jayriginal:
Also get ready for 0+0=0, and 0+1=1

You have to show me that either of these equations is mathematically false, before you get on with the sarcasm.

Deep Sight:
There we are. I absolutely knew your reticence on this matter would only lead to very flawed understanding and presentation of what the cosmological argument actually asserts. As it happens, the transcript you have provided is little more than a caricature of the argument.

As follows -



The argument says nothing about creation ex-nihilo - and creation ex-nihilo is only falseful imposed on the argument by whoever you are transcribing from. For something to "begin to exist" does not translate necessarily into creation ex nihilo. A cigarrete begins to exist from the moment it is fully formed in the Tobacco factory. That does not mean it was created ex-nihilo. It simply means that it came to exist, it began to exist as the thing that it NOW is, from the time that it was formed - and from whatever it was formed from.

Now the fact of the the matter is that the universe did have a beginning as we know it - it began with the initial expansion which is called the big b.ang. It is futile to attempt to argue, as I know you will - that the pre-existing singularity was infact the universe - and as such there was no beginning for the universe. The reason such an argument falls flat is simply the fact the the singularity was at best just that - a singularity - and certainly not a universe. A universe is exactly what we see of the cosmos today - and we named it just that exactly because it is the compound field of cosmic bodies which is the universe.

The pre-existent singularity was just that - a singularity - and NOT a universe. Arguing otherwise stretches logic on its head. Indeed i should point out to you that NOBODY actually knows what excatly that singularity was or comprised of. We only have conjecture regarding what it might be. So this is another reason why you cannot state that the singularity was the universe.

Thus you need to understand that the comical rebuttal above falls (x) because the cosmological argument is not necessarily an argument for creation ex nihilo as I have shown you and (y) The universe indeed BEGAN to exist from the moment of the initial expansion called the big ban.g.

Now as I earlier said, and as acknowledged even within the inchoate attempt at a rebuttal which you transcribed above, there is the law of cause and effect. Nobody - and certainly not any one who claims to be scientifically minded - accepts that there can be effects without causes. That is the height of irrational claims. As such, it is self evident that the initial expansion called the big ban.g - which was an event that BEGAN to happen, surely had a cause, or triggering factor. It could not be otherwise, given the laws of motion.

I hope you see in this already that even if I were to accede that the singularity was already the universe (which I by no means accede) - it still remains that the EVENT of the initial expansion called the big ban.g was an EVENT that BEGAN to happen at a point. And as such, it requires a cause, or triggering factor. For the singularity could surely have sat there of all eternity - as, in the mind of the scientist, it must have done already - and what exactly triggered its expansion - the expansion which then formed what we call the universe?

So I hope you can already see that you are making grave presumptions. You seize upon an ill-thought out video rebuttal - a very poor attempt philosophically - an attempt absolutely lacking in depth or rigour, and you gleefully advance such to ME, as your rebuttal of the cosmological argument? That will not wash: its altogether a non-starter as you can see: the very first premise which he so woefully sought to rebutt remains firmly standing as a perfectly correct premise.

I also need you to understand and grasp the over-arching importance of the distinction between necessary elements and contingent elements with regard to the cosmological argument. That is far more pertinent than the mis-footed question of creation ex nihilo. By they way, there is no such thing as nothing in existence anywhere, as nothing = 0[zero].

So start again fella. I think you need to climb down your high horse in this matter as there is clearly no reason for you to be on one in the first place.

@ Jayriginal - in addressing this you need to prove to me that the cosmological argument refers to creation ex nihilo. If you cannot do that, your transcribed rebuttal collapses into a doomed black hole right from its very first attempt.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:
There we are. I absolutely knew your reticence on this matter would only lead to very flawed understanding and presentation of what the cosmological argument actually asserts. As it happens, the transcript you have provided is little more than a caricature of the argument.

bla bla bla

So start again fella. I think you need to climb down your high horse in this matter as there is clearly no reason for you to be on one in the first place.

I already told you in the first place that I wasnt going to argue with you.
You should thank me for transcribing the relevant part of the video for you. I simply gave you as is and without more since you said that you couldnt watch it and since nobody transcribed it either. I didnt provide the video, Mazaje did. I also have not said whether I agree with it or not. You keep jumping the gun when I'm not even running with you.

Deep Sight:
@ Jayriginal - in addressing this you need to prove to me that the cosmological argument refers to creation ex nihilo. If you cannot do that, your transcribed rebuttal collapses into a doomed black hole right from its very first attempt.

You have to show me that either of these equations is mathematically false, before you get on with the sarcasm.

Sarcasm ? Moi ? Au contraire mon ami, I dont have to do squat. I dont earn money here.

