Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[Goat]

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

Uh. yes it has been shown to be faulty. You can not show the premises to be true.

Nor, can you show any reasonable logic to jump from 'There is a first cause' , to 'The first cause was a personal agent' .. the 'logic' that Craig uses is one big logical fallacy.

It's one giant appeal to personal belief.

Your comments seem cavalier. KCA is certainly a valid argument (which does not require true premises), and it has not been unequivocally proven unsound (i.e. the premises proven to be false). There are arguments for and against the premises, but there are no proofs the premises are correct or incorrect. If it's an appeal to personal beliefs, it is such an appeal in either direction.

To be clear, I'm referring to the core KCA - not Craig's faith-based leaps from it, in which he insists the first cause "must be" a personal agent. The core is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Can you name 1 thing that 'began to exist' that was not a reformation of preexisting matter/energy'??? What do you mean by 'began to exist'?

2. The universe began to exist.

Can you show that the 'universe began to exist', and was not a reformation of a
pre-existing condition??

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
[/quote]

I assume you question premise #1, but accept premise #2 - am I right? My contention is that premise #1 is neither proven nor disproven, but it is plausible to accept it because it is intuitive, and is not disproven. This makes KCA a reasonable argument (not a mathematical PROOF per se, because of the equivocal nature of premise #1).[/quote]

No, I am challenging number 2 also. We do not know the conditions of things before the Planck epoch,, so how can you say that 'the universe began to exist'?
I can point out that 'matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed' as evidence number 2 is invalid.

[charris]

I see two consequences; tell me if you agree with them.
1) If entropy is the cause of time, and past time is infinite, then entropy also had no beginning. Looking back through the infinite past, as time approaches -∞, entropy becomes smaller and smaller; there can be no minimum entropy (there could be an asymptotal limit, but not an absolute limit).

The entropy before our universe wouldn't have any affect on the entropy of our universe. We know that the entropy of our universe was extremely small when inflation happened, and it increases from there. But, on the quantum level, as far as we know, entropy doesn't have any noticeable affects. If quantum fields are what came before our universe and exist for an infinite time, which is what I would hold, then there would be no entropy to take into account. This is speculative, however, given that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

If there was no entropy to take in to account, and entropy is the cause of time, wouldn't this imply there was no progression of time?

On the microscopic scale, there is no such thing as progression of time. There is no one point that you can distinguish from any other.

He said I do not doubt that the universe was created by God but I wonder if he could have created it any other way, or words to that effect.

No, Einstein asked whether God had a choice in making the universe, and he used God figuratively. He expressed clearly and numerously that he did not believe in a personal god, but that the laws of the universe were god (pantheism). He was nowhere near being a christian.

In addition Hawking tells us that he does not believe that the universe began. He is wrong on that count too. You do know that he was proven wrong and admitted so by forfeiting a bet. And he has changed his mind about one of his very pet theories concerning black holes and information. Ie Information can escape from black holes after all. So I would be careful while using Hawkins exclusively.

Wrong again. Hawking's bet had nothing to do with the origins of the universe, but what happens to information when it falls into a black hole. The recipient of the bet stated that Hawking's forfeit was premature, regardless. If I were you, I would actually check the information you get. He still holds to the no-boundaries model of the universe. While I disagree with it, it is still a plausible explanation that has not been proven wrong, despite what you say.

Again much like Einstein may have thought about God, but I feel Einstein’s God may have been a bit more personal.

No. Einstein said the idea of a personal god is childish.

Nevertheless one of his friends had this to say about Hawking; Gary Gibbons. "His style of doing science is quite dramatic: he will propose a thesis and defend it to the last, until it is overthrown by better reasoning."

What is wrong with this, exactly?

So again while I admire Hawking I believe his atheism which gives rise to rid science of traditional Big Bang theory,

He never tried to "rid science of traditional Big Bang theory." I'm questioning where you got your information. He and Penrose both stated in their papers developing the singularity theory for the beginning of the universe that it ignored quantum mechanics, and therefore is not likely to actually happen. Unfortunately, people tend to ignore that little fact.

and failing that to eliminate God from the grand scheme (and also failing)

You don't need Stephen Hawking to eliminate any god from creation. Simple logic and reasoning does that on it's own.

limits him, and has caused much of his failures, again much like like Einstein attempting to disprove QFT (Quantum field theory).

