The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[diver52]

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.

The problem is you have a lot of assumptions accepted as fact without proof. As just one example, you begin by saying existence from non-existence is absurd. Why is it absurd? What evidence can you present to support that claim?

This is repeated throughout the argument and you end with unsupported statements about space and time. The issue there is we really don't know what space and time are. That is something physicists are trying figure out but have not yet done so. So what exactly is being transcended and what is required to transcend? We don't know.

Lot's of comments have been made of the use of logic in this thread. Logic is nothing more than a set of rules. There is a phrase in computer logic which fits this argument perfectly. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Taz]

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.

If God exists, then who made god?

Are you suggesting that existence arose from nonexistence?

Isn't that how you contend that god was made?

 

[G.T.]

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.

The problem is you have a lot of assumptions accepted as fact without proof. As just one example, you begin by saying existence from non-existence is absurd. Why is it absurd? What evidence can you present to support that claim?

This is repeated throughout the argument and you end with unsupported statements about space and time. The issue there is we really don't know what space and time are. That is something physicists are trying figure out but have not yet done so. So what exactly is being transcended and what is required to transcend? We don't know.

Lot's of comments have been made of the use of logic in this thread. Logic is nothing more than a set of rules. There is a phrase in computer logic which fits this argument perfectly. Garbage in, garbage out.

The KALAM is hilarious evidence that most God believers are not properly skeptical.

You caaAAaaan...read a book?

Or fuck it, go to youtube.

There's a fuck ton of videos refuting the KALAM...it's not even actually considered in true philosophy.

 

[Ringtone]

The problem is you have a lot of assumptions accepted as fact without proof. As just one example, you begin by saying existence from non-existence is absurd. Why is it absurd? What evidence can you present to support that claim?

Behold the madness of new atheists.

Something does exist! Nonexistence cannot and does not exist in the first place; you know, because it's nonexistence. The notion that existence can arise from nonexistence is redundantly impossible. Why does this have to be explained or spelled out for you again?

This is repeated throughout the argument and you end with unsupported statements about space and time. The issue there is we really don't know what space and time are. That is something physicists are trying figure out but have not yet done so. So what exactly is being transcended and what is required to transcend? We don't know.

Who is this "we" you're talking about? There's no we. There's obfuscating lunatics, and there's the sane. The sane know that spacetime is a quantity of materiality and that actual infinities cannot and do not exist!

Lot's of comments have been made of the use of logic in this thread. Logic is nothing more than a set of rules. There is a phrase in computer logic which fits this argument perfectly. Garbage in, garbage out.

Nonsense! The fundamental laws of thought are incontrovertible axioms. Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science. Speaking informally, science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things. The mathematical and rational imperatives of human cognition prove or disprove things. Empirical data do not interpret themselves. Minds interpret them.

 

[Taz]

Isn't that how you contend that god was made?

No.

So how was god made?

 

[Ringtone]

You caaAAaaan...read a book?

Or fuck it, go to youtube.

There's a fuck ton of videos refuting the KALAM...it's not even actually considered in true philosophy.

Slogan-spouting nonsense, baby talk, gibberish, la-la, rubbish, mindless prattle. . . .

The KCA is bullet proof, incontrovertible. It has not been debunked. It cannot be debunked. The only way it can be overthrown is with a coherent explanation as to how (1) an actual infinite could possibly exist or (2) how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence. There is no such counterargument on Youtube or anywhere else. You've never read such a counterargument on Youtube or anywhere else. Why? Because there's no such thing as a coherent explanation for inherently self-negating (or self-refuting) absurdities.

You are delusional. Then we have this from you: "it's not even actually considered in true philosophy." Oh? By whom? By what? The atheist loons who tell themselves they've debunked the KCA sans a coherent counterargument that actually addresses the imperatives of the argument?

Just like their arguments. . . .

 

[Ringtone]

So how was god made?

What part of the absurdity of existence from nonexistence don't you understand? The eternal ground of existence was not made or created.

 

[G.T.]

You caaAAaaan...read a book?

Or fuck it, go to youtube.

There's a fuck ton of videos refuting the KALAM...it's not even actually considered in true philosophy.

Slogan-spouting nonsense, baby talk, gibberish, la-la, rubbish, mindless prattle. . . .

The KCA is bullet proof, incontrovertible. It has not been debunked. It cannot be debunked. The only way it can be overthrown is with a coherent explanation as to how (1) an actual infinite could possibly exist or (2) how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence. There is no such counterargument on Youtube or anywhere else. You've never read such a counterargument on Youtube or anywhere else. Why? Because there's no such thing as a coherent explanation for inherently self-negating (or self-refuting) absurdities.