Deep Sight:
So I hope you can already see that you are making grave presumptions. You seize upon an ill-thought out video rebuttal - a very poor attempt philosophically - an attempt absolutely lacking in depth or rigour, and you gleefully advance such to ME, as your rebuttal of the cosmological argument? That will not wash: its altogether a non-starter as you can see: the very first premise which he so woefully sought to rebutt remains firmly standing as a perfectly correct premise.

Why the 'ME'? Why the capital letters ?
YOU are the quintessential philosopher arent YOU ? The sole custodian of knowledge perhaps. Maybe YOU are god.
Maybe when YOU revise your style of argumentation, we can actually have one. Your whole response is a presumption and for someone who quipped about diligence and hardwork, YOU cant even recall that YOU asked for a transcription.


YOU need to come down from the clouds. Humility never hurt anyone before.

^^^ Jayriginal,

I thank you for transcribing - however you should understand that in light of your comments that "the cosmological argument is junk", and that there exist many rebuttals, you can see how it could be assumed that the rebuttal you transcribed was one you agreed with. Nevertheless - a statement such as calling the argument "junk" is a very weighty statement and you need to manfully defend such a statement. It wouldn't be worthwhile if i made similar statements and then stoutly refuse to give reasons for such statements. Thus I can only see in your reticence a fear of not being able to sustain the very bold assertion you made earlier, calling it "junk".

Deep Sight: ^^^ Jayriginal,

I thank you for transcribing - however you should understand that in light of your comments that "the cosmological argument is junk", and that there exist many rebuttals, you can see how it could be assumed that the rebuttal you transcribed was one you agreed with. Nevertheless - a statement such as calling the argument "junk" is a very weighty statement and you need to manfully defend such a statement. It wouldn't be worthwhile if i made similar statements and then stoutly refuse to give reasons for such statements. Thus I can only see in your reticence a fear of not being able to sustain the very bold assertion you made earlier, calling it "junk".

Its not a fear as you say, its more of an "I know where this will end up and I dont want to go there". In my initial statement, I didnt say it was junk, I said it had problems built in. You responded by asking "such as" and I said it doesnt lead to a valid conclusion.
Your next comment started the vitriol and in the spirit, I dismissed the C.A. as junk. I still do not think its a valid argument but you need to understand that comment in the heat of the moment.

Now I am not a shy person. Ideally I'd have asked you to open a fresh thread for it. However, I know your ideas and standard responses and quite frankly, what are we going to achieve ? In my current mood, I am simply not ready for another series of pages going back and forth plus I am running late on a project that will set me back about 80k if I do not submit on time. You notice that I said "especially not now" when declining the discussion. That refers to the pressure I'm facing and my current mood.

All I can imagine is a back and forth and at this moment, I'm not ready for that. Seriously.
Maybe later, but not now.

^^^ Alright. Gotcha. No worries.

But vitriol? Where? There has been no vitriol.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Alright. Gotcha. No worries.

But vitriol? Where? There has been no vitriol.

Maybe its my imagination.

Deep Sight
This is what I mean when I say I'm aware of your ideas and standard replies.

Banom v Deep Sight on the Existence of God
https://www.nairaland.com/331016/banom-v-deep-sight-existence/1

Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God
https://www.nairaland.com/315294/atheists-empirical-reasoning-existence-god

The Oneness Of Infinity Explained
https://www.nairaland.com/377521/oneness-infinity-explained

Tudor, Krayola. . . On God Again.
https://www.nairaland.com/343779/tudor-krayola-god-again#msg4812998

The Essentials Of My Deism
https://www.nairaland.com/404066/essentials-deism

^^^ But there is a different spin to every discussion. For example, no one in any of those threads raised an issue about the Cosmological Argument being faulted on grounds of creation ex nihilo.

^^ You are tempting me.
Anyway, I think there is in one of the threads. It may not have been dwelt on extensively but I seem to recall it being mentioned. If its not in the Banom v Deep Sight thread, it may even be on a thread started by someone else. Those threads together give a picture of your ideology (except there have been some undocumented changes).

Anyway, let me tell you a bit about the video Mazaje posted. It appears to be a 3 part series. Mazaje seems to have posted the 3rd part and it runs for 18 minutes. The host of the video speaks quite quickly in order to more efficiently make use of his limited time.
He goes into many things and the kalam argument starts somewhere towards the end of the 6th minute. He then proceeds to use one minute (or less) to address it. He says it is multi flawed but for for the sake of brevity (apparently) chooses to address only the first flaw he finds. Thereafter he moves to the transcendental argument and other things.

The reason I am sharing this is so that you dont mistakenly walk away with the notion that the video was made to rebut the C.A.
There are other problems to the the C.A that will require explanations of an uncaused causer and so on as I explained to mazaje. The C.A has assumptions built into it. Take those assumptions away and theres nothing left.

Anyhoo, my lips are sealed for now. I must resist the temptation.