Ad hominem. Religion does not make a person wrong, evidence does. While Einstein doubted quantum mechanics (not just qft, by the way. He doubted many things that arose from even his own theories.), that does not make his theories of relativity wrong.

It is more a philosophical question than a scientific question at this point in time. Until the math begins to point toward something there is no reason to speculate.

I think you mean a quantum theory of gravity... There are numerous scientific and mathematical explanations otherwise.

A scientist recently said “The staggering amount of evidence in support of the Big Bang theory is simply overwhelming. So much so that the theory simply cannot now be overturned. What is known to agree with the theory today cannot be changed tomorrow, by any theory�.

Argument from anonymous authority. Without the context, he could mean a number of things. I'm unaware of any working physicist that thinks the universe began in a singularity, so maybe you can shed light on that. However, the current understanding of BB theory DOES NOT state the universe came from a singularity.

So, the big bang is just a theory like evolution is just a theory. And, (again) I do not reject any theory of beginnings and even encourage new and alternative theories of how the universe began. I would be bored to tears if the BB were the only thing out there, God is the only singular thing that I can conceive of as, well a singular that represents everything.

You misunderstand the definition of 'theory.' You know that heliocentrism is a theory too, right? Both the BB, evolution, and heliocentrism are well tested and it would take a tremendous amount of evidence and explanations to explain why these would be incorrect. They're not leaving us any time soon.

Yes I am deadly serious. The BB fits theology like a glove. Many a secular scientists already admit that fact. However as I said I do not rule out any theory secular on non secular. I just happen to think when all the evidences are stacked up the theist side has 99% of the chips on their side!

Not even close. The BB can easily explain the universe without a creator. That's just you adding in your own personal opinion. We tend to keep that out of science.

If you would be so kind as to give me a breif abstract as to your biggest concern against the KCA we will see? I like to debate in good faith because its how I learn, and you seem very civil, give and take debate partner.

P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Not in quantum mechanics.
P2) The universe began to exist. Not necessarily.
Therefore, the universe has a cause. Failed to be demonstrated.
That cause must be personal. Not even close.

Here's what Dan Barker asks about the KCA:

1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist? If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question? If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe and how have they been eliminated?
2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world? If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question? If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself? If not, then how can its 'beginning' be compared with other beginnings?

I would appreciate if you can address these three objections, and the ones that I myself made.

Maybe its your ignorance that is the problem? Please leave the peeing contests in the Junior High locker room where it belongs, I neither have the time nor the patience for such wastes of time. I simply do not take insults well and reward respect with respect and insult with insult, and the members of this forum don't deserve to hear an personal argument between a theist and an atheist (or an ?) when a nice discussion is so easy to have instead.

Then if you could be so kind as to point out the insult I would appreciate that. It seems to me that you just don't like it when someone points out what the actual cosmology states or calls you out on your outdated understanding of the Big Bang theory. No one is having a peeing contest but you, and no one was insulting anyone until your post right here. Please actually be respectful and try to have a civil conversation without getting angry when someone calls you out on something you clearly don't understand.

Read the first three min lecture you will know what I think.

No where does it state that time began in the first three minutes. In fact, it explicitly refers to times before that (up to t=10^-43 sec). I don't think you actually read the whole paper.

That is precisely what I said and the reason I brought up causality. However there are ways around that. I am researching the possibility that causality may exist without time, if so that could easily explain how a ‘cause’ could effect change w/o time.

I'll gladly read what you find.

The largest blunder of the western mind was the exclusion of metaphysics at the turn of the century, and now we are paying the price with our ignorance and useless physics (‘past’ the event horizon, or ‘before’ the first three min after the big bang 'banged').

To you, maybe. It isn't a blunder at all, it is doing what science is supposed to do.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

Yes, it actually does. It is not just an opinion, it is a demonstrated fact that the premises fail. Refer to the blanket objections I made above. I'll be more than happy to give a more detailed explanation if you'd like.

