on EARTH.

God himself cannot traverse infinity, and if God can't do it, it can't be done.

So regardless of our knowledge of what is on the "other side" of our universe; whatever it is, it has not endured an infinite amount of moments in time.

That applies to both the natural, and the supernatural equally.

The answer lies in a somewhat false dichotomy - (nature or super nature). You assert 'super nature.' The scientists assert "I don't know." I know you wish to deem 'science' conspiratorial and all, in regard to the "G-word". But this is your own axe to grind.

How is it a false dichotomy when (natural/supernatural) are literally the only two options available?

So, no..this isn't a false dichotomy.

There are only two options, and both cannot be equally true or equally false.

To believe one is to negate the other one, by default.

One of those possibilities are necessarily false, and the other is necessarily true.

I gave reasons why the supernatural option is necessarily true, which makes the natural option necessarily false.

And no scientist or cosmological model can save you.

The bottom line is; you can either refute my points or you can't.

We both know you can't.

So just put your pride aside, and take the L like a man.

You should have never created this thread, brethren.

[POI]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing ...I'm arguing that this casual chain STARTED where the BB began. That's what I'm doing. So now what? What chu got for me?

Thanks!

Not necessarily, but that point is neither here nor there.

Yes it does. P2 and P3 mention the universe, and nothing more. Unless you want to argue a 'multiverse', or other, was also included? If so, things only get way more interesting....

infinite regression is logically impossible

I disagree. The problem of infinite regress doesn't directly apply to the concept of eternal inflation because, within the theory, the inflationary phase of the universe is considered to be ongoing and self-perpetuating, meaning there is no need to trace back to a single starting point or "cause" - new inflationary regions are constantly being generated from quantum fluctuations, effectively creating an infinite, expanding multiverse where inflation never truly ends in most areas.

Key points to consider:

No single origin: Unlike traditional cosmological models where you might ask "what caused the Big Bang," eternal inflation suggests that inflation itself is a continuous process, with new regions of space constantly entering and exiting the inflationary phase, eliminating the need for a singular origin point.

Quantum fluctuations: The theory relies on quantum fluctuations to trigger the creation of new inflationary regions, which are essentially "baby universes" that can continue to inflate independently.

Exponential expansion: The exponential nature of inflation means that the vast majority of the universe remains in an inflationary state, with only small pockets transitioning to a regular expansion phase.

How is it a false dichotomy when (natural/supernatural) are literally the only two options available? So, no..this isn't a false dichotomy.

This is exactly why I said somewhat. A true dichotomy is A or not A.

There are only two options, and both cannot be equally true or equally false. To believe one is to negate the other one, by default.

I agree, as long as there truly exists no third option in which neither of us has discovered For example, I label the Euthyphro dilemma as a somewhat false dichotomy, as it is not A or not A. Some theists attemtp to argue a third option, even though the philosophical problem was presented long ago... One of those possibilities may or may not be necessarily false, and the other may or may not be necessarily true. But I digress.

The bottom line is; you can either refute my points or you can't.

I honestly do not know if refutation can or cannot occur, on either side of the perceived coin?

We both know you can't. So just put your pride aside, and take the L like a man. You should have never created this thread, brethren.

This is just more huffing and puffing...

[SiNcE_1985]

I disagree. The problem of infinite regress doesn't directly apply to the concept of eternal inflation because, within the theory, the inflationary phase of the universe is considered to be ongoing and self-perpetuating, meaning there is no need to trace back to a single starting point or "cause" - new inflationary regions are constantly being generated from quantum fluctuations, effectively creating an infinite, expanding multiverse where inflation never truly ends in most areas.

Each fluctuation is a single, discreet event.

If, for ever fluctuation, there were an infinite amount of fluctuations which preceded it (which is what your claim is), then how would any single, discreet fluctuation come to past?

Makes no sense.

If no single, discreet fluctuation can come to past, then this universe cannot be part of any chain of discreet, single fluctuations.

It's just that simple.

Also, the total set of all the fluctuations (from the last fluctuation to the infinite amount of fluctuations which preceded it), that is an infinite set.

But you cannot have a set with an infinite amount of discrete members. It is impossible...and what is deemed impossible ain't happening, nor has it happened.

Key points to consider:

No single origin: Unlike traditional cosmological models where you might ask "what caused the Big Bang," eternal inflation suggests that inflation itself is a continuous process, with new regions of space constantly entering and exiting the inflationary phase, eliminating the need for a singular origin point. Quantum fluctuations: The theory relies on quantum fluctuations to trigger the creation of new inflationary regions, which are essentially "baby universes" that can continue to inflate independently.