How Neo Darwinian theory destroyed America


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUpMvqnoBG0

Communist rule [Includes the religion of Evolution]

Upon taking power in late 1944, the communist regime gave high priority to reopening the schools and organizing the whole education system to reflect communist ideology. The regime's objectives for the new school system were to wipe out illiteracy in the country as soon as possible, to struggle against "bourgeois survivals" in the country's culture, to transmit to Albanian youth the ideas and principles of communism as interpreted by the party, and finally to educate the children of all social classes on the basis of these principles. The 1946 communist constitution made it clear that the regime intended to bring all children under the control of the state. All schools were soon placed under state management. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Albania

These Are Not Negotiable
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of........
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin620.htm
by Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Creation, Evolution & Science Ministries
Russ Miller
http://www.creationministries.org/index.aspx

mazaje:

Here are what some Christians have said about the bible and its support for slavery. . . .

"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God, it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation, it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.". Rev Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.", Rev. R. Furman D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

The Hebrew and Greek words used for "slave" are the same words used for "servant" and "bondservant". A servant or bondservant is a person who works and is paid a wage while person who works without being paid a wage is also a servant. Which type of "slavery" do you think the Bible condemned?

mazaje:
You made the ridiculous claim that we all descended for one man and woman, if your claim is true then there should be DNA evidence to back it up,since there isn't then it means you are talking trash. . .

If you want scientific evidence they abound. Simple calculation of world population will give you today's population when you start with 8 people 4500 years ago and guess where those 8 people came from? Adam and Eve.

mazaje:
People know Jesus experimentally differently with no acceptable set of rules, so your talk makes no sense. . .

The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.

Experiential Faith

"And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." -- John 17:3 The Evidence Bible

Our faith isn't intellectual; it is experiential. We don't know about God, we know Him. At the University of Chicago Divinity School, each year they have what is called "Baptist Day." It is a day when the school invites all the Baptists in the area to the school because they want the Baptist dollars to keep coming in.

On this day each one is to bring a lunch to be eaten outdoors in a grassy picnic area. Every "Baptist Day" the school would invite one of the greatest minds to lecture in the theological education centre. One year they invited Dr. Paul Tillich. Dr. Tillich spoke for two and a half hours proving that the resurrection of Jesus was false. He quoted scholar after scholar and book after book. He concluded that since there was no such thing as the historical resurrection, the religion tradition of the Church was groundless, emotional mumbo jumbo, because it was based on a relationship with a risen Jesus, who, in fact, never rose from the dead in any literal sense. He then asked if there were any questions.

After about 30 seconds, an old preacher with a head of short-cropped, woolly white hair stood up in the back of the audience. "Docta Tillich, I got one question," he said as all eyes turned toward him. He reached into his lunch sack and pulled out an apple and began eating it. "Docta Tillich (CRUNCH MUNCH), my question is a simple one (CRUNCH MUNCH). Now, I ain't never read them books you read (CRUNCH MUNCH), and I can't recite the Scriptures in the original Greek (CRUNCH MUNCH). I don't know nothin' about Niebuhr and Heidegger (CRUNCH MUNCH). He finished the apple. "All I wanna know is: This apple I just ate -- was it bitter or sweet?"

Dr. Tillich paused for a moment and answered in exemplary scholarly fashion: "I cannot possibly answer that question, for I haven't tasted your apple." The white-haired preacher dropped the apple core into his crumpled paper bag, looked up at Dr. Tillich and said calmly, "Neither have you tasted my Jesus."

The 1,000-plus in attendance could not contain themselves. The auditorium erupted with applause and cheers. Dr. Tillich thanked his audience and promptly left the platform.

"Taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusts in him" (Psalm 34:8 ).

It has been well said, "The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument."

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also of celestial bodies, and bodies terrestial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestial is another" (1 Corinthians 15:39-40). The Evidence Bible.

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God nothing evolved.

Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as stated ten times in Genesis 1:1. Dogs do not produce cats. Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry. Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs. They vary in species from the Chihuahuas to St Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat/dog) throughout God's creation. Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs, and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits. God made apes as apes, and man as man. Each creature brings forth after its own kind. That's no theory; that's a fact.

jayriginal: ^^ You are tempting me.
Anyway, I think there is in one of the threads. It may not have been dwelt on extensively but I seem to recall it being mentioned. If its not in the Banom v Deep Sight thread, it may even be on a thread started by someone else. Those threads together give a picture of your ideology (except there have been some undocumented changes).

Actually going through the threads I can see that naturally, my views today have evolved from some of the things I said back then. Not changed altogether - but there has been some evolution.

Also I still do not see anywhere where creation ex nihilo was used to unhinge the cosmological argument. Since this gentleman here in the video has done so, I wish to absoilutely state that I regard it as a mis-footed rebuttal for teh simple reason the "begin to exist" does not necessarily refer to creation ex nihilo, as he claimed. Secondly it needs to be known the there are many phrasings and re-phrasings of the argument but the central theme is about a commencement requiring a cause. The big ban.g as an event remains a commencement as thus that event requires a cause under the laws of motion. For me, this is quite solid reasoning.