I assume you question premise #1, but accept premise #2 - am I right? My contention is that premise #1 is neither proven nor disproven, but it is plausible to accept it because it is intuitive, and is not disproven. This makes KCA a reasonable argument (not a mathematical PROOF per se, because of the equivocal nature of premise #1).

I don't accept 1 or 2, actually. It's been observed that some things that come into existence don't have causes, and we don't know for certain whether our universe began to exist.

[myth-one.com]

Hello Charris,

Time -- from a dummy’s point of view:

In reality, the only existing time is present time -- where present time is the existing moment; or now. Whatever happened in previous moments is the past. There is no future time.

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past.

I agree that the past extended back infinitely. There can never be a beginning moment, because one can ask what was occurring at the moment before that.

"If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here."

I agree with you, that argument is pointless. We cannot help but be here at this moment – no matter how long it took to arrive. We have no choice in the matter – this is our moment.

Since time only exist now at this instant, there is no travel along the �time line.� One cannot go back or forth in time.

As soon as you have read this word, that moment will have become history. You could have done something else in that moment but it’s too late now. This past history of moments is infinite. But since the future has not yet occurred, there is no future time. That is, the future time is not yet existent. In fact, the present moment always represents the “end� of the infinite passage of “time.� We are always living in the present and last (or end) moment of time.

For time to be in motion, a moment must have a defined length, otherwise time would stand still and be meaningless. Let me use a nanosecond for the length of a "moment" in this discussion. So one moment in time is one nanosecond.

In everything we perceive, there is a lag or delay associated with our perceptions. In sight for example, the light which ours eyes receive from an object requires time to travel to our eyes. Even at 186,000 miles a second, there is a delay, even over short distances. So we never operate in truly absolute real time, where real time is the absolute instant something occurs.

Over great distances this truth is magnified. If the Hubble telescope shows us an image of a star 1,000 light years distant, we are seeing that star in our real present moment. But the image we see in our real moment physically occurred a 1,000 years ago. To me, that is not “looking back� in time. One cannot turn back time. It would be equivalent to looking at an ancient photo album. In both cases, one is viewing something that occurred in the past.

Everything which occurs in the next nanosecond occurs in the same real or present moment of time – regardless of where it occurs. At this very moment, something is occurring on distant stars. We cannot know what has occurred on those distant stars until the light from those stars reach us.

Time continues even when one is unaware of its passage -- when we sleep and when we die, for example.

Time is not dependent upon existence. If nothing at all existed, there would still be the passage of time. Granted there would be no one to measure or even acknowledge time – at that moment.

Oftentimes, upon reaching old age and reviewing our past, the entire “time� we lived seems to be momentary.

[fredonly]

I see two consequences; tell me if you agree with them.
1) If entropy is the cause of time, and past time is infinite, then entropy also had no beginning. Looking back through the infinite past, as time approaches -∞, entropy becomes smaller and smaller; there can be no minimum entropy (there could be an asymptotal limit, but not an absolute limit).

The entropy before our universe wouldn't have any affect on the entropy of our universe. We know that the entropy of our universe was extremely small when inflation happened, and it increases from there. But, on the quantum level, as far as we know, entropy doesn't have any noticeable affects. If quantum fields are what came before our universe and exist for an infinite time, which is what I would hold, then there would be no entropy to take into account. This is speculative, however, given that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

If there was no entropy to take in to account, and entropy is the cause of time, wouldn't this imply there was no progression of time?

On the microscopic scale, there is no such thing as progression of time. There is no one point that you can distinguish from any other.

This could mean several things, so can you please clarify. For example,
- you might mean that there is no real progression of time; it's an illusion - now, and prior to the big bang
- you might mean that we experience a progression of time now, but in pre-big bang times we did not because of the microscopic size of the universe (at least it was microscopic for a short time);

Is it one of these, or something else?

