The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[bahman]

We could get somewhere if you just accept that there is at least one watch in the universe that shows the passage of time. It seems that I cannot convince you. So I am done with you.

Relativity means that there is no watch that shows the passage of absolute time because there is no such thing. The end. All watches show relative times from their respective reference frames. Indeed you can't convince me because Einstein's theory has passed all tests so far.

I didn't talk about absolute time but the relative one! All I am asking is whether there is a watch that shows the passage of relative time.

[Atla]

We could get somewhere if you just accept that there is at least one watch in the universe that shows the passage of time. It seems that I cannot convince you. So I am done with you.

Relativity means that there is no watch that shows the passage of absolute time because there is no such thing. The end. All watches show relative times from their respective reference frames. Indeed you can't convince me because Einstein's theory has passed all tests so far.

I didn't talk about absolute time but the relative one! All I am asking is whether there is a watch that shows the passage of relative time.

? That's what all watches do.

[bahman]

Relativity means that there is no watch that shows the passage of absolute time because there is no such thing. The end. All watches show relative times from their respective reference frames. Indeed you can't convince me because Einstein's theory has passed all tests so far.

I didn't talk about absolute time but the relative one! All I am asking is whether there is a watch that shows the passage of relative time.

? That's what all watches do.

So you agree with the passage of time?

[Atla]

I didn't talk about absolute time but the relative one! All I am asking is whether there is a watch that shows the passage of relative time.

? That's what all watches do.

So you agree with the passage of time?

In what sense ffs.

[bahman]

? That's what all watches do.

So you agree with the passage of time?

In what sense ffs.

In the sense that there are events in the universe and they are separated by relative time.

[Atla]

So you agree with the passage of time?

In what sense ffs.

In the sense that there are events in the universe and they are separated by relative time.

Yes

[VVilliam]

We could get somewhere if you just accept that there is at least one watch in the universe that shows the passage of time.

The only "watch" which would fit said roll, would have to be the Universe itself.
That clock/timepiece can still be considered "within" the Universe and any notion of an "outside" is assumming said Universe is itself "within" some "other" Universe (supernaturalism).

One cannot "see" the Universe from a perspective "outside" of the Universe which is why we cannot describe the Singularity even that we can pinpoint it as a "beginning." (of the Universes current overall form...which itself is ever-changing).

[Age]

Well, there are two scenarios when it comes to the beginning of the universe: 1) The universe existed at the beginning of time and 2) The universe started to exist at the beginning of time. I will discuss (2) first and then return to (1).

Well considering the term or phrase 'the beginning of time' is Truly ABSURD and ILLOGICAL, in the 'sense' of what you are pertaining to here, MAKES what you SAY and ALLEGE here is just False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

There are FAR MORE scenarios when it comes to the so-called 'beginning of time'. And, there is ONLY one that FITS IN WITH the ACTUAL Truth, PERFECTLY. Which, by the way, is NEITHER of YOUR two ONLY scenarios here.

To discuss this further I have to make a distinction between two options namely, time is an element of the universe, and time is not an element of the universe. I can show the first case leads to a regress so it is not acceptable.

Are you STILL following this Truly ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, and False 'line'?

How does it lead to regress? Well, we have to note that time is needed for any change.

BUT 'time' itself is NOT 'needed' for ANY 'change'. However, while 'you' CONTINUE TO BELIEVE otherwise "bahman" 'you' will NEVER LEARN and BECOME WISER here regarding 'this'.

It then follows that time is needed for time to begin whether there is a creator or not.

This is your type of 'arguing style' "bahman":

'Time' is needed for change.
Therefore, 'time' is needed for 'time to begin'.

Have 'you' EVER considered INFORMING 'us' of what 'time', itself, IS, EXACTLY, FIRST?

This obviously leads to regress. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the universe cannot begin to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, time is not an element of the universe. This leaves us with the second option which is, time is not an element of the universe. Time however in this picture has to have a beginning otherwise we are dealing with eternal time which is logically unacceptable.

'you' STILL REALLY BELIEVE that what is NOT 'acceptable' TO "bahman" is NOT 'logically acceptable'. Which is just FURTHER PROOF of how BELIEFS DISTORT, PREVENT, and/or STOP the ACTUAL Truth being RECOGNIZED, SEEN, and UNDERSTAND.

This is against the first premise of the Kalam argument.

