A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Grumblenuts]

"crickets chirping"

When you begin an inquiry with:
"So you're saying that"
you're simply having a a conversation with yourself Why bother mentioning or including me at all?
I was being nice. Again, I was saying (as I believe was Alex) that the term "preceded" makes a chronological claim. Indeed, to speculate upon what may "precede" the beginning of time (t=0) is beyond silly. Beyond illogical. It's patently absurd. Perhaps insane. Even allowing for a multiverse which has proven as scientifically evident as "God" to us thus far makes no difference. Now, if instead, one were to argue that there existed a negative time period associated with our universe.. that might be different, but I haven't seen anyone seriously proposing that.

I do define terms. In this instance, whether you know it or not, you're alluding to ontological nothingness. We do know what that is, namely, the absence of being. It's not rocket science.

A "tauntology" perhaps? "tontology"? Lol. I've noticed a lot of "We" this and "We" that coming from you. Really? I don't give a shit about aligning myself with any historical consensus here. Why are you so bullied by it? I'm interested in figuring out what makes the most sense. That's all. That I'm an atheist and you're not is a given. I can forget all that for the time being and still examine the subject logically and scientifically. Can you?

So now you're claiming that the material realm of being has always existed despite what the imperatives of logic and those of cosmological science tell us?

Yeah, too bad I choose my words carefully so as not to be so mistaken. I said nothing about any "material realm of being." That just strikes me as gibberish. I do believe there's material stuff (magnetic based) and immaterial stuff (dielectric based) which together comprise and drive everything or "the Universe." Space and counterspace. But,.. I don't really expect you to understand let alone agree with any of that. Alex neither. So let's try not to go there, shall we?

You're making new atheist slogan speak.

You're just being a pompous ass now.

Geometry, immaterial mathematics in general, imply mind.

Not to me they don't. Not by any sort of rational logic. Not in the least. I'd say rather probability and geometry. Working in tandem, they describe the most basic form or character of nature. What it is at root. Next level is "electricity" which also remains poorly understood.

The term "virtual particle" literally screams the fact that no actual "particle" exists.

Nonsense. Pseudoscientific gibberish. Virtual particles are real particles, fleeting material existents, that arise and dissipate as fields rearrange themselves. If this were not so, we couldn't detect them.

Oh, hwell,.. QM fairytale bullshit then! Take that! You clearly fail to appreciate that people like me are immune to such vacuous bluster. Seen it. Done it. Bored with it. High time you got serious too, son. Stop conflating material with "real" which is, in fact, literally not "virtual", i.e. a mere placeholder. Something to use until something emerges as genuinely evident or "real." Simply smashing shit together will never get us there. Many physicists are beginning to get it now. You've been misled is all.. along with virtually everyone.. but not literally everyone.. thank goodness.

 

[Ringtone]

"crickets chirping"

When you begin an inquiry with:
"So you're saying that"
you're simply having a a conversation with yourself Why bother mentioning or including me at all?
I was being nice. Again, I was saying (as I believe was Alex) that the term "preceded" makes a chronological claim. Indeed, to speculate upon what may "precede" the beginning of time (t=0) is beyond silly. Beyond illogical. It's patently absurd. Perhaps insane. Even allowing for a multiverse which has proven as scientifically evident as "God" to us thus far makes no difference. Now, if instead, one were to argue that there existed a negative time period associated with our universe.. that might be different, but I haven't seen anyone seriously proposing that.

I do define terms. In this instance, whether you know it or not, you're alluding to ontological nothingness. We do know what that is, namely, the absence of being. It's not rocket science.

A "tauntology" perhaps? "tontology"? Lol. I've noticed a lot of "We" this and "We" that coming from you. Really? I don't give a shit about aligning myself with any historical consensus here. Why are you so bullied by it? I'm interested in figuring out what makes the most sense. That's all. That I'm an atheist and you're not is a given. I can forget all that for the time being and still examine the subject logically and scientifically. Can you?

