The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:45 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:39 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:27 pm

But you said"The problem is that spacetime is a huge manifold so it takes a very long time to reach the same point by traveling. " and made other positivist statements about the universe.
Make up your mind
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 reach the same point in objective time. That does not mean that the time that a watch shows reset or the same.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8294
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:51 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:45 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:39 pm
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 reach the same point in objective time. That does not mean that the time that a watch shows reset or the same.
You are a confused little puppy.
What do you think it means?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 12:29 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:51 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:45 pm

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 reach the same point in objective time. That does not mean that the time that a watch shows reset or the same.
You are a confused little puppy.
What do you think it means?
A watch shows the passage of time.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8294
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 2:43 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 12:29 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:51 am
We reach the same point in objective time. That does not mean that the time that a watch shows reset or the same.
You are a confused little puppy.
What do you think it means?
A watch shows the passage of time.
Gosh!
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:43 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 2:43 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 12:29 pm

You are a confused little puppy.
What do you think it means?
A watch shows the passage of time.
Gosh!
It does not show you the objective time so going to the same point in the objective time goes unnoticed.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8294
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:47 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:43 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 2:43 pm
A watch shows the passage of time.
Gosh!
It does not show you the objective time so going to the same point in the objective time goes unnoticed.
Where is it objective, and from whose perspective?
Atla
Posts: 6359
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Atla »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:38 am
Atla wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 10:06 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 9:44 pm
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.
Because some people can think beyond the childish conception of space and time that evolution has equipped us with but was refuted.
You of course are incapable of it, as are you incapable of any worthwhile philosophy, and condemn those who are, out of jealousy.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8294
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Sculptor »

Atla wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:33 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:38 am
Atla wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 10:06 pm
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.
Because some people can think beyond the childish conception of space and time that evolution has equipped us with but was refuted.
You of course are incapable of it, as are you incapable of any worthwhile philosophy, and condemn those who are, out of jealousy.
LOL
Yeah I know it's just terrible how Newton and Einstein were just so childish.
So explain again what is your alternative?

And can you say who has refuted it?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:52 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:47 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:43 pm

Gosh!
It does not show you the objective time so going to the same point in the objective time goes unnoticed.
Where is it objective, and from whose perspective?
Where? Could you please rephrase?
Atla
Posts: 6359
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Atla »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:47 pm
Atla wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:33 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:38 am
No. Because it is self defeating like dry water, or a square circle.

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.
Because some people can think beyond the childish conception of space and time that evolution has equipped us with but was refuted.
You of course are incapable of it, as are you incapable of any worthwhile philosophy, and condemn those who are, out of jealousy.
LOL
Yeah I know it's just terrible how Newton and Einstein were just so childish.
So explain again what is your alternative?

And can you say who has refuted it?
Einstein did, you are a confused puppy
Impenitent
Posts: 4272
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Impenitent »

Image

irremovable goggles?

-Imp
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8294
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Sculptor »

Atla wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:54 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:47 pm
Atla wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:33 pm
Because some people can think beyond the childish conception of space and time that evolution has equipped us with but was refuted.
You of course are incapable of it, as are you incapable of any worthwhile philosophy, and condemn those who are, out of jealousy.
LOL
Yeah I know it's just terrible how Newton and Einstein were just so childish.
So explain again what is your alternative?

And can you say who has refuted it?
Einstein did, you are a confused puppy
Jog on!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8294
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:49 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:52 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:47 pm
It does not show you the objective time so going to the same point in the objective time goes unnoticed.
Where is it objective, and from whose perspective?
Where? Could you please rephrase?
It's your game buddy
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by VVilliam »

Atla wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 5:32 am
VVilliam wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:10 am
Atla wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 10:06 pm
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.

There is good logical reason for accepting that the universe is a mindful creation, but not so much that the mind which created it, has to be "supernatural".
Atla
Posts: 6359
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

Post by Atla »

VVilliam wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:59 am
Atla wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 5:32 am
VVilliam wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:10 am

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.

There is good logical reason for accepting that the universe is a mindful creation, but not so much that the mind which created it, has to be "supernatural".
What's the good logical reason? Imo logically the first cause argument just leads to infinite regress - who created the creator, and who created that, and so on.
Post Reply