[bernee51]

I see two consequences; tell me if you agree with them.
1) If entropy is the cause of time, and past time is infinite, then entropy also had no beginning. Looking back through the infinite past, as time approaches -∞, entropy becomes smaller and smaller; there can be no minimum entropy (there could be an asymptotal limit, but not an absolute limit).

The entropy before our universe wouldn't have any affect on the entropy of our universe. We know that the entropy of our universe was extremely small when inflation happened, and it increases from there. But, on the quantum level, as far as we know, entropy doesn't have any noticeable affects. If quantum fields are what came before our universe and exist for an infinite time, which is what I would hold, then there would be no entropy to take into account. This is speculative, however, given that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

If there was no entropy to take in to account, and entropy is the cause of time, wouldn't this imply there was no progression of time?

On the microscopic scale, there is no such thing as progression of time. There is no one point that you can distinguish from any other.

This could mean several things, so can you please clarify. For example,
- you might mean that there is no real progression of time; it's an illusion - now, and prior to the big bang
- you might mean that we experience a progression of time now, but in pre-big bang times we did not because of the microscopic size of the universe (at least it was microscopic for a short time);

Is it one of these, or something else?

without wanting to preempt...

what I took it to mean was that 'now' as a duration cannot be measured. How long is a 'now'? When has it never been 'now'? Will it ever not be 'now'?

Time is merely a construct devised to measure the distance perceived between 'nows' - either remembered (in reality or theorised) or anticipated.

[fredonly]

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

Uh. yes it has been shown to be faulty. You can not show the premises to be true.

Nor, can you show any reasonable logic to jump from 'There is a first cause' , to 'The first cause was a personal agent' .. the 'logic' that Craig uses is one big logical fallacy.

It's one giant appeal to personal belief.

Your comments seem cavalier. KCA is certainly a valid argument (which does not require true premises), and it has not been unequivocally proven unsound (i.e. the premises proven to be false). There are arguments for and against the premises, but there are no proofs the premises are correct or incorrect. If it's an appeal to personal beliefs, it is such an appeal in either direction.

To be clear, I'm referring to the core KCA - not Craig's faith-based leaps from it, in which he insists the first cause "must be" a personal agent. The core is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Can you name 1 thing that 'began to exist' that was not a reformation of preexisting matter/energy'???

Nope.

What do you mean by 'began to exist'?

It means that an entity that didn't previously exist, now does. What's an entity? Anything that is real, including (but not limited to) each well-defined configuration of matter/energy.

2. The universe began to exist.

Can you show that the 'universe began to exist', and was not a reformation of a pre-existing condition??

May I assume you accept the big bang theory? That is considered the birth of the universe (i.e. it's "coming into being"). Was there a predecessor state - a "pre-existing condition?" Seems plausible, because of the conservation laws. This implies the predecessor state was the cause ("cause" meaning the necessary and sufficient conditions).

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I assume you question premise #1, but accept premise #2 - am I right? My contention is that premise #1 is neither proven nor disproven, but it is plausible to accept it because it is intuitive, and is not disproven. This makes KCA a reasonable argument (not a mathematical PROOF per se, because of the equivocal nature of premise #1).

No, I am challenging number 2 also. We do not know the conditions of things before the Planck epoch,, so how can you say that 'the universe began to exist'?

The mystery of the Planck epoch implies what, exactly? I just don't see the relevance of the comment. It's a fairly common interpretion of the big bang that this was the birth of the universe.

I can point out that 'matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed' as evidence number 2 is invalid.

The universe is estimated to have begun about 14 billions years ago. This could certainly be nothing more than a reconfiguration of matter/energy (if such terms even apply); but if so, that reconfiguration was the cause of the universe.

[Goat]

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

Uh. yes it has been shown to be faulty. You can not show the premises to be true.

Nor, can you show any reasonable logic to jump from 'There is a first cause' , to 'The first cause was a personal agent' .. the 'logic' that Craig uses is one big logical fallacy.

It's one giant appeal to personal belief.

Your comments seem cavalier. KCA is certainly a valid argument (which does not require true premises), and it has not been unequivocally proven unsound (i.e. the premises proven to be false). There are arguments for and against the premises, but there are no proofs the premises are correct or incorrect. If it's an appeal to personal beliefs, it is such an appeal in either direction.