I use the cosmological argument and the laws of motion to assert the requirement for a cause: I personally do not use same argument only, when going further to describe what that cause must be. For that, there are other arguments.

^^
Alright; fine.

1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist

We do not necessarily know that these first two are correct. It does "sound" correct but we do not necessarily know so.
Only if we accept BOTH premises can we move to the conclusion.
3. The Universe has a cause

Now can you really claim to have absolute knowledge of the truth of the first two premises or you are just going with what your natural experience suggests to you ?

As an example, the early man would have known that anything he throws up would come down (if unhindered). In that light, he would imagine (going by natural experience)that if he could throw an object far enough (like into space) it would still come down. We know better today but he didnt.
Therefore, on what grounds do you hold the first two premises to be true ?

Deep Sight:
The big ban.g as an event remains a commencement as thus that event requires a cause under the laws of motion. For me, this is quite solid reasoning.
I use the cosmological argument and [b]the laws of motion [/b]to assert the requirement for a cause: I personally do not use same argument only, when going further to describe what that cause must be. For that, there are other arguments.

About Newton's laws of motion,you ignore physicists' claims that classical mechanics don't apply at the quantum level. if they don't, then the last part of the argument falls apart. If you're going to use physics, you should use the type associated with that scale.
Heisenberg principle, quantum foam etc. You should check it out

Deep Sight, here for your consideration, is part of a debate between William Craig and Professor Stenger

Cosmological Argument

Dr Craig argues that:

Whatever begins must have a cause
The universe had a beginning
Therefore the universe must have had a cause

Not everything that begins has a Cause

However, we know from physics that not everything that begins has a cause. Physical bodies begin to exist all the time without cause. Let’s consider radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, the alpha particle or beta particle or gamma particle that are emitted in a radioactive decay, those particles coming into being, come into existence, begin to exist spontaneously, without a cause. The beginning of the Big Bang the universe was like a subatomic particle, so these ideas could apply. Again, I can’t prove it but I don’t have to prove it. Here is one example that refutes Dr Craig’s claim that everything that begins must have a cause.

Is the Big Bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning?

But even if everything that begins has a cause, this does not necessary apply to the universe if the universe did not have a beginning. (MY EDIT: Just like GOD is made an exemption)

Dr Craig argues that the Big Bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning. However, the universe need not have begun with the Big Bang. And I’m not just talking about this one particular speculation from my book. There are many prominent physicists and cosmologists who publish papers in reputable scientific journals proposing various scenarios by which the Big Bang appeared naturally out of a pre-existing universe that need not itself have had a beginning. One such recent example is the Cyclic Universe.

Does an infinite universe have a beginning?

Dr Craig also claims that the universe had to begin because if it were infinitely old, it would take an infinite time to reach the present.

However, if the universe is infinitely old, then it had no beginning – not a beginning infinitely long ago. Furthermore, the universe can be finite – and I actually believe that the universe is finite – it can be finite and still not have a beginning.

The Universe can be finite and still not have a beginning

Einstein defined time as what you read on a clock. It’s a number, the number of ticks of the clock. We count time forward time: one, two, three, four, five ticks. We never reach infinitive time. We can also count time backward and never reach minus infinity. The notion that the universe had either a beginning or will have an end are theological notions, not scientific ones.
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher./2009/12/20/craig-stenger-transcript/

Note: You may wish to disregard the parts talking about time.
The point is made concerning the first two premises.

Martian:
About Newton's laws of motion,you ignore physicists' claims that classical mechanics don't apply at the quantum level. if they don't, then the last part of the argument falls apart. If you're going to use physics, you should use the type associated with that scale.
Heisenberg principle, quantum foam etc. You should check it out

O we have been down the quantum lane on this forum quite a bit, and it was suggested that virtual particles in a quantum vacuum derive from nothing and have no cause. As I recall it, I had to correct the "scientist" who made that suggestion by showing him that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum and that these vacuums in fact contain low gaseuous pressure.

If you have something to add to that, please say, because it was quite a thorough discussion -

https://www.nairaland.com/393099/evolution-proves-creation/1#6849507

Make sure you check out the post above before reverting please.

As for the uncertainty principle - it has no bearing on, and does not unhinge basic logic on causation. People who think so are running ahead of themselves on an idea that they do no grasp.

jayriginal:
^^
Alright; fine.

1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist

We do not necessarily know that these first two are correct. It does "sound" correct but we do not necessarily know so.
Only if we accept BOTH premises can we move to the conclusion.
3. The Universe has a cause

Now can you really claim to have absolute knowledge of the truth of the first two premises or you are just going with what your natural experience suggests to you ?

As an example, the early man would have known that anything he throws up would come down (if unhindered). In that light, he would imagine (going by natural experience)that if he could throw an object far enough (like into space) it would still come down. We know better today but he didnt.
Therefore, on what grounds do you hold the first two premises to be true ?

