My reply to a Christian evangelist

[Cherryj]

I apologize in advance for my lack of citations; much of what I wrote below barrows shamelessly from uncredited sources. I also apologize in advance for any errors in science; I am not a scientist by training, only by hobby. I wrote the post below in response to a Christian evangelist who suggested using C.S. Lewis' intuitive argument from design as a means of witnessing to atheists:

C.S. Lewis was a brilliant Christian apologist, but many of his arguments are far less than perfect. For example, his famous trilemma argument – Lord, Liar or Lunatic - is logically invalidated by the possibility of “Legend” – what he offers us here is a new form of the fallacy of bifurcation (for example: have you stopped beating your wife yet?). It’s a nice rhetorical argument, but it’s actually an example of a priori reasoning, making it quite unpersuasive to anyone who does not already believe (i.e. presuppose) in Christianity. Hence it is far more effective at assuaging the doubts of believers than it is a useful tool of evangelism. All known cosmological arguments, arguments from design, etc. are similarly weak tools of evangelism because they are all a priori arguments –they presume the existence of a god, and more particularly a highly specific, individual god – “God” - that cannot be inferred from the argument itself.

Take the well-known Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) for example; the first clue there is a problem with it is right there in the title. “Kalam” is an Islamic school of theology; the argument was originally created to argue in favor of the existence of Allah - not Yhwh – and yet it works equally well for any given “god.” This is why William Lane Craig was able to modify it to serve as a tool of Christian evangelism. The KCA in turn was based upon the earlier Platonic cosmological argument which suggested it is logical to believe in Zeus. An ancient Sumerian could use the very same arguments to “prove” the existence of En-lil, Marduk or Ashur; a Zoroastrian could use it to “prove” the existence of Ahura Mazda, a Hindu could “prove” Brahma, a Morman could “prove” Elohim and so forth, ad infinitum. Such arguments for the existence of God “proves” (or more accurately, suggests it is possible) that either all gods exist or that any given god exists; it’s actually a much better argument for polytheism than it is for monotheism, just as it was originally intended. And yet this is not how evangelists use it. Evangelists consistently rely on special pleading to say “worship my particular god because not just any god will do” when this conclusion cannot be inferred from the argument itself, making the only practical use of the argument entirely illogical when it is employed as a tool for any particular form of evangelism. Further, Cosmological arguments, with little to no modification, can be used just as easily to “prove” atheism, pantheism, deism, bitheism, maltheism, hentheism, etc. – when an argument works for everyone, it is proves nothing and is useful to no one. Of course the universe has a cause, depending on how one defines “cause;” no one doubts this self-evident fact. What the argument fails to establish is wither it’s either a supernatural or natural cause, and if it is in fact a supernatural cause, then which one?

Arguments for design rely on intuition but ignore the fact that we see evidence for un-designed design everywhere – from crystal formation, to snowflakes, to the shape of raindrops, to the spherical shape of large celestial objects, etc. When one sees a snowflake, one doesn’t infer there is necessarily a snowflake designer. The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering, not because it was designed to look pretty and certainly not because it was designed with a solid firmament over the heavens supporting a blue ocean that we are looking at from below as the ancient Semites supposed. Planets and stars are spherical due to gravity; this shape is gravitationally stable and numerous experiments show that diffuse low density objects in low gravity will clump together and aggregate to form growing spheres around its center of gravity. There’s liquid water on the surface of the Earth at ambient temperatures because of the inverse square law and Earth’s distance from the sun, a star with a very predictable level of energy output, which just happens to place the Earth within the habitable zone; not because the oceans exhibit any intuitively obvious design. Change the location of the Earth or change the average amount of radiation from the Sun, and as has been observed with many hundreds of other planets, the Earth would then become quite unlivable. Life on Earth isn’t evidence of design, it is evidence of coincidence; a highly favorable coincidence that gives rise to life here while many other similar planets are dead and barren.

Ptolemy’s geocentric model for the solar system was accepted for many centuries because it was intuitive; everything seemed to orbit the Earth. And yet it was wrong. Many exceedingly accurate – and non-intuitive - data points eventually led Copernicus to conclude that a much simpler – and therefore more likely – explanation was that the Sun was the center of the solar system and that, while the moon does orbit the Earth, everything else in the solar system orbits the sun. And yet Copernicus still made a subtle mistake – he assumed that the creator of the Solar system thought very much like a human, who presumably would have drawn the orbits of the planets with a compass; nice, neat and perfectly circular. Subsequent predictions of planetary motion were always slightly off until later astronomers eventually concluded that orbits are not in fact perfect circles but rather are ellipses, some much more eccentrically elliptical than others – each roughly circular only in the same sense that a Renoir painting is a good example of realism. If planetary orbits are evidence of design, it was created by a rather abstract designer indeed.

The universe itself exhibits no intuitively obvious sign that it was designed specifically for humankind; Sol is located in a totally random part of an ordinary galaxy containing many billions of stars which is turn is only one of many billions of galaxies. And from every star in every galaxy, the universe intuitively appears to surround it evenly, making any given point in the universe the apparent center of the universe. If it were in fact designed for man, we would expect a much higher percentage of it would be both reachable and livable – or at the very least, not fatal - far less than .00001 of the volume of our own solar system is something less than instantly lethal to humankind. Only a miniscule fraction of the sun’s total energy reaches the Earth and only a small fraction of that can be captured and used by humankind; not anywhere near the sort of high efficiency one would suppose given an presumed human-centric design. And one cannot blame the fall of Man for these essential facts; for that matter, the vast majority of useful heavy metals on Earth are much closer to the center of our planet than they are to the surface, making them quite unreachable and therefore totally useless at present to humankind. Adams’ sin is not responsible for the vast majority of Earth’s gold, iron, gallium and uranium being far out of reach; gravity did it.

Intuition itself is notoriously unreliable when it comes to describing the world around us. For example, the world was long thought to be flat simply because it looks flat. But if one pays very close attention to how the horizon actually looks, particularly when one looks into the sea, it becomes obvious that one is actually gazing into a three-dimensionally curved surface. Eratosthenes concluded circa 255 BCE that the world was a sphere and even calculated its circumference to within a very high degree of accuracy, but he accomplished this using very sophisticated empirical measurements - which were, and are, highly counterintuitive. And it therefore took nearly two thousand years for this proof to actually be accepted by virtually everyone and not just by the select, highly educated few.