So now you're claiming that the material realm of being has always existed despite what the imperatives of logic and those of cosmological science tell us?

Yeah, too bad I choose my words carefully so as not to be so mistaken. I said nothing about any "material realm of being." That just strikes me as gibberish. I do believe there's material stuff (magnetic based) and immaterial stuff (dielectric based) which together comprise and drive everything or "the Universe." Space and counterspace. But,.. I don't really expect you to understand let alone agree with any of that. Alex neither. So let's try not to go there, shall we?

You're making new atheist slogan speak.

You're just being a pompous ass now.

Geometry, immaterial mathematics in general, imply mind.

Not to me they don't. Not by any sort of rational logic. Not in the least. I'd say rather probability and geometry. Working in tandem, they describe the most basic form or character of nature. What it is at root. Next level is "electricity" which also remains poorly understood.

The term "virtual particle" literally screams the fact that no actual "particle" exists.

Nonsense. Pseudoscientific gibberish. Virtual particles are real particles, fleeting material existents, that arise and dissipate as fields rearrange themselves. If this were not so, we couldn't detect them.

Oh, hwell,.. QM fairytale bullshit then! Take that! You clearly fail to appreciate that people like me are immune to such vacuous bluster. Seen it. Done it. Bored with it. High time you got serious too, son. Stop conflating material with "real" which is, in fact, literally not "virtual", i.e. a mere placeholder. Something to use until something emerges as genuinely evident or "real." Simply smashing shit together will never get us there. Many physicists are beginning to get it now. You've been misled is all.. along with virtually everyone.. but not literally everyone.. thank goodness.

Stick to one point at a time.

Neither astrophysicists/cosmologists, philosophers of science and causality nor I, in this instance, are talking about causality within the framework of material being and, therefore, within the framework of time! We're talking about what preceded the existence of the physical world in terms of causality, i.e., what preceded the existence of the physical world (the material realm of being, by the way) in terms of the ontological order of being and sufficient causality. You're going on about causality in time, which has absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China. It is Alex's assertion that is silly. That is why I asked you are you saying that you believe that the physical world just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness by magic, i.e., sans a sufficient cause or prior being?

Once again:

There's no logical, metaphysical or even scientific imperative that being or causality require the existence of time, and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about a hierarchical order of prior being and causality relative to the beginning of time. If what Alex is suggesting were true, then physicists like Guth, Linde, Dyson, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Steinhardt, Penrose, Wieman, Higgs, Witten and others are barking up the wrong tree. They're not merely trying to work out the physics of the universe prior to the inflationary epoch (lasting from 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds after the conjectured singularity) or prior to the grand unification epoch (lasting from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the singularity), or even prior to gravity's separation at the end of the Planck era (lasting from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds). They're regarding being and causality prior to t = 0—back to a fluctuation of energy in a primordial quantum vacuum or back to the laws of physics themselves, you know, before the beginning of time.​

You're going on about something you don't understand.

Besides, Alex no longer makes that argument, i.e., that being or causality require the existence of time, which he got from Dawkins. He now realizes just how stupid and patently false, both metaphysically and scientifically. that notion is. He has moved on from it.

Absorb that and then we can move on to your other assertions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stick to one point at a time.

Neither astrophysicists/cosmologists, philosophers of science and causality nor I, in this instance, are talking about

Kindly cut the crap. I am quite familiar with logical fallacy. Quit trying to argue authority from numbers like a schoolboy. Stick to speaking for yourself. Speak to what flows logically, how, and why. YOU, not "We." Either your arguments stand on their own merits or they don't.

You're going on about causality in time, which has absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Okay, try demonstrating that by describing a sequence of "causal" steps without referencing time and having zero obvious time relations.

There's no logical, metaphysical or even scientific imperative that being or causality require the existence of time, and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about a hierarchical order of prior being and causality relative to the beginning of time.