Its simple logic really. It doesn't say that everything that exists has a cause. It says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And that only stands to reason. A beginning of anything certainly requires a triggering factor. Otherwise exactly why would anything "begin." It is very unscientific and very illogical to contest that. The very business of science is to seek out the causes of phenomena, is it not?

Only a thing said to be timeless or eternal can logically be advanced as something that is causeless - for the simple reason that it does not change or move anywhere. If something as much as changes state, there must be a reason for that. This much we can rationally take to the bank.


[/quote]

Cosmological Argument

Dr Craig argues that:

Whatever begins must have a cause
The universe had a beginning
Therefore the universe must have had a cause

Not everything that begins has a Cause

However, we know from physics that not everything that begins has a cause. Physical bodies begin to exist all the time without cause. Let’s consider radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, the alpha particle or beta particle or gamma particle that are emitted in a radioactive decay, those particles coming into being, come into existence, begin to exist spontaneously, without a cause. The beginning of the Big slam the universe was like a subatomic particle, so these ideas could apply. Again, I can’t prove it but I don’t have to prove it. Here is one example that refutes Dr Craig’s claim that everything that begins must have a cause.

Is the Big slam is evidence that the universe had a beginning?

But even if everything that begins has a cause, this does not necessary apply to the universe if the universe did not have a beginning. (MY EDIT: Just like GOD is made an exemption)

Dr Craig argues that the Big slam is evidence that the universe had a beginning. However, the universe need not have begun with the Big slam. And I’m not just talking about this one particular speculation from my book. There are many prominent physicists and cosmologists who publish papers in reputable scientific journals proposing various scenarios by which the Big slam appeared naturally out of a pre-existing universe that need not itself have had a beginning. One such recent example is the Cyclic Universe.

Does an infinite universe have a beginning?

Dr Craig also claims that the universe had to begin because if it were infinitely old, it would take an infinite time to reach the present.

However, if the universe is infinitely old, then it had no beginning – not a beginning infinitely long ago. Furthermore, the universe can be finite – and I actually believe that the universe is finite – it can be finite and still not have a beginning.

The Universe can be finite and still not have a beginning

Einstein defined time as what you read on a clock. It’s a number, the number of ticks of the clock. We count time forward time: one, two, three, four, five ticks. We never reach infinitive time. We can also count time backward and never reach minus infinity. The notion that the universe had either a beginning or will have an end are theological notions, not scientific ones.
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher./2009/12/20/craig-stenger-transcript/

My friend, this is simply trying to hard on the part of this person. The centre of his contention is the idea that the universe may not have had a beginning. I will tell you straight away why that is not consistent with pure philosophical logic.

1. Anything that does not require a beginning is thus a self-existent thing

2. Self-existent things are immutable

3. Matter is mutable and subject to change of state

4. Ergo, matter is not self-existent.

5. Ergo, matter, not being self-existent, must logically have a beginning.

6. Ergo, the Universe, being comprised of matter, has a beginning.

Now having said the foregoing I still need to point out that his presuppositions take nothing away from the cosmological argument even with the cyclical model - this is for the simple reason that the commencement of each cycle would still represent an event - a fresh expansion - which clearly cannot be uncaused. When we add this to the twin facts that (x) 1 - 6 above show that matter cannot be eternal in the past as it is mutable and thus not self existent and (y)the cyclical model is absolute speculation at this time - THEN it emerges that this in either event cannot be an argument that takes anything away from the Cosmological Argument.

I need to addittionally mention that it is particularly sad how scientists are quick to condemn speculations of non-scientific theorists, and yet advance adsolutely speculative theories themselves - such as the cyclical model - a completely unproven, and purely hypothetical idea - as a notion that should be taken seriously in contradiction of an argument that rests on such clear simplicity as established notions of cause and effect, as well as the self evidential laws of motion - which is what the cosmological argument rests on.

This then leads the so called scientists to produce damningly unscientific notions such as things emerging uncaused out of nothing - an idea which proper scientists should be the first to call out as pure fantastic and imaginary black magic.

The Universe can be finite and still not have a beginning

And, pardon me, but these are the sorts of ill-informed, hopelessly contradictory statements that make it difficult for me to take some of these folk seriously.