To be clear, I'm referring to the core KCA - not Craig's faith-based leaps from it, in which he insists the first cause "must be" a personal agent. The core is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Can you name 1 thing that 'began to exist' that was not a reformation of preexisting matter/energy'???

Nope.

What do you mean by 'began to exist'?

It means that an entity that didn't previously exist, now does. What's an entity? Anything that is real, including (but not limited to) each well-defined configuration of matter/energy.

2. The universe began to exist.

Can you show that the 'universe began to exist', and was not a reformation of a pre-existing condition??

May I assume you accept the big bang theory? That is considered the birth of the universe (i.e. it's "coming into being"). Was there a predecessor state - a "pre-existing condition?" Seems plausible, because of the conservation laws. This implies the predecessor state was the cause ("cause" meaning the necessary and sufficient conditions).

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I assume you question premise #1, but accept premise #2 - am I right? My contention is that premise #1 is neither proven nor disproven, but it is plausible to accept it because it is intuitive, and is not disproven. This makes KCA a reasonable argument (not a mathematical PROOF per se, because of the equivocal nature of premise #1).

No, I am challenging number 2 also. We do not know the conditions of things before the Planck epoch,, so how can you say that 'the universe began to exist'?

The mystery of the Planck epoch implies what, exactly? I just don't see the relevance of the comment. It's a fairly common interpretion of the big bang that this was the birth of the universe.

I can point out that 'matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed' as evidence number 2 is invalid.

The universe is estimated to have begun about 14 billions years ago. This could certainly be nothing more than a reconfiguration of matter/energy (if such terms even apply); but if so, that reconfiguration was the cause of the universe.

'
How do you know that the universe did not develop from pre-existing energy, and merely changed form? Is a 'reconfiguration' "beginning to exist"?? I don't know if I agree with you that a reconfiguration of matter/energy to have a 'new entity' is 'beginning to exist'.. since everything in that 'unique' entity already existed.

[fredonly]

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

Uh. yes it has been shown to be faulty. You can not show the premises to be true.

Nor, can you show any reasonable logic to jump from 'There is a first cause' , to 'The first cause was a personal agent' .. the 'logic' that Craig uses is one big logical fallacy.

It's one giant appeal to personal belief.

Your comments seem cavalier. KCA is certainly a valid argument (which does not require true premises), and it has not been unequivocally proven unsound (i.e. the premises proven to be false). There are arguments for and against the premises, but there are no proofs the premises are correct or incorrect. If it's an appeal to personal beliefs, it is such an appeal in either direction.

To be clear, I'm referring to the core KCA - not Craig's faith-based leaps from it, in which he insists the first cause "must be" a personal agent. The core is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Can you name 1 thing that 'began to exist' that was not a reformation of preexisting matter/energy'???

Nope.

What do you mean by 'began to exist'?

It means that an entity that didn't previously exist, now does. What's an entity? Anything that is real, including (but not limited to) each well-defined configuration of matter/energy.

2. The universe began to exist.

Can you show that the 'universe began to exist', and was not a reformation of a pre-existing condition??

May I assume you accept the big bang theory? That is considered the birth of the universe (i.e. it's "coming into being"). Was there a predecessor state - a "pre-existing condition?" Seems plausible, because of the conservation laws. This implies the predecessor state was the cause ("cause" meaning the necessary and sufficient conditions).

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I assume you question premise #1, but accept premise #2 - am I right? My contention is that premise #1 is neither proven nor disproven, but it is plausible to accept it because it is intuitive, and is not disproven. This makes KCA a reasonable argument (not a mathematical PROOF per se, because of the equivocal nature of premise #1).

No, I am challenging number 2 also. We do not know the conditions of things before the Planck epoch,, so how can you say that 'the universe began to exist'?

The mystery of the Planck epoch implies what, exactly? I just don't see the relevance of the comment. It's a fairly common interpretion of the big bang that this was the birth of the universe.

I can point out that 'matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed' as evidence number 2 is invalid.