Exponential expansion: The exponential nature of inflation means that the vast majority of the universe remains in an inflationary state, with only small pockets transitioning to a regular expansion phase.

You are wrong here..eternal inflation is an extension of the BBT.. obviously, if the universe began to exist (as the BBT suggests) then there can be no eternal inflation going back to the past.

Now, inflation into the future, sure..maybe...but my case is against a past eternity, not a future eternity.

And besides, Alan Guth is the brain behind inflationary theory (he is called Father of Inflation), and his theory is not only evidence of BBT, but he is also part of the BGV (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) theorem, which states that any universe that has been expanding at an average Hubble rate greater than 0 most have had a beginning...and the vast majority of all cosmological models do.

This is exactly why I said somewhat. A true dichotomy is A or not A.

Exactly, and we are dealing with an A or not A situation... nothing false about it.

I honestly do not know if refutation can or cannot occur, on either side of the perceived coin?

I do. It can. And is.

This is just more huffing and puffing...

Sometimes, you gotta flex on your adversaries.

[POI]

Each fluctuation is a single, discreet event. If, for ever fluctuation, there were an infinite amount of fluctuations which preceded it (which is what your claim is), then how would any single, discreet fluctuation come to past? Makes no sense.

I know, right.... Then I guess, in reality, 'science' is instead just desperately trying to orchestrate false narratives to produce anything and everything to avoid having to say the "G" word. I'm just typing what you are thinking here so far.... Many things in science do not make sense, even when they do not implicate the existence of whether or not God exists. Meaning, just because something does not make sense to you, do not render or deem the theoretical model BS. Physics is HARD. Physicists state we still know far less than we do know. And physics cannot be summed up in one paragraph narratives, per topic.

If no single, discreet fluctuation can come to past, then this universe cannot be part of any chain of discreet, single fluctuations. It's just that simple. Also, the total set of all the fluctuations (from the last fluctuation to the infinite amount of fluctuations which preceded it), that is an infinite set. But you cannot have a set with an infinite amount of discrete members. It is impossible.

Riiiight! I'm sure actual physicists never thought about this, at all. I suggest instead researching all models, and not only the ones which support your current position.

And besides, Alan Guth is the brain behind inflationary theory (he is called Father of Inflation), and his theory is not only evidence of BBT, but he is also part of the BGV (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) theorem, which states that any universe that has been expanding at an average Hubble rate greater than 0 most have had a beginning...and the vast majority of all cosmological models do.

Well, if you watched the debate between Sean Carroll and WLC, from 2014, you would then realize that when Alan Guth was asked if the universe was finite or eternal, he stated "it is most likely eternal." So, you are wrong again. I suggest studying arenas which not only support your current position. I instead consider them all and have happily admitted that it is 50/50.

I do. It can. And is.

Yes, as with the other thread you just admitted you lost, not knowing what the opponent proposes, as well as only adhering to info. which supports your existing position, will often times do just this.

Sometimes, you gotta flex on your adversaries.

[SiNcE_1985]

I know, right.... Then I guess, in reality, 'science' is instead just desperately trying to orchestrate false narratives to produce anything and everything to avoid having to say the "G" word. I'm just typing what you are thinking here so far.... Many things in science do not make sense, even when they do not implicate the existence of whether or not God exists. Meaning, just because something does not make sense to you, do not render or deem the theoretical model BS. Physics is HARD. Physicists state we still know far less than we do know. And physics cannot be summed up in one paragraph narratives, per topic.

A paragraph of irrelevancy.

Riiiight! I'm sure actual physicists never thought about this, at all. I suggest instead researching all models, and not only the ones which support your current position.

Most physicists dont make good philosophers.

Well, if you watched the debate between Sean Carroll and WLC, from 2014, you would then realize that when Alan Guth was asked if the universe was finite or eternal, he stated "it is most likely eternal." So, you are wrong again.

You're wrong.

As I just told you before, eternal inflation states that the universe is eternal into the future, but not in the past...and that's what he was talking about there.

The Wikipedia article on eternal inflation even quotes Guth as stating..

"Alan Guth's 2007 paper, "Eternal inflation and its implications",[3] states that under reasonable assumptions "Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past."

What part of that don't you understand?

The fourth paragraph.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

I suggest studying arenas which not only support your current position. I instead consider them all and have happily admitted that it is 50/50.

I suggest that when you agree to a debate with someone, you deal with the arguments that is presented.

I also suggest not creating threads of which subjects you aren't prepared to discuss

Yes, as with the other thread you just admitted you lost, not knowing what the opponent proposes, as well as only adhering to info. which supports your existing position, will often times do just this.

Sure, whatever you say.

?