Aristotelian physics is highly intuitive - and it was also completely wrong; it took nearly two thousand years for someone like Newton to teach us that heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects and that objects dropped while in motion fall, not straight down, but in a curve. And Newton doesn’t explain everything that we see on a macro-level of physics – for that we need General Relatively. Mercury, for example, is never in exactly the right spot that the elliptically modified Copernican model – the Kepler model - predicts, at least not until one realizes that time actually moves at a very slightly slower rate on Mercury relative to the Earth due to the high space-time curvature imposed upon Mercury due to its proximity deep within the Sun’s immense gravity well. And this is just with macro-physics; intuition breaks down utterly when we begin to discuss the strange, strange world of quantum weirdness, but nevertheless, quantum mechanics works exceptionally well.

Consider this KCA-style syllogism: when pushed, objects always move faster. When pushed, an object moving at the speed of light will also move faster. Conclusion: it is possible to exceed the speed of light. Here in just a few seconds, I “proved” Albert Einstein was wrong – but I will receive no Nobel Prize for this “discovery,” because of course, general relatively is still the best-tested, most reliable model of macro-scale physics known to science – simply put, relativity works. What this syllogism shows us is not that Einstein was wrong, but that intuition itself is completely useless for understanding space-time. As relatively demonstrates, apparent time actually slows as an object with mass approaches the speed of light, eventually time stops at the speed of light; and it would take infinite energy for an object with mass to reach the speed of light and a greater than infinite amount of energy for it to exceed it. Hence it’s not possible to push an object that is already moving at the speed of light any faster than it is already going. If we let our imaginations run wild, deductive reasoning can be used to produce any number of similar syllogisms that can either prove or disprove virtually anything; garbage in, garbage out. This is why such philosophy is quite completely useless when used as an absolute epistemological system. An infinite number of things are hypothetically possible to exist and yet only a very finite, limited number of things actually exist – this is why we invented empirical science. Intuition alone cannot prove anything useful; for that, we need actual observation.

Arguments from design are similarly weak – they rely on begging the question, loaded questions, special pleading etc. For example, if every design requires a designer, then who or what designed god, the most complex design of all? The assertion that God requires no designer is not supported by the argument itself; hence it is special pleading to suggest that the same rules do not apply to God. And therefore the whole argument is logically invalidated. Similarly, nothing outside of the universe can create the universe without itself becoming a part of the universe – the universe by definition is everything that is. And yet theologians assert just the opposite while offering us not one single shred of proof.

C.S. Lewis was a fine Christian, but again, his arguments only really convince the converted. I wouldn’t suggest discussing Lewis with any real atheist; he’s far more effective in helping people who already have faith to gain a somewhat better rational understanding of their faith. After all, faith is belief without proof; or as Dr. Peter Boghossian puts it, pretending to know things you do not know. And as rational creatures, it isn’t always very easy for us to merely accept such beliefs at face value without at least some, however weak, semblance of proof.

[TruthSeeker]

faith is belief without proof

Faith is placing hope in that which you reason to be true. I can pull plenty from the New Testament in support and can also deal with the expected scripture non-theists give. I'd suggest reading them closer in the original language since they actually prove the opposite from the above.

I have seen this a lot from non-theists at the lay level, though. Note that in all of Craig's debates not one of his esteemed opponents would dare say that Craig's faith is "belief without proof" because he is presenting debatable proof.

I am huge on evidence. I have strayed so far from faith, sometimes, because of my arguments for God's existence weighing against the existence of gratuitous suffering. It is hard to not take such a statement personal when it is so untrue and goes against that which I stand for.

“Kalam” is an Islamic school of theology; the argument was originally created to argue in favor of the existence of Allah - not Yhwh – and yet it works equally well for any given “god.” This is why William Lane Craig was able to modify it to serve as a tool of Christian evangelism

In Craig's "Kalam Cosmological Argument" he spends a good bit giving credit to the Islamic school of theology. Furthermore, he also has repeatedly explained that the argument is not a religious argument. All it proves is a theistic God.

Consider this KCA-style syllogism: when pushed, objects always move faster. When pushed, an object moving at the speed of light will also move faster. Conclusion: it is possible to exceed the speed of light. Here in just a few seconds, I “proved” Albert Einstein was wrong

I've seen that response in a youtube video, though the author failed to respond to any theists. All I asked was for him to prove how such an argument is completely parallel to the KCA besides simply saying "it's the same as KCA". KCA is very simple and straightforward.. most non-theists actually agree with the whole argument.. just a different type of conclusion. It is not a fallacious argument at all. If it is fallacious, then it logically follows that ALL deductive arguments are fallacious.

The KCA in turn was based upon the earlier Platonic cosmological argument which suggested it is logical to believe in Zeus

I digress. The KCA leans upon Occam's Razor to shave away multiple first causes.

For example, if every design requires a designer, then who or what designed god, the most complex design of all?

Typically, I see non-theists sort of "picking" at the fact of God's simplicity via throwing "god of the gaps" at the theist. God is not complex at all, but is actually a very simple, powerful explanation.

As for who or what designed God, you have to remember the KCA premise. It states that whatever begins to exist has a cause. If God did not begin to exist, then God needn't have a cause. Some points to remember also:

1. There is a principle which name I can't recall, but it states that, if an explanation exists, then there needn't be an explanation for the explanation. For example, if astronauts discovered a fully functional mechanical device on the moon, they can rationally conclude that an intelligent designer designed the device. However, as for an explanation for the designer it seems entirely pointless to even question.. what matters is that some sort of intelligent designer obviously must have designed the device.

2. Having an uncaused first cause escapes a vicious infinite regress of causation.

3. Occam's razor reminds us to not multiply entities beyond necessity. With that being said, if a first cause is all that is necessary; whence, then the reason for more causes?

