The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Ringtone, Sep 12, 2019.

  1. Ringtone
    Online

    Ringtone Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    209
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +211
    The cosmological arguments for God's existence are predicated on the first principles of ontology, i.e., the fundamental facts of existence per the imperatives of logic. Many fail to appreciate the intermediate premises of these arguments, particularly those of the KCA.


    The following includes my own sub-premises for the first premise and my summary argument for the conclusion:

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Horizontal Argument)

    1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

    1.1. Something exists.

    1.2. Existence from nonexistence is absurd.

    1.3. Something has always existed.

    2. The universe began to exist.

    Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
    2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
    2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
    2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

    AND

    Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
    2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
    2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
    2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.


    3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

    3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.

    3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.

    3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.

    3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!

    3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

    3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.

    3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.

    3.8. Hence, time began to exist.

    3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.

    3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.

    3.11. The universe is a material existent.

    3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

    3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).

    3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).

    3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).

    3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).

    3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.


    The Vertical Cosmological Argument
    1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
    2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
    3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
    4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
    5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
     
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  2. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    16,622
    Thanks Received:
    9,927
    Trophy Points:
    2,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +42,288
    Baseless assertions about that which we know not.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    59,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,300
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +20,432
    It's a logical argument that can only be refuted with logic.

    Saying it is baseless is rhetoric, not logic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52,231
    Thanks Received:
    10,923
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +37,143
    The cosmological argument fails as a special pleading fallacy.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  5. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    59,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,300
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +20,432
    Make the argument. Because what you wrote isn’t an argument, dummy.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Ringtone
    Online

    Ringtone Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    209
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +211
    As I've observed many times, ding, atheists don't actually do logic, as they incessantly spout nonsense about nonexistent logical fallacies.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    16,622
    Thanks Received:
    9,927
    Trophy Points:
    2,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +42,288
    Then there are those who do 'logic' from baseless assumptions.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    59,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,300
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +20,432
    Still not a logical argument.

    Show how they are baseless. That would require the use of logic. Where's your logic?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. K9Buck
    Offline

    K9Buck Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,227
    Thanks Received:
    1,298
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,079
    They follow "Anything but God" theory. Remember, they belong to Satan.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    59,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,300
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +20,432
    Atheism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of atheism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Atheism seeks equality through uniformity. Atheism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Atheists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
     

Share This Page