What is the very meaning of the word finite? What is infinite? How does the finte be infinte in the past? And if it were, we would not have a measurable finite universe today. We will have an infinite universe - which is not the case. I am certain you will not endorse this iredeemable and obviously desperate contradiction.

jayriginal:
You know, I wrote paragraphs after your previous post, buttressing you. However at the last minute, I wiped it all off.
I dont want to give Ola a soft landing. Either he proves the impossible or he watches his mouth next time around.


god never changes is a mantra.
However god was sufficiently scared of its creation to destroy the tower of Babel.
Today god has recovered from its inferiority complex to endure missions to mars, the moon et al.
it is so cool with it, it even lets us build space stations.
Too bad it doesnt exist 

Verrrrryyyyyy hilarioussss. I wan die wit LWKMD,oh wetin I dey write sef? Lol

Deep Sight:
O we have been down the quantum lane on this forum quite a bit, and it was suggested that virtual particles in a quantum vacuum derive from nothing and have no cause. As I recall it, I had to correct the "scientist" who made that suggestion by showing him that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum and that these vacuums in fact contain low gaseuous pressure.

The "scientist" you corrected probably wasn't a physicist. But if you say classical mechanics apply at the quantum level,then that's cool too. Afterall you are a physicist who've dont some lab work on the subject.

Deep Sight:
As for the uncertainty principle - it has no bearing on, and does not unhinge basic logic on causation. People who think so are running ahead of themselves on an idea that they do no grasp.

lol. You [b]love [/b]to say this. People who disagree with you don't quite grasp whatever concept the discussion is about.
But you're right.

Martian:

The "scientist" you corrected probably wasn't a physicist. But if you say classical mechanics apply at the quantum level,then that's cool too. Afterall you are a physicist who've dont some lab work on the subject.

Ha, are you being sarcastic. I be lawyer na.

I just will not be intimidated by scientific concepts because while my mates were scaling the wall in Kings College looking for women, I spent all my time in the library reading up the Encycloapaedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopaedia. I am no physcist, but I will not be pushed around with false science.

lol. You [b]love [/b]to say this. People who disagree with you don't quite grasp whatever concept the discussion is about.
But you're right.

On the virtual particles issue, the "scientific" gentleman was clearly out of his depth.

Deep Sight:

Its simple logic really. It doesn't say that everything that exists has a cause. It says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And that only stands to reason. A beginning of anything certainly requires a triggering factor. Otherwise exactly why would anything "begin." It is very unscientific and very illogical to contest that. The very business of science is to seek out the causes of phenomena, is it not?

Only a thing said to be timeless or eternal can logically be advanced as something that is causeless - for the simple reason that it does not change or move anywhere. If something as much as changes state, there must be a reason for that. This much we can rationally take to the bank.

Very good. Correction taken.
My question is still the same albeit with a slight modification.
My main point of interest now is premise 2 ie The Universe began to exist. Before that I will still ask you how you know that Premise 1 (Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause) is correct.
I gave you an example of an early man throwing things upwards. Surely to that man, it would be illogical to suggest that if he threw an object as far as possible upwards it would not return to earth. Infact, to that man, if he were of a creative bent, he may even examine the thought that it would take an exceedingly long time for the object to return to the ground, but no matter how long, it would still come down. This at that hypothetical time, would be an assertion that he could "take to the bank".
Now I need to know the source of your confidence because to me it seems you are evaluating things in light of your human/logical experience. That will not satisfy me. Remember I talked about assumptions being built into the CA ? The CA is composed entirely of assumptions.
Will you be able to satisfy me that you know these things (as opposed to "intuiting" them? ).

On to the 2nd premise, how do you know the Universe BEGAN to exist ? Were you there ?
If from your response above you clarified that it doesnt say that everything that exists has a cause (emphasis on begins), what we know for sure is that the Universe exists (or at least we think so). What we do not know is whether it BEGAN to exist. By my normal experience everything must have a maker/cause. I know enough to realise that not everything is as it seems. You on the other hand claim to know for sure what you cannot possibly KNOW at this point in time.
Its one thing to be persuasive, its another to be binding authoritative, and here you would have us take it on your authority that the Universe indeed BEGAN and has a cause (as well as the proposition that whatever begins to exist has a cause).
That Sir, will not stand. Seriously !

Also can anything really be said to be timeless ? I want you to think about that very carefully. It may be crucial in this discussion (or maybe not).

Deep Sight:

My friend, this is simply trying to hard on the part of this person. The centre of his contention is the idea that the universe may not have had a beginning. I will tell you straight away why that is not consistent with pure philosophical logic.

1. Anything that does not require a beginning is thus a self-existent thing

2. Self-existent things are immutable

3. Matter is mutable and subject to change of state

4. Ergo, matter is not self-existent.

5. Ergo, matter, not being self-existent, must logically have a beginning.

6. Ergo, the Universe, being comprised of matter, has a beginning.

Now having said the foregoing I still need to point out that his presuppositions take nothing away from the cosmological argument even with the cyclical model - this is for the simple reason that the commencement of each cycle would still represent an event - a fresh expansion - which clearly cannot be uncaused. When we add this to the twin facts that (x) 1 - 6 above show that matter cannot be eternal in the past as it is mutable and thus not self existent and (y)the cyclical model is absolute speculation at this time - THEN it emerges that this in either event cannot be an argument that takes anything away from the Cosmological Argument.