4. As far as the KCA the question is irrelevant. One has to assume that the entire argument is true and that God does in fact exist before asking the question. It just seems an irrelevant and pointless question.

Further, Cosmological arguments, with little to no modification, can be used just as easily to “prove” atheism

How can a personal first cause argument prove that which denies such a cause? The only way would be to commit intellectual dishonesty, present a strawman assessment of the argument, and push it towards a goal line which it was never meant to be.

when an argument works for everyone, it is proves nothing

Plenty of arguments work for everyone. For example, "whatever begins to exist has a cause" or arguments regarding "the earth is not flat" fits every rational mind.


Good day,

TruthSeeker

[Savonarola]

Plenty of arguments work for everyone. For example, "whatever begins to exist has a cause"...

I don't think that works for a quantum/particle physicist, which -- not surprisingly -- would need to be consulted about the origin of the universe.

[Dardedar]

Plenty of arguments work for everyone. For example, "whatever begins to exist has a cause"...

Why is that the case, because that's what you have observed in your everyday life? What is your basis for the claim that "whatever begins to exist has a cause?"

...or arguments regarding "the earth is not flat" fits every rational mind.

About one third of American Christians are biblical inerrantists and think the Bible is without error (W.L. Craig is in this camp but he has a few caveats). Are you calling them irrational?

You might be on to something there.

D.
---------------
"The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason SUBMITS TO and SERVES the gospel. ONLY the ministerial use of reason can be allowed… Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith."
--Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics William Lane Craig, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Ill, 1984, pg. 37.

Or as the founder or Protestantism put it back in the day when they didn't put so much sugar on it:

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." --Martin Luther

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding,
and whatever it sees must be put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
-- Martin Luther quoted in Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy

"Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason."
--Martin Luther (First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285)

"Whoever wants to be a Christian must be intent on silencing the voice of reason."
--Martin Luther (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Luther's Works, V.23, p. 99)

"The damned whore Reason..." --Martin Luther

[TruthSeeker]

Hey, Darrell. You ask,

"Why is that the case, because that's what you have observed in your everyday life? What is your basis for the claim that "whatever begins to exist has a cause?"

Well, not just me. I think that, that which has been constantly verified and never falsified since the origin of human beings carries some weight. The premise is just as powerful and parallel as the case for a round earth.

What is the alternative? That objects pop into existence uncaused from nothing? Does that even make sense? That is far worse than a magician actually pulling a rabbit from a once empty hat.. at least in this situation we have the rabbit coming from something. A cause is there. The alternative to premise 1 suggests the possibility of a whole rabbit being able to pop into existence from nothing.

If nothing exists, then nothing would still now exist. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.

About one third of American Christians are biblical inerrantists and think the Bible is without error (W.L. Craig is in this camp but he has a few caveats). Are you calling them irrational?

I have some friends who do a pretty good job of rationally defending such a position.

Savonarola,

I don't think that works for a quantum/particle physicist, which -- not surprisingly -- would need to be consulted about the origin of the universe.

It most definitely works for any physicist who's being read or studied in context. A lot of non-theists have thrown vacuum fluctuations at me in an attempt to refute P1, but it just does not work as it obviously is not an example of something coming from absolute nothingness. The vacuum itself is something, as is the fluctuating energy "bouncing" within it.


-TS

[Savonarola]

but it just does not work as it obviously is not an example of something coming from absolute nothingness.

That's correct! It is not an example of "something coming from absolute nothingness." But that wasn't your argument. Perhaps you forgot. Your original claim is that "whatever begins to exist has a cause." What does this hubbub about nothingness have to do with your original claim of "whatever begins to exist has a cause"?

See, what you have done here is move the goalposts. If, in a box, no pion exists, then suddenly one exists, then the pion has "begun" to exist, even if its existence can be linked to some sort of energy inside the box that was not originally in the form of a pion.

If instead, you want to change your argument to, "something cannot come from absolutely nothing," you be sure to let us know, because that is a very different argument. This is something that Craig either does not realize or hopes that others don't realize, even though the difference can be demonstrated to even the most amateur physicist: There appears to be no cause for the appearance of the pion, even though the energy that composes the pion pre-existed the pion. Thus, something did not come from nothing in this case, yet the beginning of the pion's existence was cause-less.

If we are to accept your reasoning that the pion's beginning doesn't count because the energy that composes it was not created in situ, then that reasoning would apply to everything else within the universe: Nothing within the universe has had a "beginning" because all matter and energy within the universe existed from the get-go. (Intel does not make processors and Nike does not make shoes because all they're really doing is rearranging matter that already exists.) Then, the initial premise of "everything that begins to exist has a cause" has no evidential support within the universe, and the statement can only be seen as a baseless postulation about the universe as a whole; that is, the statement becomes, "the universe has a cause because it had a beginning." But that statement is equivalent to the purported conclusion of the argument, which makes the argument circular and therefore invalid.

The way I see it, you'll have to choose:
1. Your argument is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" where "begins" has such a limited meaning that nothing inside the universe begins to exist, making the argument circular.
2. Your argument is that "something cannot come from absolute nothingness," which wouldn't help you because it would show that everything that now exists has existed for all of time and didn't need a creation.
3. Your argument is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" where "begins" has a sensible meaning, making your argument refuted by physics.

[Dardedar]

Hey, Darrell. You ask,

"Why is that the case, because that's what you have observed in your everyday life? What is your basis for the claim that "whatever begins to exist has a cause?"

Well, not just me. I think that, that which has been constantly verified and never falsified since the origin of human beings carries some weight.

Really? On how many occasions have we verified something beginning to exist that didn't exist before, and it's causal procession from non-existence to existence?

TS
The premise is just as powerful and parallel as the case for a round earth.

I see no comparison or parallel between evidence for the shape of planets and claims regarding what is going on at the quantum level.

What is the alternative? That objects pop into existence uncaused from nothing? Does that even make sense?

Your built in assumption is that a condition of nothing *can* exist. We don't know that.

TS
If nothing exists, then nothing would still now exist.

Question begging doesn't get more pristine than that.

Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.