The universe is estimated to have begun about 14 billions years ago. This could certainly be nothing more than a reconfiguration of matter/energy (if such terms even apply); but if so, that reconfiguration was the cause of the universe.

'
How do you know that the universe did not develop from pre-existing energy, and merely changed form?

Oh, but I think that is exactly what happened, but it's irrelevant to the argument.

Is a 'reconfiguration' "beginning to exist"?? I don't know if I agree with you that a reconfiguration of matter/energy to have a 'new entity' is 'beginning to exist'.. since everything in that 'unique' entity already existed.

I defined "entity" in this way, and my argument is based on my definition. What's your definition? Is it that there is only one entity- the universe itself? What about yourself, are you not a unique entity? i.e. you disagree with Descartes (cogito ergo sum)?

[RevSpecter]

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

Uh. yes it has been shown to be faulty. You can not show the premises to be true.

Nor, can you show any reasonable logic to jump from 'There is a first cause' , to 'The first cause was a personal agent' .. the 'logic' that Craig uses is one big logical fallacy.

It's one giant appeal to personal belief.

Hello Mr Goat. I said the KCA has never been defeated, I beleive you know what I mean. With respect due to you as a fellow member, I disagree that 'it (ie the KCA) has been shown to be faulty'. What I will agree has happened is that many people, including brilliant christian theists as well as brilliant atheist philosophers and layman a many have intelligently disagreed with some or all of the premises etc of the KCA. As you know if one of the premise can be shown to be invalid the entire argument is, well... bunk and invalid. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up what I beleive about the KCA and where it stands in my paradigm (of my world view etc).

I don't claim the KCA has no chance of being wrong or inaccurate or that it comes to the wrong conclusion. What I have said is that it represents the best argument for the existence of God according to me. Ha ha. I personally have no reason to suspect it's wrong or that its premises is wrong, if I did I could not beleive it myself and would reject it as I have rejected many theistic and atheist arguments in the past forty years (my profile is wrong I am 57 years old!... Woah ah!). I keep an open mind and accept all arguments from the (beloved) old christian fundy arguments up to the MWI (infinite universe theories) and Holographic Universe theories.

Lastly, its not an appeal to a personal belief. Its an appeal to logic. Some of us are afraid to accept where logic leads. I have been there, done that. Many times in fact. Admitting a long held belief is wrong is difficult to say the least! When I was a practicing Buddhist, I was challenged with another belief system and resisted it for a year before converting. That was a year of wasted time. When it walks like a duck quacks like a duck its a duck my friend. The KCA shows that the 'cause that caused the universe to exist had the attributes of what we call God. So its God in my book. However the KCA does not in my opinion prove or suggest the God is the christian God. (my opinion differs from Craigs on that point).

However, the christian apologist need not to worry, because if the KCA can show that any type of generic universe creating God exists and get him in our (or his or a blend of both) universe, view its easy to work backwards to show that the 'God' ie the 'cause' that caused the universe to begin to exist is most probably or most possibly (calculating the odds of if the God is christian or not is impossible , too many variables). I apologize for the uncommon terminology (>>>generic God<<< hee hee) but its the best I can do this early sat morning my head hurts ! Ha ha ~

[RevSpecter]

Goat wrote:
Is a 'reconfiguration' "beginning to exist"?? I don't know if I agree with you that a reconfiguration of matter/energy to have a 'new entity' is 'beginning to exist'.. since everything in that 'unique' entity already existed.

I defined "entity" in this way, and my argument is based on my definition. What's your definition? Is it that there is only one entity- the universe itself? What about yourself, are you not a unique entity? i.e. you disagree with Descartes (cogito ergo sum)?

I probably shouldn't do this (I attempt to answer replies in order). According to the KCA anything that begins to exist is just that. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence according to a premise of the KCA. The 'cause' that caused the universe to begin to exist did not begin to exist because it existed before the universe existed. (and spacetime which was created just after the BB 'banged' or just after T-0 ie time zero). Therefore the 'cause' is eternal and or atemporal, and thus could not have began to exist.

rs