Ok I may be wrong here but I believe matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. We cannot talk about matter without mass can we ? If it did not have mass it wouldnt be matter would it ? I also believe mass can neither be created not destroyed (same as energy).
If this is correct, your x 1-6 fails particularly 5.

I need to addittionally mention that it is particularly sad how scientists are quick to condemn speculations of non-scientific theorists, and yet advance adsolutely speculative theories themselves - such as the cyclical model - a completely unproven, and purely hypothetical idea - as a notion that should be taken seriously in contradiction of an argument that rests on such clear simplicity as established notions of cause and effect, as well as the self evidential laws of motion - which is what the cosmological argument rests on.

This then leads the so called scientists to produce damningly unscientific notions such as things emerging uncaused out of nothing - an idea which proper scientists should be the first to call out as pure fantastic and imaginary black magic.

This part I think you have wrong. One may speculate and then test. It is the way of science. You have to admit that some (not all) unscientific theories are inherently absurd. Some seem to present an epiphany but of what use is it if we all agree with the seemingly most logical assertion. We would nod to ourselves and that would be it. IGNORANCE. Heck, if you never questioned your beliefs, you wouldnt be a deist today. Therefore, when an assertion is made, regardless of the fact that it seems to be truth or the most logical, it still needs to be verified. In truth, the CA is nothing more than a bunch of unverified assumptions and I would still have said so science or not. Science has little bearing on my views as Ive sought to make clear on this forum. I do however place more trust in it than "god did it" explanations.

Deep Sight:
As for the uncertainty principle - it has no bearing on, and does not unhinge basic logic on causation. People who think so are running ahead of themselves on an idea that they do no grasp.

Martian:
You love [/b]to say this. People who disagree with you don't quite grasp whatever concept the discussion is about.
But you're right.

Seconded actually.

Deep Sight:

Ha, are you being sarcastic. I be lawyer na.

I just will not be intimidated by scientific concepts because while my mates were scaling the wall in Kings College looking for women, I spent [b]all my time in the library reading up the Encycloapaedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopaedia. I am no physcist, but I will not be pushed around with false science.

Which begs the question, how do you distinguish false from real science. In my humble opinion its the extent to which your views are confirmed. The first step in knowledge is an admission of ignorance.
I maintain that you cannot possibly know that the CA is true. You simply intuit it.


EDIT:
I want to remind you that it was once logical to assert that the earth was flat. Its now illogical. What is conventional wisdom now may not be tomorrow.

Let me give another illustration, one closer to home.
Now suppose we imagine practice like 10 years back. Suppose you were seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the adverse party from building on the land while the suit was pending. Suppose you came armed with an affidavit and motion to argue the injunction. Suppose the adverse party came with photoshopped pictures showing that no construction was in fact going on on the land. Suppose there is no provision for a visit to the locus in quo. Now ignore all the problems with this scenario and assume that this is normal.
Place yourself in the position of the judge. You came only with your affidavit and motion paper (forget frontloading for now) the other man came with his counters plus his photoshopped forgery. The judge will see "evidence" and most likely even if you are on the side of truth, the ruling will likely swing the other way. You may even be confused yourself

Deep Sight:
I just will not be intimidated by scientific concepts because while my mates were scaling the wall in Kings College looking for women, I spent all my time in the library reading up the Encycloapaedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopaedia. I am no physcist, but I will not be pushed around with false science.

of course you shouldn't be intimidated by scientific concepts But keep in my that the people who came up with quantum theory didn't gain their expertise from encyclopedias but from research. You and I can only read and learn about it after the fact because we are not scientists.

Deep Sight:
I am no physcist, but I will not be pushed around with false science

Are you saying Quantum mechanics is false and do you disagree with physicists who said classical mechanics don't work at that level? It seems whatever confirms your views is good science and what doesn't is false. I say this because you've opposed mainstream science like evolution and now QM but you don't feel the same about the pseudoscientific ideas. In fact, if pseudoscience supports your ideas, you embrace it.

OLAADEGBU:

The Hebrew and Greek words used for "slave" are the same words used for "servant" and "bondservant". A servant or bondservant is a person who works and is paid a wage while person who works without being paid a wage is also a servant. Which type of "slavery" do you think the Bible condemned?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

You don't purcahse bond servants and treat them as your property do you? You only do that to your slaves. . .I know its always good for you to tell lies for Jesus but the bible is very clear and the God it talks about is a great advocate of slavery. . . .

If you want scientific evidence they abound. Simple calculation of world population will give you today's population when you start with 8 people 4500 years ago and guess where those 8 people came from? Adam and Eve.

This is a lie. . .There is no such calculations. . .If your nonsense claim is true you should be able to provide the DNA evidence to back up your nonsensical claim that humans all decended from one man and one woman. . .Where is the DNA evidence? if it is true then the DNA evidence will trace all humans to one man and one woman. . .