Why? Because that's not your everyday experience here at the macro level? The universe and things things at the subatomic level don't care about making sense or your everyday experience. Nor do they seem to care much about time and the order of events. And a few other things.

And: You can't show that the words "absolute nothingness" is a condition that means anything or is even possible. It may just be a brute fact of the universe, that such a condition is not possible.

DAR
About one third of American Christians are biblical inerrantists and think the Bible is without error (W.L. Craig is in this camp but he has a few caveats). Are you calling them irrational?

TS
I have some friends who do a pretty good job of rationally defending such a position.

Invite them over and we'll jolly well see just how "pretty good" their job is.

D.
--------------
"...if the Biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested." --Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer (pg. 23)

[TruthSeeker]

Savonarola,

All of this over one premise. Be clear, please. Do you believe that objects can begin to exist from nothing? Yes or no will suffice.

But that wasn't your argument. Perhaps you forgot. Your original claim is that "whatever begins to exist has a cause." What does this hubbub about nothingness have to do with your original claim of "whatever begins to exist has a cause"?

Well, you picked that part of my quote out. I responded to you typing, "I don't think that works for a quantum/particle physicist" (regarding whatever begins to exist). I assumed that you were talking about vacuum fluctuations since I've gotten countless responses from non-theists saying that physicists would deny P1 (basically what you typed) and then would go on towards a misleading/out-of-context typing on vacuum fluctuations.

What does nothingness have to do with the first premise? Everything. If someone denies it, then it logically follows that they must embrace something coming from nothing. Otherwise stated, if something begins to exist without a cause, then it must have begun to exist from nothing.

what you have done here is move the goalposts.

I haven't moved the goalpost at all. That's when a previously agreed upon criteria for deciding an argument becomes arbitrarily changed after being met. I'm a million miles from that.

If, in a box, no pion exists, then suddenly one exists, then the pion has "begun" to exist, even if its existence can be linked to some sort of energy inside the box that was not originally in the form of a pion

And you believe this is an example of something beginning to exist from nothing? The pion obviously must have come from whatever interactions or collisions are taking place in this "box". The box itself is an obvious cause.

P1 is pretty simple. Either you believe objects begin to exist from something or you believe objects begin to exist from nothing.

If instead, you want to change your argument to, "something cannot come from absolutely nothing," you be sure to let us know, because that is a very different argument

Well, if it is true that whatever begins to exist has a cause then it follows that something cannot begin to exist from absolute nothingness/uncaused.

Your argument is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" where "begins" has a sensible meaning, making your argument refuted by physics

You are yet to provide a published, peer-reviewed paper proving that object(s) can actually begin to exist uncaused.

Your argument is that "something cannot come from absolute nothingness," which wouldn't help you because it would show that everything that now exists has existed for all of time and didn't need a creation

Nothing within the universe has had a "beginning" because all matter and energy within the universe existed from the get-go

No, all the statement "something cannot come from absolute nothingness" would show is that which is reads. It should be self-explanatory. It doesn't show that everything that now exists has existed an infinite amount of time.. you type that it does, but don't explain how you got there. The premise is tied to that which follows it. If something cannot begin to exist from absolute nothingness and the universe began to exist, then it logically follows that it began to exist from something rather than nothing. The argument then delves into that "something".

[TruthSeeker]

Darrel,

On how many occasions have we verified something beginning to exist that didn't exist before

Countless examples.. These words I'm typing, a zygote beginning to exist, a scratch beginning to exist from an injury. A bullet, a bullet wound, a bullet hitting the ground and making a sound.. Do you see where I'm going with this.

I see no comparison or parallel between evidence for the shape of planets and claims regarding what is going on at the quantum level.

I said that it is so common-place that things begin to exist via a cause of some sort. They don't come from nothing. This has been constantly verified and never falisified just as a round earth has been also.

Question begging doesn't get more pristine than that.

It's a matter of something being what Craig would call "intuitively obvious". I don't know how I can explain this simpler.. We have nothing. Literally nothing. Something cannot come from it. It's nothing.

If you guys are really going to make such a bold assertion, then you might as well tell me that a rabbit can pop into existence into my living room uncaused. Logically it's the same thing.

Invite them over and we'll jolly well see just how "pretty good" their job is.

JP Holding does his fine defenses from theologyweb and tektonics.org. I believe I can adequately succeed on a future topic without help, though. His debate tactics are far from how mine are.

One topic at a time, though, please.


Good day, guys,

-TS

[Dardedar]

Darrel,

On how many occasions have we verified something beginning to exist that didn't exist before

Countless examples.. These words I'm typing,

You think you tapping some buttons and making a sentence is comparable to what goes on at the subatomic level and the creation of the universe? That's a complete disanalogy.

I asked: "What is your basis for the claim that "whatever begins to exist has a cause?" And you refer to your every day life. That has nothing to inform us about what goes on at the beginning of universes and the level of QM.

a zygote beginning to exist, a scratch beginning to exist from an injury. A bullet, a bullet wound, a bullet hitting the ground and making a sound.. Do you see where I'm going with this.

Yes, I see a string of analogies based upon your everyday life experience. The universe and what happens at the subatomic level bares little to no relation to what you've observed back on the farm.

I said that it is so common-place that things begin to exist via a cause of some sort. They don't come from nothing.

You can't show that "nothing" is even a possible state that can exist. So when you say "absolutely nothing" you may just be saying "round triangles" or "invisible pink." Not all pairing of words make sense or are even possible.

DAR
Question begging doesn't get more pristine than that.

TS
It's a matter of something being what Craig would call "intuitively obvious".

Question begging doesn't get resolved by referring to the begged question as "intuitively obvious." Nothing about QM or what goes on at the subatomic level is necessarily "intuitively obvious." Nothing about the expanse of the Big Bang and how universes come about will necessarily be "intuitively obvious."

I don't know how I can explain this simpler.. We have nothing. Literally nothing. Something cannot come from it. It's nothing.

No, actually, we have something. And we don't know that a state of "nothing" is even an option. It may be the case, that there has always been some form of something and never been a state of "nothing." I know you would like to claim this for your God, but the advantage I have for suggesting this for the universe, is I can point directly to a universe that actually exists.