The so-called "kalam argument" is NOT even a 'sound AND valid argument', and thus NOT even really worthy of being repeated.

The stuff that exists then either brought to existence by the act of creation or existed since the beginning of time. The second case is nothing but (1). I personally don't have any argument against these two cases. Therefore, God cannot be proved or disproved.

False, AND Wrong, AGAIN.

You again Age!?

Did you REALLY NEED to put a question mark at the end of this statement.

Just telling me that my arguments are wrong without providing any counterargument.

'your' arguments are Wrong, partly, BECAUSE of the reasons I EXPLAINED above.

Also, I have ALREADY PROVEN that it would NOT matter whether I provide counterarguments and even valid AND sound counter arguments TO 'you', "bahman", BECAUSE 'you' are NOT OPEN to absolutely ANY 'thing' that counters what 'you' are currently BELIEVING is true here.

[Age]

If we include finite eternal time / finite timelessness, yes.

What do you mean by finite eternal time?

The universe could be boundless but finite in any dimension, including time.

How COULD the Universe EVER be 'finite in any dimension'?

What COULD POSSIBLY exist that COULD 'finite', spatially?

In fact I think it's nonsensical to use anything else as the default assumption.

The reason I suggest that 'you', adult human beings, STOP MAKING UP ASSUMPTIONS, and TO STOP ASSUMING 'things', is BECAUSE 'they' LEAD TO Truly ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL CLAIMS. Exactly like the one you have just MADE UP here "atla".

Also, I found that by just BE-COMING OPEN, and REMAINING OPEN, INSTEAD, then what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, IS JUST REALIZED, VERY QUICKLY I will also add.

[Age]

What do you mean by finite eternal time?

The universe could be boundless but finite in any dimension,

I agree. The universe is indeed boundless in space.

including time.

Not in time.

Are you here "bahman", 'Just telling "atla" that 'its' arguments are wrong without providing any counterargument'?

[Age]

Not in time.

Why not? It's the only logical assumption as far as I can tell.

BUT WHY EVEN ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'?

Especially when the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is, BLINDINGLY, OBVIOUS, and HERE-NOW for ALL to LOOK AT, and SEE?

ONCE AGAIN, it IS ASSUMPTIONS, like the one that has been provided above here, which IS what IS STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you', people, FROM LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, and KNOWING what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

(Besides as you know, there is only spacetime, it's one thing, you can't extract time from it.)

[Age]

Not in time.

Why not? It's the only logical assumption as far as I can tell. (Besides as you know, there is only spacetime, it's one thing, you can't extract time from it.)

To be precise the spacetime is boundless. Time within spacetime has a beginning but no end.

Here is ANOTHER example of HOW and WHEN 'these people, BACK THEN, would say just about ANY 'thing', in order to 'TRY TO' back and support and defend 'their BELIEFS and CLAIMS'. Which ARE, and WERE, OBVIOUSLY False AND Wrong to BEGIN WITH, ANYWAY.

[Atla]

BUT WHY EVEN ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'?

Especially when the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is, BLINDINGLY, OBVIOUS, and HERE-NOW for ALL to LOOK AT, and SEE?

Get lost. All this "ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth" you keep endlessly babbling about is nothing but bullshit you assume. You are the worst kind of offender when it comes to assuming things. But looks like the part of your brain responsible for self-reflection is simply not working.

[Age]

Why not? It's the only logical assumption as far as I can tell. (Besides as you know, there is only spacetime, it's one thing, you can't extract time from it.)

To be precise the spacetime is boundless. Time within spacetime has a beginning but no end.

Ok, I disagree. Let's say the universe started with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch. The only logical view is that time is circular, one possibility is that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same point in time (no eternal return / no cyclic cosmology).

What justification is there for deviating from the above logical picture, as the default assumption?

The ACTUAL Truth.

[Age]

BUT WHY EVEN ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'?

Especially when the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is, BLINDINGLY, OBVIOUS, and HERE-NOW for ALL to LOOK AT, and SEE?

Get lost. All this "ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth" you keep endlessly babbling about is nothing but bullshit you assume.

AND, 'you', supposedly, KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY, "atla"?

You are the worst kind of offender in assuming things.

How about 'you' START LISTING what 'you' ASSUME I am ASSUMING here "atla".

But looks like the part of your brain responsible for self-reflection is simply not working.

ONCE AGAIN 'you' REVERT BACK to 'this kind' of so-called "reasoning".