[video=youtube;COJ0ED1mV7s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJ0ED1mV7s#at=23[/video] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-kalam-cosmological-argument That about sums it up.
if you'd objectively research this stuff somewhere else besides apologist websites you'd find WLC commonly misrepresents information/takes things out of context and nobody outside apologist circles takes him or any of his arguments seriously. you are being duped by propaganda here. the truth is STILL nobody knows, or can possibly know if the universe is infinite or not. nothing has been proven.
I love some of the responses by known atheists on this argument. They said "What if I had this spirit and was able to travel back in time and created the universe? Would I be considered God?" That is an easy answer. If you had the ability to create this universe, then you would know how the Universe came into existence. All you would need is to explain and use perfect math to answer all the questions of this universe. Since you do not know, you cannot be this being.
Excuse me? Its pretty easy crow. If the universe is expanding and eternal; then we would have already been of nothingness. Why is that so hard to understand? And you can ploy multiverses or any other theory and all still are bound by the laws of expansion. So all things would already be nothingness if eternal. It's really quite simple. I think it's funny that you point out that this is from an apologist, yet all quotes are from those respected in the scientific community.
What if I built a time machine and went back in time and created the universe? Present me would not know this, but future me would. But if I built the universe, how am I here now? Who created me to build the universe? What if someone else created the time machine, would they have really created the universe? What if when I created the universe I changed physics so that time travel isn't possible? Inception!
You've been watching too many sic-fi movies. If you were to travel back in time and created the universe, there would be another universe and time. You still wouldn't have created this universe. But if we use your theory and it does sticks; it still proves that the universe had a finite beginning and a conscious being created it.
AND lets be frank here. Has there been any empirical evidence of something coming to existence without purpose creating this thing?
The origin of the universe is not something you can solve, and I think you know this. But, maybe you can write a book about it and people will be interested in reading it. Edit: By the way, not saying your opinion isn't reasonable or valid. I just think the whole thing is a conundrum -- and therefore I just don't think about it that much. I do often wonder, what happens when we die and why are we here. But I have my own inner peace with the universe and don't seriously contemplate such things.
Interesting... SO Then you thinking this way would warrant that an atheist, or anyone that doesn't believe in a Conscious Being that created this universe is an act of faith? I mean lets be honest here. You openly admitted that you don't have the answers right? So we can all agree that believing or not believing in a God is an act of faith?
Yep. See my edit which I think crossed during your post. I don't know what I consider myself (probably agnostic), so I am not an adversary of you on this. At times I believe in a creator, but I do not believe that this being cares much whether we believe in the creator or not or whether we believe in a specific definition of the creator. I live a moral life, in my view, and believe that any creator would certainly approve of my life and the way I carry myself. Other times, I just don't know or have a strong belief one way or the other.
I can 100% respect all of your views. It's a solid way of thinking. I am only advocating that there is a creator. To whom the creator is can be debated I guess.
this is just a simplistic intuitive argument that doesn't take into account counterintuitive factors like the effects of quantum mechanics at small scales, the nature of time in the context of whatever the big bang was (which we don't know) and whether temporal finiteness is even a meaningful concept. also there may be an explanation for an infinite god-free universe that we haven't discovered and might not even be able to comprehend if we did. again if you'd research this stuff elsewhere you'd find that's not the case. even Vilenkin (one of the authors of the paper WLC is relying on) admits nothing has been proven and there still are possible workarounds to the apparent necessity of an absolute beginning.
Sorry I don't buy that. Something at small scale can be magnified grander and still equate at the same principles. You can try and bring in the minuscule to overlook the grand scheme of things, but the gran scheme is still present. So you are in disagreement that the big bang was the start and cause of this universe? Like what? If you don't have something empirical, then you are just as much driven by faith as the theist. Lets compare apples to apples shall we? Vilenkin is giving an answer with what has been observed. What could be is faith. So you acting on faith or not CrowTbot?
So you also think it's an act of faith to not believe in the Greek Gods nor the Hindu Gods nor the flying Spaghetti Monster?
It is absolutely an act of faith. But one could argue that those mythologies have died through the test of time (excluding the Spaghetti Monster of course). But one things that has been here since the beginning is "There is a creator that created this universe". Theism can evolve just as science can, since both genesis have foundations of faith.
No, those that are minuscule haven't been fully observed, but the theory stands. If there is a finite answer; that answer can be magnified to enormous levels without fail.
Look there are* quantum mechanical events that occur and have been observed which do not occur with big things. Electrons will behave like a wave.