To quote Bertie on this:

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." --Bertrand Russell

Or three sentences of Ingersoll:

He is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is, equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was not." --Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic

If you guys are really going to make such a bold assertion,

Where's my bold assertion?

you might as well tell me that a rabbit can pop into existence into my living room uncaused. Logically it's the same thing.

You mean like with a magical God?

JP Holding does his fine defenses from theologyweb and tektonics.org. I believe I can adequately succeed on a future topic without help, though. His debate tactics are far from how mine are.

That's good, because he is extraordinarily dishonest. Doug and I were kicking Bob Turkel's can around the internet in 1995(ish) (before he changed his name to Holding). In three email he lied to me three times. I had never seen that before. I was there for his most famous lie when he and Farrell Till were going round and round and negotiating the ground rules for a specific debate. Farrell was for both websites providing links to the debates. Farrell always included all links to all debates on his website. Turkel was careful to never provide links to the actual debates, preferring to write articles and editorialize about what went on. This went on for weeks, maybe even a month. Then Turkel relented and said, and I quote (from memory, from about 15-18 years ago: "you've got your links old man."

Then they debated, and Turkel didn't put the links up. Holding has a big mouth and he talks tough, but he's extraordinarily dishonest and inerrancy can't be defended, use what you will, it doesn't matter.

See: here. Scroll down to "Replies to Robert Turkel."

And: http://the-anointed-one.com/links.htm

And, a mother load of Turkel roast: TEKTONICS.ORG: EXPOSED!

A Collection of Essays and Debates Highlighting the Depraved Apologetics of J.P. Holding, a.k.a. Robert Turkel

Nice.

D.
----------------
"Few intelligent Christians can still hold to the idea that the Bible is an infallible Book, that it contains no linguistic errors, no historical discrepancies, no antiquated scientific assumptions, not even bad ethical standards. Historical investigation and literary criticism have taken the magic out of the Bible and have made it a composite human book, written by many hands in different ages. The existence of thousands of variations of texts makes it impossible to hold the doctrine of a book verbally infallible. Some might claim for the original copies of the Bible an infallible character, but this view only begs the question and makes such Christian apologetics more ridiculous in the eyes of the sincere man." --Elmer Homrighausen, former Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary. Christianity in America, p. 121, N.Y. Abbingdon Press (1936)

[Savonarola]

All of this over one premise.

Well of course. This premise is the basis of your argument, so you'd better damn well know what it means.

Be clear, please.

That's what I'm asking you to do, and I'm trying to make it easy, not difficult.

Do you believe that objects can begin to exist from nothing? Yes or no will suffice.

But a simple yes or no will not suffice because it is unclear what you mean. Do I believe that a pion can come from absolute nothingness? No. Do I believe that a pion can begin to exist as a pion where no pion previously existed? Yes.
And, as I have already explained, either interpretation of the question does not bode well for the Kalam argument.

I assumed...

Well, you know what folks say about assuming.

What does nothingness have to do with the first premise? Everything. If someone denies it...

What do you mean by "it" here? The first premise, the concept of nothingness, the relationship, or something else? You ask me to be clear, and then you are as clear as mud. Please try harder. But no matter, as I'll show below that you're wrong on any account.

then it logically follows that they must embrace something coming from nothing.

Not if you'll stop moving the goalposts regarding the phrase "begins to exist."

Otherwise stated, if something begins to exist without a cause, then it must have begun to exist from nothing.

Look, I can't help you if you can't read. Things like zero-point energy and quantum fluctuations are real, and pions do not become observable without them, but the actual causality is a different matter. What causes a pion to come into existence at a particular time? As far as we can tell: nothing. There is no cause that has the effect of producing a pion. The pion is simply a different form of the energy that already existed, but there is no cause that produced the pion from that energy.

I haven't moved the goalpost at all. That's when a previously agreed upon criteria for deciding an argument becomes arbitrarily changed after being met.

or after not being met. You asked for an "effect" without a cause. I cited an "effect" without a cause, and you changed your criterion from "having a cause" to "being produced from absolute nothingness." Those are not equivalent statements. Thus, you have moved the goalposts.

The box itself is an obvious cause.

Are you daft? The existence of the box is not a cause. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the meanings of "cause" and "existence"? Because that would explain a good amount of your ludicrous ramblings.

Well, if it is true that whatever begins to exist has a cause then it follows that something cannot begin to exist from absolute nothingness/uncaused.

Let A = "whatever begins to exist has a cause"
Let B = "something cannot begin to exist from absolute nothingness"
You are saying, "If A, then B."

Recall that you are trying to show that "whatever begins to exist has a cause," and I am providing an example of an uncaused beginning. Your response is to assert that this beginning did not come from absolute nothingness.
Thus, your argument here is:
If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

This is the same form as:
If George Washington fell off of a tall cliff, he is dead.
George Washington is dead.
Therefore, George Washington tell off of a tall cliff.

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your argument is invalid.

Thus, arguing that "something cannot come from absolute nothingness" does not support the assertion that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause."

You are yet to provide a published, peer-reviewed paper proving that object(s) can actually begin to exist uncaused.

Do you deny that the scientific understanding supports such an assertion?

No, all the statement "something cannot come from absolute nothingness" would show is that which is reads.

Agreed! So why do you keep trying to make it show that all beginnings have causes?

It doesn't show that everything that now exists has existed an infinite amount of time.. you type that it does

No I don't. Please learn to read and comprehend. Existing for all of time does not mean existing for an infinite amount of time. If time had a beginning at the beginning of the universe (and it did), then the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, yet the universe has existed for all of time. (This is actually quite simple.)