Enough with the simple, wordy denials, kay? Again, not impressed.

If what Alex is suggesting were true, then physicists like Guth, Linde, Dyson, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Steinhardt, Penrose, Wieman, Higgs, Witten and others are barking up the wrong tree.

Yep. Oh well, sad day for them then. Who cares? Not I.

They're not merely trying to work out the physics of the universe prior to the inflationary epoch (lasting from 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds after the conjectured singularity) or prior to the grand unification epoch (lasting from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the singularity), or even prior to gravity's separation at the end of the Planck era (lasting from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds). They're regarding being and causality prior to t = 0—back to a fluctuation of energy in a primordial quantum vacuum or back to the laws of physics themselves, you know, before the beginning of time.

So "time, time, time, time, sausage, egg, and time" has little to no time in it, eh? Perhaps you'd best think about this a wee bit deeper.. What's that? Going on about something you don't understand?.. Are "We" now?

Alex no longer makes that argument, i.e., that being or causality require the existence of time, which he got from Dawkins. He now realizes just how stupid and patently false, both metaphysically and scientifically. that notion is. He has moved on from it.

That would be interesting if you could quote him on it for backup. See I can't quite bring myself to simply trust your opinion on these matters for some odd reason.

Btw, the desperation inherent to the term "quantum vacuum" is stellar. As I've said, there's simply no reason for one to ever posit a "vacuum" or absolute "void". I don't blame common religions for that any more than faiths of any sort. I blame Einstein and quantum mechanics in general for distracting everyone from continuing the previously well established practical study of electricity and related phenomena which, it turns out, drives all and always has.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What is the ontological argument simple?

The ontological argument is an idea in religious philosophy. ... The idea is that existing makes a good thing better than one that's only imaginary. So the perfect thing we're imagining must exist. Then we call the perfect thing God.

Yep, that's "simple" alright

 

[Grumblenuts]

Highfalutin philosophistry..

 

[Ringtone]

Stick to one point at a time.

Neither astrophysicists/cosmologists, philosophers of science and causality nor I, in this instance, are talking about

Kindly cut the crap. I am quite familiar with logical fallacy. Quit trying to argue authority from numbers like a schoolboy. Stick to speaking for yourself. Speak to what flows logically, how, and why. YOU, not "We." Either your arguments stand on their own merits or they don't.

You're going on about causality in time, which has absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Okay, try demonstrating that by describing a sequence of "causal" steps without referencing time and having zero obvious time relations.

There's no logical, metaphysical or even scientific imperative that being or causality require the existence of time, and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about a hierarchical order of prior being and causality relative to the beginning of time.

Enough with the simple, wordy denials, kay? Again, not impressed.

If what Alex is suggesting were true, then physicists like Guth, Linde, Dyson, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Steinhardt, Penrose, Wieman, Higgs, Witten and others are barking up the wrong tree.

Yep. Oh well, sad day for them then. Who cares? Not I.

They're not merely trying to work out the physics of the universe prior to the inflationary epoch (lasting from 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds after the conjectured singularity) or prior to the grand unification epoch (lasting from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the singularity), or even prior to gravity's separation at the end of the Planck era (lasting from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds). They're regarding being and causality prior to t = 0—back to a fluctuation of energy in a primordial quantum vacuum or back to the laws of physics themselves, you know, before the beginning of time.

So "time, time, time, time, sausage, egg, and time" has little to no time in it, eh? Perhaps you'd best think about this a wee bit deeper.. What's that? Going on about something you don't understand?.. Are "We" now?

Alex no longer makes that argument, i.e., that being or causality require the existence of time, which he got from Dawkins. He now realizes just how stupid and patently false, both metaphysically and scientifically. that notion is. He has moved on from it.

That would be interesting if you could quote him on it for backup. See I can't quite bring myself to simply trust your opinion on these matters for some odd reason.