You are delusional. Then we have this from you: "it's not even actually considered in true philosophy." Oh? By whom? By what? The atheist loons who tell themselves they've debunked the KCA sans a coherent counterargument that actually addresses the imperatives of the argument?

Just like their arguments. . . .

You said the KCA is bullet proof when theres a shitload of hours long debates and refutations.

LOOK


AT


YOUUUUU GOO!!

Good 4 you, man!

 

[diver52]

The problem is you have a lot of assumptions accepted as fact without proof. As just one example, you begin by saying existence from non-existence is absurd. Why is it absurd? What evidence can you present to support that claim?

Behold the madness of new atheists.

Something does exist! Nonexistence cannot and does not exist in the first place; you know, because it's nonexistence. The notion that existence can arise from nonexistence is redundantly impossible. Why does this have to be explained or spelled out for you again?

This is repeated throughout the argument and you end with unsupported statements about space and time. The issue there is we really don't know what space and time are. That is something physicists are trying figure out but have not yet done so. So what exactly is being transcended and what is required to transcend? We don't know.

Who is this "we" you're talking about? There's no we. There's obfuscating lunatics, and there's the sane. The sane know that spacetime is a quantity of materiality and that actual infinities cannot and do not exist!

Lot's of comments have been made of the use of logic in this thread. Logic is nothing more than a set of rules. There is a phrase in computer logic which fits this argument perfectly. Garbage in, garbage out.

Nonsense! The fundamental laws of thought are incontrovertible axioms. Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science. Speaking informally, science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things. The mathematical and rational imperatives of human cognition prove or disprove things. Empirical data do not interpret themselves. Minds interpret them.

Ok

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you suggesting that existence arose from nonexistence?

He is suggesting that you could not possibly know that it is impossible. Which is a fact. This fact renders your argument unsound.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science.

Such utter nonsense. That is so fucking dumb.

First of all, metaphysics is useless, magical horseshit.

Second, logic is merely a method. Via valid logic, one can argue anything. Anything at all. The only way to know if your logic is sound is to know the empirical truth value of your premises. You can only know this via empirical knowledge. You can only arrive at empirical knowledge via the scientific method.

Clearly, empiricism has primacy over all of it. That is,, if you are seeking truth, and not just self affirmation. You are clearly seeking the latter.

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOOK
AT
YOUUUUU GOO!!
Good 4 you, man!

His axioms are apparent, and the logic valid

You have to go with attacking his axioms like 'existence can come from nothing in the universe we live in' which no rational person really seriously questions.

You may go back to your bong now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nonsense! The fundamental laws of thought are incontrovertible axioms. Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science. Speaking informally, science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things. The mathematical and rational imperatives of human cognition prove or disprove things. Empirical data do not interpret themselves. Minds interpret them.

Ok

Well when you got nothing, I guess you go with that....lol

Do you even accept the validity of 'laws of thought'?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His axioms are apparent, and the logic valid

You have to go with attacking his axioms like 'existence can come from nothing in the universe we live in' which no rational person really seriously questions.

Which is exactly the correct thing to do. Did you not know this, when you wrote that post? You just complimented him for his correct intellectual method.

You don't seem to understand that logic is merely a tool. One can argue ANYTHING,via valid logic.

 

[G.T.]

LOOK
AT
YOUUUUU GOO!!
Good 4 you, man!

His axioms are apparent, and the logic valid

You have to go with attacking his axioms like 'existence can come from nothing in the universe we live in' which no rational person really seriously questions.

You may go back to your bong now.

Axioms are self apparent. The kalam fails because they are not, they're assertions and have several counter-possibilities which makes them "proof" of nothing.

An old adage goes...

the kalam is convincing to the already faithful, and unconvincing to everyone else.

 

[Ringtone]

You said the KCA is bullet proof when theres a shitload of hours long debates and refutations.

LOOK

AT

YOUUUUU GOO!!

Good 4 you, man!

Show me these refutations from Youtube, and I'll show you the very same denials of the fundamental, mathematical and rational imperatives spouted by the atheists on this thread. Once again, obviously, what you won't find are any coherent explications as to how (1) an actual infinite could possibly exist or (2) how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence. The KCA stands and stays. In other words, all you're telling us that a long line of drooling retards on Youtube have refuted the KCA by denying that which is akin to 2 + 2 = 4. You're outside your mind. The cheese has slid off your cracker. By the way, I've been on Youtube. I've utterly destroyed that fool Cosmic Skeptic Simpleton Alex O'Conner, for example: "A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument", Rawlings

 

[G.T.]

You said the KCA is bullet proof when theres a shitload of hours long debates and refutations.

LOOK

AT

YOUUUUU GOO!!

Good 4 you, man!