If something cannot begin to exist from absolute nothingness and the universe began to exist,

Where you must be getting hung up is that the universe can have had a beginning without having ever not existed. The universe existed at time = zero. There is no such thing as t = -1. Here's the key, which is the death knell of your argument: At no time did absolutely nothing exist.
Your argument is that my position states that absolute nothingness preceded the universe, and that the universe must have been created from this nothingness. But this is not my position. The very concept of "before the universe" is incoherent, as time is a component of the universe. (It is the fourth dimension and flexes and dilates just like the other dimensions, which also exist only inside the universe.) The universe therefore, by definition, has existed for all of time; there is no need to create a universe out of nothingness because the universe has always existed. The universe began to exist, but it did not begin to exist from nothingness. Any assertion you make that references "absolute nothingness" is therefore entirely pointless.
Thus, I do not need to posit a creation from nothingness, my position is supported by our understanding of time, and your attempt at tying these two different assertions together as being equivalent is fallacious.

If something cannot begin to exist from absolute nothingness and the universe began to exist,

Notice the difference in these statements:
1. The universe cannot begin to exist from absolute nothingness.
2. The universe began to exist.
These statements are not mutually exclusive. Both of these statements can be true if the universe began to exist but did not begin to exist from absolute nothingness. As it makes no sense to speak of a time during which the universe did not exist, it makes no sense to speak of actual "absolute nothingness" ever existing at all. We could conceptually wind the universal clock back to time zero, but the idea of winding the clock back any farther makes no sense.

[TruthSeeker]

I asked: "What is your basis for the claim that "whatever begins to exist has a cause?" And you refer to your every day life. That has nothing to inform us about what goes on at the beginning of universes and the level of QM.

Then you would've been better to ask the question with a bit more detail. If you did, and I skipped over it, I'm sorry about that.
Are you suggesting that the premise shouldn't be applied to the beginning of the universe? Or can't be?

Yes, I see a string of analogies based upon your everyday life experience. The universe and what happens at the subatomic level bares little to no relation to what you've observed back on the farm.

Back on the farm? I've never made observations from a farm. What was the point in that?
Those examples all prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. If you are suggesting that the beginning of the universe should be an exception to the rule, then you'll have to state that and why it should.

And we don't know that a state of "nothing" is even an option. It may be the case, that there has always been some form of something and never been a state of "nothing." I know you would like to claim this for your God, but the advantage I have for suggesting this for the universe, is I can point directly to a universe that actually exists.

Can you explain this form of something and why does it contain more explanatory power than a state of nothing? I don't want to attack a strawman, so will await your response.

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause

But the argument doesn't state that. It states that whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

there can be a designer who was not designed

No matter what the first cause is, whether it be God or a mechanistic sort of cause, it logically follows that it must be causeless. When responding to this sort of thing, I give these points.. maybe, some will apply here:

1. Remember the principle: "if an explanation exists, then there needn't be an explanation for the explanation". For example, if astronauts discovered a fully functional mechanical device on the moon, they can rationally conclude that an intelligent designer designed the device. However, as for an explanation for the designer it seems entirely pointless to even question.. what matters is that some sort of intelligent designer obviously must have designed the device.

2. Having an uncaused first cause escapes a vicious infinite regress of causation.

3. Occam's razor reminds us to not multiply entities beyond necessity. With that being said, if a first cause is all that is necessary; whence, then the reason for more causes?

4. The explanatory power of a first uncaused cause surpasses that of multiple causes.

5. More importantly, the question is irrelevant. One has to assume that the entirety of theism is true and that God does in fact exist before asking the question. So, even if the question remains unanswered the belief meter for God is not tipped in either direction.

TruthSeeker: you might as well tell me that a rabbit can pop into existence into my living room uncaused. Logically it's the same thing.

Darrel: You mean like with a magical God?

But God did not pop into existence (i.e. begin to exist).

Holding has a big mouth and he talks tough, but he's extraordinarily dishonest and inerrancy can't be defended, use what you will, it doesn't matter.

I've seen the Exposed site before. And I'm not up for defending Holding. He's got a lot of critics. His debate style is far from my own. When you get aside his debate style, he is a good friend. Sometimes, he allows passion to get in the way of actual truth seeking.

Savonarola,

Well of course. This premise is the basis of your argument, so you'd better damn well know what it means.

True, indeed.

Me: What does nothingness have to do with the first premise? Everything. If someone denies it...
You: What do you mean by "it" here? The first premise, the concept of nothingness, the relationship, or something else? You ask me to be clear, and then you are as clear as mud. Please try harder. But no matter, as I'll show below that you're wrong on any account.

Sorry for not being more clear. I am speaking in regards to the first premise. I'll do my best to be more clear in this reply.

You continue on stating that I'm "moving the goalpost", which is just untrue. You typed,

or after not being met. You asked for an "effect" without a cause. I cited an "effect" without a cause, and you changed your criterion from "having a cause" to "being produced from absolute nothingness." Those are not equivalent statements. Thus, you have moved the goalposts.

No, I typed that your example was not an example of an effect beginning to exist without a cause. I believe that something beginning to exist without a cause and beginning to exist from nothing are equivalent. Obviously, if there is no cause, then it must have began from nothing. What else can it begin to exist from?

Look, I can't help you if you can't read

I can read fine.

What causes a pion to come into existence at a particular time? As far as we can tell: nothing.

No, pions "borrow" from the particular field in question. There's a cause present. This is far from coming into existence from nothing. The phrase "out of nothing nothing comes" still rings true. Quentin Smith adds,
"acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles."

Are you daft?

Is this typically how theists are treated here? A disagreement is noted, then the theist must be questioned as to being stupid?

Recall that you are trying to show that "whatever begins to exist has a cause," and I am providing an example of an uncaused beginning. Your response is to assert that this beginning did not come from absolute nothingness

Thus far, you have provided no such example. And my response is to assert that the beginning did in fact have a cause.

If George Washington fell off of a tall cliff, he is dead.
George Washington is dead.
Therefore, George Washington tell off of a tall cliff."

You're misrepresenting my responses here pretty drastically, though I'm sure it's in part to me being unclear. My argument would be more like: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Pions begin to exist. Therefore, pions have a cause.

Thus, arguing that "something cannot come from absolute nothingness" does not support the assertion that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause."

I didn't try to use it in such a fashion. I was saying that they both mean the same thing. That's it.

Me: You are yet to provide a published, peer-reviewed paper proving that object(s) can actually begin to exist uncaused.
You: Do you deny that the scientific understanding supports such an assertion?