Btw, the desperation inherent to the term "quantum vacuum" is stellar. As I've said, there's simply no reason for one to ever posit a "vacuum" or absolute "void". I don't blame common religions for that any more than faiths of any sort. I blame Einstein and quantum mechanics in general for distracting everyone from continuing the previously well established practical study of electricity and related phenomena which, it turns out, drives all and always has.

Your posts are waste of space and time. The stuff of incoherent gibberish.
Grumblenuts

 

[Hollie]

Stick to one point at a time.

Neither astrophysicists/cosmologists, philosophers of science and causality nor I, in this instance, are talking about

Kindly cut the crap. I am quite familiar with logical fallacy. Quit trying to argue authority from numbers like a schoolboy. Stick to speaking for yourself. Speak to what flows logically, how, and why. YOU, not "We." Either your arguments stand on their own merits or they don't.

You're going on about causality in time, which has absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Okay, try demonstrating that by describing a sequence of "causal" steps without referencing time and having zero obvious time relations.

There's no logical, metaphysical or even scientific imperative that being or causality require the existence of time, and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about a hierarchical order of prior being and causality relative to the beginning of time.

Enough with the simple, wordy denials, kay? Again, not impressed.

If what Alex is suggesting were true, then physicists like Guth, Linde, Dyson, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Steinhardt, Penrose, Wieman, Higgs, Witten and others are barking up the wrong tree.

Yep. Oh well, sad day for them then. Who cares? Not I.

They're not merely trying to work out the physics of the universe prior to the inflationary epoch (lasting from 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds after the conjectured singularity) or prior to the grand unification epoch (lasting from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the singularity), or even prior to gravity's separation at the end of the Planck era (lasting from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds). They're regarding being and causality prior to t = 0—back to a fluctuation of energy in a primordial quantum vacuum or back to the laws of physics themselves, you know, before the beginning of time.

So "time, time, time, time, sausage, egg, and time" has little to no time in it, eh? Perhaps you'd best think about this a wee bit deeper.. What's that? Going on about something you don't understand?.. Are "We" now?

Alex no longer makes that argument, i.e., that being or causality require the existence of time, which he got from Dawkins. He now realizes just how stupid and patently false, both metaphysically and scientifically. that notion is. He has moved on from it.

That would be interesting if you could quote him on it for backup. See I can't quite bring myself to simply trust your opinion on these matters for some odd reason.

Btw, the desperation inherent to the term "quantum vacuum" is stellar. As I've said, there's simply no reason for one to ever posit a "vacuum" or absolute "void". I don't blame common religions for that any more than faiths of any sort. I blame Einstein and quantum mechanics in general for distracting everyone from continuing the previously well established practical study of electricity and related phenomena which, it turns out, drives all and always has.

Your posts are waste of space and time. The stuff of incoherent gibberish.
Grumblenuts
View attachment 437176

It’s barely a challenge to debunk the claims of the hyper-religious and watch clutch the rip cord and bail out.

 

[Ringtone]

Grumblenuts mindlessly writes: Kindly cut the crap. I am quite familiar with logical fallacy. Quit trying to argue authority from numbers like a schoolboy. Stick to speaking for yourself. Speak to what flows logically, how, and why. YOU, not "We." Either your arguments stand on their own merits or they don't.

__________

A rash of utter bullshit! You're stupidly claiming that things can occur or come into existence sans a sufficient cause or reason. You stupidly claim that causality and ontological being require the existence of time. Arguing from the authority of numbers?! Stick to speaking for yourself?! What in the world are you babbling about?

Once again, my direct refutation of your falsehoods, irrationality and pseudoscience. . . .

