The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Sculptor]

I should have said that "The problem is that spacetime is a huge manifold so it might take a very long time to reach the same point by traveling."

There is absolutely NO warrent for the claim that you reach the same point.
And is utterly illogical to suggest you end up at the same time.

We do by definition in a finite closed manifold.

Nope. It's just a silly circular arguemt of no value.
You can make up as many fake worlds are you like, such as 2D land, but they are neither evidence or possible,]The universe is what it is and nothing more.

[Atla]

There is absolutely NO warrent for the claim that you reach the same point.
And is utterly illogical to suggest you end up at the same time.

We do by definition in a finite closed manifold.

Nope.

But that's what closed means.

[Atla]

There is absolutely NO warrent for the claim that you reach the same point.
And is utterly illogical to suggest you end up at the same time.

We do by definition in a finite closed manifold.

Nope. It's just a silly circular arguemt of no value.
You can make up as many fake worlds are you like, such as 2D land, but they are neither evidence or possible,]The universe is what it is and nothing more.

The only fantasy taken seriously in this discussion is your claim that a closed world is not possible.

[Sculptor]

We do by definition in a finite closed manifold.

Nope. It's just a silly circular arguemt of no value.
You can make up as many fake worlds are you like, such as 2D land, but they are neither evidence or possible,]The universe is what it is and nothing more.

The only fantasy taken seriously in this discussion is your claim that a closed world is not possible.

I did not say that. I said is was a fantasy, neither evident or possible.

[Atla]

Nope. It's just a silly circular arguemt of no value.
You can make up as many fake worlds are you like, such as 2D land, but they are neither evidence or possible,]The universe is what it is and nothing more.

The only fantasy taken seriously in this discussion is your claim that a closed world is not possible.

I did not say that. I said is was a fantasy, neither evident or possible.

neither possible and not possible are different?

[Sculptor]

The only fantasy taken seriously in this discussion is your claim that a closed world is not possible.

I did not say that. I said is was a fantasy, neither evident or possible.

neither possible and not possible are different?

Speculations are not even not possible. They are just fantasies.
Have you not heard of the scientists phrase "not even wrong"?

[Atla]

I did not say that. I said is was a fantasy, neither evident or possible.

neither possible and not possible are different?

Speculations are not even not possible. They are just fantasies.
Have you not heard of the scientists phrase "not even wrong"?

Accusing people of speculations on a forum dedicated in part to speculations, after they even declared that they are speculating.
And saying that speculations in general aren't possible or not even not possible is just plain nonsense.
Have you not heard what kind of claims and speculations the phrase "not even wrong" is used for?

[Sculptor]

neither possible and not possible are different?

Speculations are not even not possible. They are just fantasies.
Have you not heard of the scientists phrase "not even wrong"?

Accusing people of speculations on a forum dedicated in part to speculations, after they even declared that they are speculating.
And saying that speculations in general aren't possible or not even not possible is just plain nonsense.
Have you not heard what kind of claims and speculations the phrase "not even wrong" is used for?

THe universe does not comply to idiot ideas. It is what it is, and that is not the absurdities of this thread.
Speculations have to, AT LEAST, "save the apperances". This fantasy does not.

For example. You might insist that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the stars and planets revolve around it. However the consequence of that theory in the light of the absence os stellar parallax has to mean that either the stars are very close, or that their rotation massively exceeds the speed of light.
This was one of the key reasons why the geocentric hypothesis was abandoned in favour of the helicentric hypothesis of a massive universe.
It is a logical impossibility that if you ga far enough you end up spacially and temorally exactly where you started. And no empirical example is possible of such a thing.

[Atla]

Speculations are not even not possible. They are just fantasies.
Have you not heard of the scientists phrase "not even wrong"?

Accusing people of speculations on a forum dedicated in part to speculations, after they even declared that they are speculating.
And saying that speculations in general aren't possible or not even not possible is just plain nonsense.
Have you not heard what kind of claims and speculations the phrase "not even wrong" is used for?

THe universe does not comply to idiot ideas. It is what it is, and that is not the absurdities of this thread.
Speculations have to, AT LEAST, "save the apperances". This fantasy does not.

For example. You might insist that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the stars and planets revolve around it. However the consequence of that theory in the light of the absence os stellar parallax has to mean that either the stars are very close, or that their rotation massively exceeds the speed of light.
This was one of the key reasons why the geocentric hypothesis was abandoned in favour of the helicentric hypothesis of a massive universe.
It is a logical impossibility that if you ga far enough you end up spacially and temorally exactly where you started. And no empirical example is possible of such a thing.

You mean it seems logically impossible to you because you can't imagine a closed manifold. Which is actually the only fully logical idea.

But here of course we have to discard our inbuilt Kantian/Newtonian conception of absolute space and time container, and try to switch to relational spacetime. Even trying to imagine a glimpse of it is very hard.

[VVilliam]

[
Well, there are two scenarios when it comes to the beginning of the universe: 1) The universe existed at the beginning of time and 2) The universe started to exist at the beginning of time. I will discuss (2) first and then return to (1).

To discuss this further I have to make a distinction between two options namely, time is an element of the universe, and time is not an element of the universe. I can show the first case leads to a regress so it is not acceptable. How does it lead to regress? Well, we have to note that time is needed for any change. It then follows that time is needed for time to begin whether there is a creator or not. This obviously leads to regress. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the universe cannot begin to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, time is not an element of the universe. This leaves us with the second option which is, time is not an element of the universe. Time however in this picture has to have a beginning otherwise we are dealing with eternal time which is logically unacceptable. This is against the first premise of the Kalam argument. The stuff that exists then either brought to existence by the act of creation or existed since the beginning of time. The second case is nothing but (1). I personally don't have any argument against these two cases. Therefore, God cannot be proved or disproved.

