Fw: Fw: Kalum Cosmological Argument
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:23:43 -0500 (00889057423, 19980304181626.AAA5777@briandea)
>MWF 2/21 Let's try a thought experiment.
>
> Subject A is wearing only a pair of speedos. He goes into a room
>we're not able to see into, but which we are able to check all around
>including above and below, and verify there is only one way in or out.
>Subject A reemerges from the room fully dressed.
>
> Was there at least one suit of clothes in the room or not? This is
>not a trick question, and a simple yes or no answer will suffice.
>
> Subject A enters another room. After a careful examination, we
>discover that there is a room directly above it that we cannot enter,
>although we can examine the other five sides, and verify an exit.
>
> Subject A exits from room number two.
>
> Was there a way for subject A to climb or ride from room one to
>the door in room two? Again, this is not a trick a question, and a simple
>yes or no answer will do.
>
> The answer in both cases is a "yes". Clothes do not spontaneously
>form, and no physical object can survive any trips through any wormholes,
>ergo there had to be clothes in the first room and some stairs or something
>to climb (or ride) on to get to the door in the room above the second room.
>
> Observational data on quantum phenomena has resulted in a great
>deal of data about those phenomena. The equations which describe that
>data, and predict (with great accuracy) what will happen clearly imply also
>the existence of particle anti-particle formation without cause.
>
> Are _you_ only certain of that which you have _directly_ observed?
>
>RON
>> If you suggest that the universe is uncaused, what is the earliest
>> point in the chain of causality?
>
>MWF 2/21 There isn't one. Until the universe exists, time doesn't
>exist, so however close you try to get to the "point of origin" you can
>never get there, because the universe wasn't there "then" because
>there wasn't a then then. :-)
>
>RON
>> It is the atheist who is arguing that
>> there is NO cause.
>
>MWF 2/21
> Not quite. The atheist, or more accurately modern physics simply
>pleads lack of data. At times before the Planck interval there simply
>isn't any data available BECAUSE (notice that word, try and use it
>once in awhile yourself Ron) all the laws of physics break down at the
>Planck interval.
>
>RON
>> By the way, if you delve deeply into this you will find only theory
>> and speculation.
>
>MWF 2/21 Indeed, and clearly labeled as such.
>
>RON
>> Scientists have no practical experience or observation
>> of the origin of the universe at this point,
>
>MWF 2/21 Quite correct. All physical laws stop at the Planck
>interval. It's thus not even possible to observe anything, since we
>lack any theoretical basis to form any ideas about what to look
>for or where to look.
> The door is shut, and no information is available about the origin
>of the universe, or even if it makes sense to speak of an origin.
>
>RON
>> only speculation based on CURRENT understanding just like our
>> big flag wavers above.
>
>MWF 2/21 Speculation it may be, but the speculations of physicists
>do have one big item in their favor. Physicists have accumulated a long
>track record of figuring out what makes the universe tick, based on
>speculation which led to experiments which confirmed the speculation.
>
> What speculations of any religion have ever turned out to be true?
>
>RON
>> (To MWF) I was only asking a question. If there was any argument at
>> all it was your own. It was Austin who was arguing from ignorance.
>
>MWF 2/12 Answered above.
>
>
RON
(to MWF) You just did a pretty good job of explaining my objection to
the idea that the universe just spontaneously appeared (As propunded by
an atheist). As you pointed out physics (based on man's limited
understanding and observation) cannot go beyond a certain point.
Agnosticism in this case is a much more honest position than atheism.
And yes, I have seen previous posts where people define themselves as
agnostics and lable themselves "atheists". The reason Einstein and other
steady state scientists discounted the Big Bang theory is that it
indicated an origin of the universe. See the book God and the
Astronomers by Robert Jastrow, a NASA scientist for details. The facts
more and more support the notion of Creation, even the fact that beyond
a certain point human understanding cannot go and science cannot explain
(as argued by yourself above). Pax!