Stick to one point at a time.​

​

Neither astrophysicists/cosmologists, philosophers of science and causality nor I, in this instance, are talking about causality within the framework of material being and, therefore, within the framework of time! We're talking about what preceded the existence of the physical world in terms of causality, i.e., what preceded the existence of the physical world (the material realm of being, by the way) in terms of the ontological order of being and sufficient causality. You're going on about causality in time, which has absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China. It is Alex's assertion that is silly. That is why I asked you are you saying that you believe that the physical world just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness by magic, i.e., sans a sufficient cause or prior being?​

​

Once again:​

​

There's no logical, metaphysical or even scientific imperative that being or causality require the existence of time, and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about a hierarchical order of prior being and causality relative to the beginning of time. If what Alex is suggesting were true, then physicists like Guth, Linde, Dyson, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Steinhardt, Penrose, Wieman, Higgs, Witten and others are barking up the wrong tree. They're not merely trying to work out the physics of the universe prior to the inflationary epoch (lasting from 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds after the conjectured singularity) or prior to the grand unification epoch (lasting from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the singularity), or even prior to gravity's separation at the end of the Planck era (lasting from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds). They're regarding being and causality prior to t = 0—back to a fluctuation of energy in a primordial quantum vacuum or back to the laws of physics themselves, you know, before the beginning of time.​

​

You're going on about something you don't understand.​

​

Besides, Alex no longer makes that argument, i.e., that being or causality require the existence of time, which he got from Dawkins. He now realizes just how stupid and patently false, both metaphysically and scientifically. that notion is. He has moved on from it.​

​

Absorb that and then we can move on to your other assertions.​

​

 

[Ringtone]

Stick to one point at a time.

Neither astrophysicists/cosmologists, philosophers of science and causality nor I, in this instance, are talking about

Kindly cut the crap. I am quite familiar with logical fallacy. Quit trying to argue authority from numbers like a schoolboy. Stick to speaking for yourself. Speak to what flows logically, how, and why. YOU, not "We." Either your arguments stand on their own merits or they don't.

You're going on about causality in time, which has absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Okay, try demonstrating that by describing a sequence of "causal" steps without referencing time and having zero obvious time relations.

There's no logical, metaphysical or even scientific imperative that being or causality require the existence of time, and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about a hierarchical order of prior being and causality relative to the beginning of time.

Enough with the simple, wordy denials, kay? Again, not impressed.

If what Alex is suggesting were true, then physicists like Guth, Linde, Dyson, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Steinhardt, Penrose, Wieman, Higgs, Witten and others are barking up the wrong tree.

Yep. Oh well, sad day for them then. Who cares? Not I.

They're not merely trying to work out the physics of the universe prior to the inflationary epoch (lasting from 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds after the conjectured singularity) or prior to the grand unification epoch (lasting from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the singularity), or even prior to gravity's separation at the end of the Planck era (lasting from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds). They're regarding being and causality prior to t = 0—back to a fluctuation of energy in a primordial quantum vacuum or back to the laws of physics themselves, you know, before the beginning of time.

So "time, time, time, time, sausage, egg, and time" has little to no time in it, eh? Perhaps you'd best think about this a wee bit deeper.. What's that? Going on about something you don't understand?.. Are "We" now?

Alex no longer makes that argument, i.e., that being or causality require the existence of time, which he got from Dawkins. He now realizes just how stupid and patently false, both metaphysically and scientifically. that notion is. He has moved on from it.

That would be interesting if you could quote him on it for backup. See I can't quite bring myself to simply trust your opinion on these matters for some odd reason.

Btw, the desperation inherent to the term "quantum vacuum" is stellar. As I've said, there's simply no reason for one to ever posit a "vacuum" or absolute "void". I don't blame common religions for that any more than faiths of any sort. I blame Einstein and quantum mechanics in general for distracting everyone from continuing the previously well established practical study of electricity and related phenomena which, it turns out, drives all and always has.

Your posts are waste of space and time. The stuff of incoherent gibberish.
Grumblenuts
View attachment 437176

It’s barely a challenge to debunk the claims of the hyper-religious and watch clutch the rip cord and bail out.

So stop talking about it if it's so easy, and do it.

Slam dunk. You're dismissed.