The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.

And your nonsensical argument tells you that the universe is 6000 years old, eh? Clap for your self. . .

Martian:

of course you shouldn't be intimidated by scientific concepts But keep in my that the people who came up with quantum theory didn't gain their expertise from encyclopedias but from research. You and I can only read and learn about it after the fact because we are not scientists.

Fair comment. I only mentioned my preoccupation whilst in school to convey my inclination to read about things outside my own field of study. For this reason I must certainly question things that are put to me under the guise of science, but which any layman's slight research could show up as very unscientific.

Are you saying Quantum mechanics is false and do you disagree with physicists who said classical mechanics don't work at that level?

I did not say anything is false. However there are many false interpretations of observed phenomena by "scientists" who are desperate to prove some fundamental classical ideas wrong. One such false interpretation is the idea that things may emerge from nothing - a very false interpretation given to the observation of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. It took me only the slightest of reading to show that interpretation up as false: because quantum vacuums are not nothing - and there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

I am a lawyer, not a physcist - I would have had no way to know these if I had not cultivated a habit of reading.

O, and by the way, yes indeed, there are some very fundamental principles that do not break down at any level: be it quantum level or Aso Rock level. One such principle is that whatever BEGINS to exist must have a cause. This is an eternal principle embedded into the nature of reality that cannot and does not break down at any level, be it ogogoro or Henessy high.

It seems whatever confirms your views is good science and what doesn't is false.

Naturally!

I say this because you've opposed mainstream science like evolution and now QM

BE VERY CAREFUL MARTIAN - BE CAREFUL NOT TO MISREPRESENT ME: I HAVE NEVER OPPOSED THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION EVEN ONCE ANYWHERE ON THIS FORUM, AND THAT IS BECAUSE I ACCEPT THE BROAD GENERAL IDEA OF EVOLUTION SO PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE ME OUT OF CONTEXT ON THAT. NEITHER HAVE I TRIED TO FALSIFY QM, I HAVE SIMPLY SHOWN UP THE FALSE INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT "SCIENTISTS' USE IT FOR - FOR EXAMPLE THE VIRTUAL PARTICLES CASE!

but you don't feel the same about the pseudoscientific ideas. In fact, if pseudoscience supports your ideas, you embrace it.

No doubt, here you are referring to my ancient aliens. Please note that I did not advance the idea to you as a fact that I asserted it to be so. I advanced it to you as a possibility to think about. Its and interesting topic. Nor did i use psuedoscience anywhere to prove anything. I tried to ask the possible meanings of ancient artworks, thats all.

mazaje:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

You don't purcahse bond servants and treat them as your property do you? You only do that to your slaves. . .I know its always good for you to tell lies for Jesus but the bible is very clear and the God it talks about is a great advocate of slavery. . . .

Slaves under the Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of U.S and U.K. or even the Arabs did to our African ancestors. They were more like servants or bondservants. The Israelites and in some cases foreigners, could sell themselves as bondservants or slaves to have their debts cancelled, for wages or even for accommodation and then be made free after 6 years. Do you know how Capitalism can be a form of slave trade today?

mazaje:

This is a lie. . .There is no such calculations. . .If your nonsense claim is true you should be able to provide the DNA evidence to back up your nonsensical claim that humans all decended from one man and one woman. . .Where is the DNA evidence? if it is true then the DNA evidence will trace all humans to one man and one woman. . .

And your nonsensical argument tells you that the universe is 6000 years old, eh? Clap for your self. . .

See your calculations and evidence demonstrated in the suggested videoclip below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY

^^^ Can you just stop this annoying habit of videos and cartoons please? ? ? U no be pikin na.

OLAADEGBU:

Slaves under the Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of U.S and U.K. or even the Arabs did to our African ancestors. They were more like servants or bondservants. The Israelites and in some cases foreigners, could sell themselves as bondservants or slaves to have their debts cancelled, for wages or even for accommodation and then be made free after 6 years. Do you know how Capitalism can be a form of slave trade today?

The more you lie, the more I keep showing you from the bible. . . .When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

You can beat you slave as much as you want since they are your property which can be passed on to your kids as inheritance as the previous verse said, you will only be punished when they die. . . .

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Leviticus 25:44

Here it states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down and can be treated ruthlessly only Jews are not allowed to be treated ruthlessly .

See your calculations and evidence demonstrated in the suggested videoclip below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY

The people in that video are completely deluded, this video is a waste of time and a complete nonsense, only fraudsters will make such videos. . . .You said that all humans came from one man and one woman, now we have advanced so much that such an assertion can be verified using the DNA. . .Where is the DNA evidence to show that all humans descended from one man and one woman? You should have provided the evidence already if your nonsense assertion is true, pls hurry up and provide the DNA evidence it shouldn't be hard for you instead of posting a nonsensical video of men that don't know what they are saying. . .