I don't know what it means, explain it to me, as you seem to know what it 
means. That NASA sent Curiosity to Mars is not logically connected to your 
statement that 'it appears that humans know can understand the meaning of 
"begins to exist". You may have connected it in your mind, but not in the post. 

 In the link I provided, there are some criticisms of the Kalam argument, but 
you have still not read them apparently.

 For me some things exist. Other things do not. 'Begins to exist' seems 
redundant. How does that work? What are the steps between non-existence and 
existence? I have no clue. I suspect you do not either, but I am willing to 
hear you out on this. You need to explain your position.

 My position is this:

 There is an essential value of existence. All things that exist have this 
essential value. We can say there are things that do not exist but this is 
meaningless as the essential value of existence is missing and therefore there 
are no such things. We cannot know of them because they are not.

 Curiosity exists and is on Mars. It exists because someone had a thought, and 
then manipulated the extant universe to correspond to the thought. Where did 
the thought come from? It appeared in someone's brain, how did it arise? There 
was (we assume) prior activity in the person's brain before the thought arose. 
Was it just a refashioning of previous neural events, or a spontaneous outlier 
from out of nowhere? Everything Curiosity is made of was fashioned from 
previously existing matter, already part of the currently extant universe. 
Basically it is a sophisticated auto-mobile, but all its parts previously 
existed in another form so can we really say it came into being, when its 
components already had being?

 The argument you seem to be proposing does not involve refashioning, so that 
was not a good analogy. You need to explain your argument to me. What 
specifically does 'begins to exist' mean in your context?

 What is the difference in saying 'everything that exists has a cause' compared 
to 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'? I tend to prefer 'everything 
that exists has no cause'. Everything is just there. That is my position. I am 
not sure you have a position, other than you want people to accept the Kalam 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :


 Are you saying that the human mind would not be able to fathom the meaning of 
"begins to exist"?  If that is so, how is it possible for you to begin and end 
a project at work or at home?

 But we know that NASA has been able to send the Curiosity rover to Mars which 
is a very high technological feat.  So,  it appears that humans know can 
understand the meaning of "begins to exist".  If not, NASA would not have been 
able to send the rover to Mars.

 I believe you're avoiding the question by claiming that you don't know what 
statement 1 of the KCA means.  In other words, you're being disingenuous.  Or, 
that you're pulling a Curtis on us.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :

 x exists x does not exist

 I do not know what the phrase 'begins to exist' means, especially in regard to 
the universe as a whole. If x were an auto-mobile, perhaps one could say that 
when it was partially assembled, it began to exist, but all the components of 
that were manufactured prior to that and merely gathered together with welds, 
bolts, and glue. And those parts had precursors, ad infinitum (almost) to the 
beginning of the universe, before which we have no knowledge, and in fact we 
have only induction as to regard the early universe. And induction is logically 

 The link I gave in the previous post did do some analysis why the Kalam 
argument is flawed, apparently you did not read it. Here it is again: 
Cosmological Kalamity 
 Cosmological Kalamity 
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library » 
Modern » Dan Barker »   Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker "Daddy, if God made 
everything, who made God?" my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years 

 View on infidels.org 
 Preview by Yahoo 



 I do not know how the universe began.
 I do not know what 'begins to exist' means in this context, can you fill in 
some detail?
 If this were science, all I would have to do is wait for your demonstration of 
the truth of the argument, but as it seems no one knows, I doubt this would be 
forthcoming. As Curtis pointed out, proving a negative is impossible. It is a 
time waster. In science one simply ignores those who do not show up with 
evidence for their claims and thus science ('to know' is the meaning of the 
word) only works with people who actively produce results.

 For all I know the Kalam argument might be accidentally true, but essentially 
I just find it unconvincing. If god is un-caused, then god did not begin to 
exist, and if god did not begin to exist, he cannot exist. The word everything 
would seem to include what is called god, other wise, the first sentence 
includes a false concept. We would have not 'everything that begins to exist 
has a cause', and then we would have a number of possible things that were 
un-caused. For example, Zeus, the king of the gods, a step higher in divinity 
than the other gods, of which perhaps your god is one of those lesser ones.

 I can say on the basis of experience, that the universe was re-created this 
morning when I woke up. It was recreated again this morning and this evening 
when I came out of meditation after a timeless spell (I am not saying what sort 
of meditation was happening or not). I am un-caused, and therefore I must not 
be beginning to exist, and therefore I am not the universe, but seeing the 
universe seemed to emerge from what I am, I must be a creator of some sort. So 
if this happens with me, what am I? I must be more than a human form and mind, 
being able to contain all this.

 Since in my own estimation, I seem to have created the universe, where does 
that leave your argument? If the universe has a cause, how do you determine 
what that cause is or is not? Simply stating that the universe has a cause does 
not reveal the nature of the cause. It could be a quantum fluctuation in a 
multi-verse continuum. With multi-verses, maybe some have gods, and some do 
not. Maybe some are created by farts in a hyper-cosmic digestive system.


 You have also not mentioned the argument that the universe has no cause. 
Suppose we say, that in spite of all appearances, the universe has no cause at 
all. It was a spontaneous event that had no priors; that would mean that all 
the stuff in the universe ultimately had no cause either, the stuff within 
would have prior events but ultimately could not be traced back to a primal 
cause. Accidental existence. Perhaps we are all part of an unwanted pregnancy.
 Curtis is actually much better at this kind of reasoning than I am. I think he 
just wanted you to provide a positive example of the stipulation you made, 
something he could work with. A philosopher needs an argument, and needs to be 
able to state the other person's position accurately so they can look for a 
weakness in definition of terms and logic. You need to provide that. Otherwise 
you are not worth his time. He might as well waste his time with a 
Bible-thumping preacher from Hicksville. His time would be better spent 
teaching kids critical thinking. I can tell you when I was young in school, 
this is a skill that was not taught. America is a nation of idiots and climbing 
out of that pit of un-reason is no easy task. To be fair, had I ever remained 
in Greece, I doubt I would have fared better, though there are more 
opportunities for causes way back at the beginning of our place in the scheme 
of things:

 Greek gods prepare for comeback 
 Greek gods prepare for comeback 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece It has taken almost 2,000 
years, but those who worship the 12 gods of ancient Greece have finally 
triumphed. An Athens court has ordered that the adulation of...

 View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece
 Preview by Yahoo 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :


 I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the 
statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  But he just gave me a lot of 
song and dance about his opinions without providing the evidence for his 
arguments.  Can you give us a solid argument with evidence and support why the 
statements in the KCA have a flaw?

 Let's take the KCA which states:

 Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; 
Therefore: The universe has a cause. Do you agree with statement 1 or not?  If 
not, please give us your reasons for disagreeing.



  • [FairfieldLife]... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
  • [FairfieldLife]... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... Duveyoung
    • [Fairfield... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to