 

[Hollie]

Stick to one point at a time.

Neither astrophysicists/cosmologists, philosophers of science and causality nor I, in this instance, are talking about

Kindly cut the crap. I am quite familiar with logical fallacy. Quit trying to argue authority from numbers like a schoolboy. Stick to speaking for yourself. Speak to what flows logically, how, and why. YOU, not "We." Either your arguments stand on their own merits or they don't.

You're going on about causality in time, which has absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Okay, try demonstrating that by describing a sequence of "causal" steps without referencing time and having zero obvious time relations.

There's no logical, metaphysical or even scientific imperative that being or causality require the existence of time, and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about a hierarchical order of prior being and causality relative to the beginning of time.

Enough with the simple, wordy denials, kay? Again, not impressed.

If what Alex is suggesting were true, then physicists like Guth, Linde, Dyson, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Steinhardt, Penrose, Wieman, Higgs, Witten and others are barking up the wrong tree.

Yep. Oh well, sad day for them then. Who cares? Not I.

They're not merely trying to work out the physics of the universe prior to the inflationary epoch (lasting from 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds after the conjectured singularity) or prior to the grand unification epoch (lasting from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the singularity), or even prior to gravity's separation at the end of the Planck era (lasting from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds). They're regarding being and causality prior to t = 0—back to a fluctuation of energy in a primordial quantum vacuum or back to the laws of physics themselves, you know, before the beginning of time.

So "time, time, time, time, sausage, egg, and time" has little to no time in it, eh? Perhaps you'd best think about this a wee bit deeper.. What's that? Going on about something you don't understand?.. Are "We" now?

Alex no longer makes that argument, i.e., that being or causality require the existence of time, which he got from Dawkins. He now realizes just how stupid and patently false, both metaphysically and scientifically. that notion is. He has moved on from it.

That would be interesting if you could quote him on it for backup. See I can't quite bring myself to simply trust your opinion on these matters for some odd reason.

Btw, the desperation inherent to the term "quantum vacuum" is stellar. As I've said, there's simply no reason for one to ever posit a "vacuum" or absolute "void". I don't blame common religions for that any more than faiths of any sort. I blame Einstein and quantum mechanics in general for distracting everyone from continuing the previously well established practical study of electricity and related phenomena which, it turns out, drives all and always has.

Your posts are waste of space and time. The stuff of incoherent gibberish.
Grumblenuts
View attachment 437176

It’s barely a challenge to debunk the claims of the hyper-religious and watch clutch the rip cord and bail out.

So stop talking about it if it's so easy, and do it.

Slam dunk. You're dismissed.

I already have.

Your claims to gods, magical spirit realms, supernatural events, etc., are standard fare. The religions that compete with Christianity make claims similar to yours.No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Moslems are really right." Uh, not likely.)

In the realm of reason and rationality, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. When any religionist can gainsay a partisan version of gods without stepping up to the plate and showing why their gods are true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge to be simply reiterating partisan dogma. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

Proponents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each must show why their source material (Bible, Koran) establishes their claims as true and the other(s) not. Why one having preeminence over the other? What's missing from the formula that each can insist theirs is valid and the other is not?

The standards of proof of course.

Is there anything like that you can offer?

 

[Grumblenuts]

A rash of utter bullshit! You're stupidly claiming that things can occur or come into existence sans a sufficient cause or reason. You stupidly claim that causality and ontological being require the existence of time. Arguing from the authority of numbers?! Stick to speaking for yourself?! What in the world are you babbling about?

I said nothing of the sort and would never do so. "Being" is clearly a religious concept seemingly created for circularly reasoned self-satisfaction purposes. I'm an atheist. Absorb that. Btw, I've now read enough of your stuff. I agree to disagree and am leaving it at that.

Arguing from the authority of numbers?

Duhh!

Stick to speaking for yourself?

Yeah, perhaps that really is a bridge too far for you to fathom.