Yes.

Please learn to read and comprehend. Existing for all of time does not mean existing for an infinite amount of time. If time had a beginning at the beginning of the universe (and it did), then the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, yet the universe has existed for all of time

Sorry for misunderstanding what you meant by "all of time".

the universe can have had a beginning without having ever not existed. The universe existed at time = 0

It is the fourth dimension and flexes and dilates just like the other dimensions

Are you seriously positing Hawking's imaginary time here?

Your argument is that my position states that absolute nothingness preceded the universe, and that the universe must have been created from this nothingness. But this is not my position

I haven't said that your position states that. The only for you to assert such a thing is to seriously distort my typings as you did with the failed fallacy, then twist and pull them towards a conclusion which I never intended. I have been making claims, but not about what your position on origins is.

I'm off to bed.. My work schedule requires me to work nights, so I hope my sleepy mind hasn't led to me destroying any hopeful steps we've been making in our discussion.

Good day, guys.

-TS

[Savonarola]

Obviously, if there is no cause, then it must have began from nothing. What else can it begin to exist from?

Well there's your problem. Not only is this not "obvious," I have already shown, using logical syntax, why your assertion is wrong. I even explicitly stated that the key bit of my position that you seem unable to comprehend is that at no time did absolutely nothing exist. This is because time is a part, a component, a characteristic, of the universe.

It is impossible for there to have been a time at which time did not exist. But that is what you are asserting when you say that the universe had a cause and came from nothing. Here's where this becomes clear:

But God did not pop into existence (i.e. begin to exist).

Again, "pop into existence" and "begin to exist" do not mean the same thing. The universe had a beginning, but it did not "pop into existence," the latter of which implies that the universe did not exist at some point in time prior to existing.

I can read fine.

Not for comprehension. I keep explaining the same simple idea over and over, and you keep completely ignoring the same simple idea over and over.

No, pions "borrow" from the particular field in question. There's a cause present.

No, there's a field present. Yes, the field is a requisite part of the system in order for a pion to begin to exist, but the field itself is not a cause.

The phrase "out of nothing nothing comes" still rings true.

And I have not once claimed otherwise, and I have not one based an argument on the idea that "out of nothing, something comes." Not once. Stop being dishonest.

Is this typically how theists are treated here?

"Theists"? When somebody says something incredibly stupid (like that a box must be a cause of a particular effect merely because the box exists), I question their intelligence regardless of their religious beliefs.

A disagreement is noted,

This goes beyond a disagreement. You made an unsupported assertion, and that assertion was absolutely asinine, suggesting that you truly do not comprehend the difference between "cause" and "existence." For example, I exist, but I am not the cause of the existence of the planet Mars. Likewise, I exist, and the earth exists, but I did not cause the earth to exist, even though I interact with the earth. Saying that a box must cause an energy field to produce a pion is pure poppycock, and it's pure poppycock whether you're a theist or not.

You're misrepresenting my responses here pretty drastically,

Stop lying. I specifically assigned letters to direct quotations and placed them accurately into a structured logical argument. I then showed that the form of your argument is invalid.
Perhaps, if you are such a fan of Craig, you need to find the video of Craig being pompous about how philosophy can show that an argument must be valid (or invalid) based on form regardless of whether one is pleased by the content of the argument.

I didn't try to use it in such a fashion.

Yes, you did, and I showed -- using symbolic logic -- that you indeed did. How you can argue that you said something else is a mystery.

I was saying that they both mean the same thing.

Even if you were trying to say this, I provided an example showing that they do not mean the same thing.
As I said earlier, I can't help you if you can't read.

Are you seriously positing Hawking's imaginary time here?

No, I'm referencing general relativity. See "time dilation."

The only [way] for you to assert such a thing is to seriously distort my typings

No, I assert such a thing precisely because you did not (still do not?) understand my statements and thus misrepresented them, and you admitted not understanding my statements when you said above,

Sorry for misunderstanding what you meant by "all of time".

Do you deny that the scientific understanding supports such an assertion?

Yes.

Excellent. If I provide credible sources showing that the scientific understanding does indeed support that conclusion, will you acknowlege that your argument -- and thus the Kalam cosmological argument -- fails?

[Dardedar]

DAR
I asked: "What is your basis for the claim that "whatever begins to exist has a cause?" And you refer to your every day life. That has nothing to inform us about what goes on at the beginning of universes and the level of QM.

TS
Are you suggesting that the premise shouldn't be applied to the beginning of the universe?

Yes. I now see that the question begging is built right into the premise. Casual readers probably don't notice that this "whatever begins to exist" is just assumed to correctly apply to the universe based upon imprecise informal usage. It is not the case, and it begs the question to presume that our universe going from whatever type of singularity it was, to expansion, is necessarily the beginning of the existence of something, as if what was there, was "nothing." I see no basis whatsoever for that assumption. And without that, what have you got?

Everything that follows after that is built upon this most basic assumption. No wonder Bertrand was so bored with this and SAV has been able to unpack it so quickly.

TS
"Or can't be?

All matters regarding our early universe have a lot of "can be's." "Can be," surely isn't the goal of your argument. But it necessarily is because it appears to be built upon a "can be" from the very beginning. An assumption I see no need to accept.

Back on the farm? I've never made observations from a farm. What was the point in that?

I used "back on the farm" as a euphemism for observations of your everyday life. The universe, laws of physics, QM and subatomic particles have no necessary relation *whatsoever* to your everyday life. Can you not see that comparing the creation of a paragraph to such things is absurd?

Those examples all prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

a) Applying "whatever begins to exist" to the universe, is question begging.
b) Analogizing the creation of a paragraph to what goes on at the subatomic level, is absurd.

If you are suggesting that the beginning of the universe should be an exception to the rule, then you'll have to state that and why it should.

The rule that paragraphs that begin to exist must have a cause?

This is why it really isn't necessary to have formal debates about this stuff, although I am sure there are those who would like to have it raised to that level. You can't even get your first premise off the ground.

DAR
And we don't know that a state of "nothing" is even an option. It may be the case, that there has always been some form of something and never been a state of "nothing."

