Beginning to Exist

[cyghost]

cyghost finally got to the wiki article on ye old Kalaam and viola! Food for thought for those who can think.

[Peter_Grant]

@cyghost post:21

cyghost finally got to the wiki article on ye old Kalaam and viola! Food for thought for those who can think.

Very cool, I especially liked Victor Stenger’s rebuttal:

Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused", just caused in a nonpredetermined manner- what he calls "probabilistic causality". In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the cause in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous - something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

[rwenzori]

@Teleological post:19

I think this thread has been successful.

I think we can all agree on the following:

1. Actual things, such as particles, humans, computers begin to actually exist.
2. Things have potentially existed since the beginning of time and continue to potentially exist until they actually exist.

Not so fast there!

1. WRT “particles”, we actually do not know. We do not know what was going on in the first bazillionths of a second of the Bang. We do not know what notions of “time” might have been appropriate. We do not know how whatever it is that blew came about. We do not know what types of “stuff” were there. For all we know said Bang might be part of a cyclic process in some form of “time” different to what we can deal with as space-time. We cannot say that what is left after the Bang “came into existence”, as we just do not know. And positing “god” as the answer to what we do not know has never proved to be of lasting benefit. If you really, really want to have a “god” as initiator of the universe, so be it, but there has been no sign of it since, so it remains a pretty meaningless idea.

2. “Potential” existence is just a whole pile of hooey in terms of explaining anything. “Potential existence” is simply no existence at all, and the words are just herring, red.

So no, we are not all in frabjous happy agreement.

[rwenzori]

@gothcatgirl post:16

@rwenzori post:5

@gothcatgirl post:4

against my better judgement, i clicked on the link leading to this post. i was not dissapointed.
i have no words.

That would be “disappointed”, but never mind. Nice kitteh.

dude, what is your issue?
do you have nothing better to do but correct my spelling and comment on my punctuation or whatever. get a goddamn life allready.
how about commenting on the issue at hand. how old are you? like 80 in the shade?

My, my, you are touchy! I would have thought that my rather generous attempts to help you with your English would have been deserving of at least a smidgen of gratitude rather than a rude jibe about my senility. C’est la vie, I suppose.

[Peter_Grant]

@rwenzori post:23

1. Actual things, such as particles, humans, computers begin to actually exist.

Particles can pop in an out of existence whilst humans and computers do not. Their existence depends on relatively stable arrangements of particles. They both exist, but they begin to exist in different ways.

@Teleological post:19

2. Things have potentially existed since the beginning of time and continue to potentially exist until they actually exist.

Certain things need to exist before other things can. Stars are necessary for the formation of heavier elements for example.