The regress is acceptable within the idea of a universe beginning and ending between the two points which allow for time to occur.

This is to say that it doesn't matter that the process involved is an eternal one. Universes come and go but the mind that creates them is eternal, and the universe is an expression within the mind of said creator, which is to say that everything we call the universe re this universe existswiithin the mind of the Creator and no thing exists outside of that Mind as supernaturalism often enough claims, even claiming that the creator (mind) exists outside of the creation.

Time is a component of the Creator mind and is active between beginning and ends.

Even so because the Creator is eternal, time itself is meaningless in regard to the Creator mind and only becomes relevant when the Creator is mindfully involved with the created thing.

[VVilliam]

Accusing people of speculations on a forum dedicated in part to speculations, after they even declared that they are speculating.
And saying that speculations in general aren't possible or not even not possible is just plain nonsense.
Have you not heard what kind of claims and speculations the phrase "not even wrong" is used for?

THe universe does not comply to idiot ideas. It is what it is, and that is not the absurdities of this thread.
Speculations have to, AT LEAST, "save the apperances". This fantasy does not.

For example. You might insist that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the stars and planets revolve around it. However the consequence of that theory in the light of the absence os stellar parallax has to mean that either the stars are very close, or that their rotation massively exceeds the speed of light.
This was one of the key reasons why the geocentric hypothesis was abandoned in favour of the helicentric hypothesis of a massive universe.
It is a logical impossibility that if you ga far enough you end up spacially and temorally exactly where you started. And no empirical example is possible of such a thing.

You mean it seems logically impossible to you because you can't imagine a closed manifold. Which is actually the only fully logical idea.

But here of course we have to discard our inbuilt Kantian/Newtonian conception of absolute space and time container, and try to switch to relational spacetime. Even trying to imagine a glimpse of it is very hard.

Your argument for a loop system where the beginning point is the same as the endpoint works only with the idea of a timeless state between the end a prior universe and before the beginning of whatever unfolds as a new universe.

It appears to be the same point because the end point and the beginning point are similar but what is really occurring is the spiral circular motion of creativity.

In this way a circular repeated universe, exactly the same as the prior one is avoided as a new universe is created rather than an old one recreated.

[Atla]

THe universe does not comply to idiot ideas. It is what it is, and that is not the absurdities of this thread.
Speculations have to, AT LEAST, "save the apperances". This fantasy does not.

For example. You might insist that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the stars and planets revolve around it. However the consequence of that theory in the light of the absence os stellar parallax has to mean that either the stars are very close, or that their rotation massively exceeds the speed of light.
This was one of the key reasons why the geocentric hypothesis was abandoned in favour of the helicentric hypothesis of a massive universe.
It is a logical impossibility that if you ga far enough you end up spacially and temorally exactly where you started. And no empirical example is possible of such a thing.

You mean it seems logically impossible to you because you can't imagine a closed manifold. Which is actually the only fully logical idea.

But here of course we have to discard our inbuilt Kantian/Newtonian conception of absolute space and time container, and try to switch to relational spacetime. Even trying to imagine a glimpse of it is very hard.

Your argument for a loop system where the beginning point is the same as the endpoint works only with the idea of a timeless state between the end a prior universe and before the beginning of whatever unfolds as a new universe.

It appears to be the same point because the end point and the beginning point are similar but what is really occurring is the spiral circular motion of creativity.

In this way a circular repeated universe, exactly the same as the prior one is avoided as a new universe is created rather than an old one recreated.

I'm exactly not talking about cycles and spiralic time. Read back if you want. And no creation of course, if people are psychologically dependent on the idea of a Creator then they can just believe in it without trying to pretend to do so out of a need to be logical.

[Skepdick]

I'm exactly not talking about cycles and spiralic time.

And yet, you only ever speak about time in structuralist terms.

[Sculptor]

Accusing people of speculations on a forum dedicated in part to speculations, after they even declared that they are speculating.
And saying that speculations in general aren't possible or not even not possible is just plain nonsense.
Have you not heard what kind of claims and speculations the phrase "not even wrong" is used for?

THe universe does not comply to idiot ideas. It is what it is, and that is not the absurdities of this thread.
Speculations have to, AT LEAST, "save the apperances". This fantasy does not.

For example. You might insist that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the stars and planets revolve around it. However the consequence of that theory in the light of the absence os stellar parallax has to mean that either the stars are very close, or that their rotation massively exceeds the speed of light.
This was one of the key reasons why the geocentric hypothesis was abandoned in favour of the helicentric hypothesis of a massive universe.
It is a logical impossibility that if you ga far enough you end up spacially and temorally exactly where you started. And no empirical example is possible of such a thing.

You mean it seems logically impossible to you because you can't imagine a closed manifold. Which is actually the only fully logical idea.

No. Because it is self defeating like dry water, or a square circle.

But here of course we have to discard our inbuilt Kantian/Newtonian conception of absolute space and time container, and try to switch to relational spacetime. Even trying to imagine a glimpse of it is very hard.

Why do we have to abandon anything that works so you can have your fantasy?
I'm sure you get hard thinking about it, but your personal life is not my interest.

[Skepdick]

No. Because it is self defeating like dry water, or a square circle.

The notion of a "self-defeat" is incoherent.

If it exists and it satisfies both definitions (square AND circle) simultaneously - how could it possibly defeat itself ?!?

Here is a square circle for you:

https://thatsmaths.com/2012/11/29/where ... -equals-4/