TS
Can you explain this form of something and why does it contain more explanatory power than a state of nothing?

Again, show that the term "state of nothing" has any meaning and even can exist. You can't do it. We have no knowledge that such a state is possible or has ever existed. Are we done?

DAR
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause

TS
But the argument doesn't state that. It states that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. [/quote]

Hence the question begging built into your first premise, when applied to the universe.
And see the Bertrand Russell comment again.
Show the universe needs a cause the differs from your God not needing a cause.

TS
No matter what the first cause is, whether it be God or a mechanistic sort of cause, it logically follows that it must be causeless.

That there is a necessary first cause, is again your assumption, and I see no reason for accepting it.

Now onto your five points. Thanks for numbering them. I like that.

When responding to this sort of thing, I give these points.. maybe, some will apply here:
1. Remember the principle: "if an explanation exists, then there needn't be an explanation for the explanation". For example, if astronauts discovered a fully functional mechanical device on the moon, they can rationally conclude that an intelligent designer designed the device. However, as for an explanation for the designer it seems entirely pointless to even question.. what matters is that some sort of intelligent designer obviously must have designed the device.

Not at all. Unless that machine has a "made in China" sticker on the side of it, it does not follow that intelligent design is the only explanation for something that appears designed. This is the old Watchmaker argument with a little Behe on top. Michael Behe thought he could do this with his mousetrap and by pointing to a somewhat machine like analogy with the flagellum. That made it a couple of months and was roasted to a crisp in peer review. We had a local, Christian, anthropology professor give an excellent presentation on this at a freethinker meeting and it didn't leave anything standing. We recorded it and you can view it at your leisure here:

Dr. Michael Plavcan: http://blip.tv/freethought-nwa/plavcan- ... re-3434658

What if one were to come across a perfectly formed golden cube. I have several of them:



Might we assume it needed a designer? Only if we were unfamiliar pyrite and with how good the universe is at making things that appear to be intelligently designed, when in fact it's just natural forces, energy and time at work. In fact, when I first showed one of these awesome golden cubes to Doug, he wouldn't believe me that these were made from a naturally occurring mineral process. Assuming human or intelligent design, based upon our everyday human experience, is a natural human error that comes quite natural to us.

2. Having an uncaused first cause escapes a vicious infinite regress of causation.

So? Why would one want to escape that? It's vicious? You may have an allergy to an infinite regress, but you haven't explained why anyone else should.

3. Occam's razor reminds us to not multiply entities beyond necessity. With that being said, if a first cause is all that is necessary; whence, then the reason for more causes?

Excellent. So it's simpler to not assume that first cause. That means Occam just made a point in my favor, not yours.

4. The explanatory power of a first uncaused cause surpasses that of multiple causes.

Mere assertion and, making up a first cause, in your case a personal living God, is simply an appeal to magic. Supernatural. Appealing to magic based supernatural entities, is to provide no "explanatory power" whatsoever. It's like answer a child that asks how a trick is done and you answer: "it's magic." It's saying you don't know, therefore a ghost did it, problem solved. But it solves nothing. It's just an argument from ignorance.

5. More importantly, the question is irrelevant. One has to assume that the entirety of theism is true and that God does in fact exist before asking the question. So, even if the question remains unanswered the belief meter for God is not tipped in either direction.

I guess I forgot what the question was. What's this question that can't be asked without assuming theism and God exists? I would like to see that one. Incidentally, even W.L. Craig hates presuppositionalism. And with good reason.

But God did not pop into existence (i.e. begin to exist).

How do you know? Did you read that in an ancient anonymous book? Whenever you assert you know something about a God, perhaps you should humbly realize in advance that you cannot confirm anything about that. Even if you were getting direct and verifiable communication from a spirit world, and it's safe to say you are not, you wouldn't be able to show that it was from a God and that you weren't being fooled by some evil demon or advanced natural force. But we should wait until something like that happens before we worry about it.

D.
--------------
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone
who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." [John McCarthy]

[Savonarola]

Are you suggesting that the premise shouldn't be applied to the beginning of the universe?

Yes. I now see that the question begging is built right into the premise.

But it's even worse than that for poor TruthSeeker, and I can see (and explain) why even though I'm far below Russell's level. But, to be clear, it is my view that the universe did indeed have a "beginning" in that there were initial conditions of the universe, and no infinite regress that we can detect, so that the only question begging is in the form of arguing that a beginning implies previous nonexistence. I am still doubtful that TS understands this distinction, even though even a rudimentary understanding of time and the necessary relationship between time and change would make this painfully obvious.

First, TS is already on the ropes regarding current scientific understanding. Once I show that he is wrong about our understanding, he'll be forced either to insist that there's a huge scientific conspiracy or to insist that the philosophy behind the science is wrong and that experimentation isn't reliable while his bald assertion is correct.
Second, it's arguably a moot point. The singularity was very small but very massive, and we simply do not have the understanding to model it mathematically, including whether laws of conservation were in effect. (That said, all evidence that we do have says that they likely did.)
Third, and probably most importantly in terms of philosophy, the entire argument may be based on a category error: The basis for the initial premise of the KCA is observation within the universe, but the argument then applies this observation to the universe as a whole (fallacy of composition). We have precisely zero observations of universes being created, so the best we can do is make observations within the universe and use science and philosophy. The KCA rests on the application of a premise with no scientific (or philosophical!) justification... and TS's attempt here has made it easy to show that even the questionable application is dependent upon inferring an alleged tautology that simply isn't true.

[Savonarola]

Quick recap:

Plenty of arguments work for everyone. For example, "whatever begins to exist has a cause"

I don't think that works for a quantum/particle physicist,

It most definitely works for any physicist who's being read or studied in context. .... You are yet to provide a published, peer-reviewed paper proving that object(s) can actually begin to exist uncaused.

Do you deny that the scientific understanding supports such an assertion?

Yes.

Excellent. If I provide credible sources showing that the scientific understanding does indeed support that conclusion, will you acknowlege that your argument -- and thus the Kalam cosmological argument -- fails?

*crickets*