Show me these refutations from Youtube, and I'll show you the very same denials of the fundamental, mathematical and rational imperatives spouted by the atheists on this thread. Once again, obviously, what you won't find are any coherent explications as to how (1) an actual infinite could possibly exist or (2) how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence. The KCA stands and stays. In other words, all you're telling us that a long line of drooling retards on Youtube have refuted the KCA by denying that which is akin to 2 + 2 = 4. You're outside your mind. The cheese has slid off your cracker. By the way, I've been on Youtube. I've utterly destroyed that fool Cosmic Skeptic Simpleton Alex O'Conner, for example: "A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument", Rawlings

That channel has 0 videos.

There are doctorates in philosophy that have published papers refuting the KALAM...peer reviewed ...unlike Mr. Craig.

It's up to you to pretend your google is broken, do you think I care about you? Its an in-depth discussion and typing it out with the usual "internet" suspects who argue in bad faith, act like disgusting retards and don't possess the wherewithall of charity to clear up ambiguities and misapprehesion of definitions is futile.

"Something coming from nothing" is not the refutation. There's a fucking rabbit trail you can go down, but don't get caught chasing your tail. Philosophical "nothing" and cosmological "nothing" are different concepts ~ and when you dive into the shallow end of William Lane Craig you'll learn that all lemons don't end up lemonade.

Another <should be obvious> thought process is to wonder what "the universe had a beginning" actually even means. I mean REALLY break it the fuck down...or, yannow..

get on your google (I know I know...too hard ...and "usmb" is a much better source)

& sift through the countless astrological, cosmological, theoretical physics' theories as to what it would actually even mean to say "the universe began to exist," because...I assure you, its not some pretty little "premise-able" concept as the snake-oil dopes have sold you...it's quite the contrary.

 

[Ringtone]

LOOK
AT
YOUUUUU GOO!!
Good 4 you, man!

His axioms are apparent, and the logic valid

You have to go with attacking his axioms like 'existence can come from nothing in the universe we live in' which no rational person really seriously questions.

You may go back to your bong now.

Axioms are self apparent. The kalam fails because they are not, they're assertions and have several counter-possibilities which makes them "proof" of nothing.

An old adage goes...

the kalam is convincing to the already faithful, and unconvincing to everyone else.

No. Let's be clear. Axioms are logical necessities. They are necessarily true by their very nature. They cannot be thought of as being false, as any attempt to negate them yields an absurdity proving the positive is true. An actual infinite cannot exist. Refute that axiom! Nonexistence does not and cannot exist. Refute that axiom!

You can't. Only fools think the KCA can be debunked and only liars pretend these things are possible. The KCA stands and stays. You are soundly refuted again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOOK
AT
YOUUUUU GOO!!
Good 4 you, man!

His axioms are apparent, and the logic valid

You have to go with attacking his axioms like 'existence can come from nothing in the universe we live in' which no rational person really seriously questions.

You may go back to your bong now.

Axioms are self apparent. The kalam fails because they are not, they're assertions and have several counter-possibilities which makes them "proof" of nothing.

An old adage goes...

the kalam is convincing to the already faithful, and unconvincing to everyone else.

No. Let's be clear. Axioms are logical necessities. They are necessarily true by their very nature. They cannot be thought of as being false, as any attempt to negate them yields an absurdity proving the positive is true. An actual infinite cannot exist. Refute that axiom! Nonexistence does not and cannot exist. Refute that axiom!

You can't. Only fools think the KCA can be debunked and only liars pretend these things are possible. The KCA stands and stays. You are soundly refuted again.

Lets be clear:

"Something cannot come from nothing " is not an axiom.

Get that through your head.

 

[G.T.]

LOOK
AT
YOUUUUU GOO!!
Good 4 you, man!

His axioms are apparent, and the logic valid

You have to go with attacking his axioms like 'existence can come from nothing in the universe we live in' which no rational person really seriously questions.

You may go back to your bong now.

Axioms are self apparent. The kalam fails because they are not, they're assertions and have several counter-possibilities which makes them "proof" of nothing.

An old adage goes...

the kalam is convincing to the already faithful, and unconvincing to everyone else.

No. Let's be clear. Axioms are logical necessities. They are necessarily true by their very nature. They cannot be thought of as being false, as any attempt to negate them yields an absurdity proving the positive is true. An actual infinite cannot exist. Refute that axiom! Nonexistence does not and cannot exist. Refute that axiom!

You can't. Only fools think the KCA can be debunked and only liars pretend these things are possible. The KCA stands and stays. You are soundly refuted again.

1st of all, we can start with...: "asserting something as an axiom, does not make it so."

Secondly, stating that actual infinites cannot exist, which I'm not saying but you are...refutes almost every deity in every religion in existence.