I think you are on the right track Ann. Particularly nettle-some in a discussion of ultimate origins is time. In current cosmology, time-space did not exist prior to the universe, therefore there was no time before the universe's beginning and it is meaningless to speak of events or anything as 'having been before'. It is really difficult to wrap the mind around a situation like this because it makes no sense in terms of common experience. Maybe it will never make sense.
Semantics are important in fashioning an argument, but it is difficult to do this if the basic ideas are really beyond our ability to conceptualise. You have already demonstrated here that you have a clearer grasp of this discussion than jr-esq, though you do not strike me as a philosopher. Arguments in the absence of evidence are difficult. This happens in science sometimes, but there are usually good reasons to suppose something in this way. Tell you what, I will sell you my silver-white unicorn for $320,000 Canadian. Payment before delivery. We all know that unicorns exist because we can think and imagine what they look like. They prefer halters by the way, if you want to ride. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Xeno, 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. Maybe Xeno's perception of time isn't linear, which is entirely possible. Time seems to be a very human construct and for most people time is linear. We describe most things that are on this planet as having a start somehow, somewhere because previous to that start their existence was not in evidence for us. We can only speak and know from our ability to perceive and to know so this ascribing a "beginning" to something is logical. Frankly, I just think Xeno is dicking around with semantics here. On the other hand it is very possible that there is no such thing as time other than how we define it but the last time I looked most people own a clock or watch of some description and use it to get to where they have to be "on time" so most, apparently, are willing to agree that time is linear for all intents and earthly purposes. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Xeno, 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.