Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well when you got nothing, I guess you go with that....lolOkNonsense! 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.
Do you even accept the validity of 'laws of thought'?
Sorry whiner,that is no substitute for an actual argument. Yes, an infinite universe defeats the stated argument completely.Whew! Looks like you're a damn fool who understands neither the mathematics of the matter nor the relevant cosmological science.
Maybe this universe exists in an infinite amount of space and time? Think about a lava lamp.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
- If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
- The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
- Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
- What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
- Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
way to prove it was over your head, dude.
Way to pretend you understand what's going on when you don't, clueless.
There's nothing profound about what Morriston is claiming. A potential infinity is not in any way, shape or form contingent on an actual infinity. A potential infinity does not in any way, shape or form imply an actual infinity.
Craig utterly smashes Morriston's baby talk: Taking Tense Seriously in Differentiating Past and Future: A Response to Wes Morriston | Reasonable Faith
But I don't need Craig to explain the matter to me. I understand the mathematics just fine, and one of the most compelling ways to get at the matter is through the actualities of division by infinity:
From the refutation on Youtube see:
"Part XII. Infinity by the Numbers
B. Dividing Finite Numbers by Infinity"
See link: Rawlings
To read the refutation you must have an account with Youtube and sign into it.
__________
Though more famous for his revolutionary proofs in algebra and geometry, and for advancing the mathematical formulations of quantum physics, one of history's most brilliant mathematicians David Hilbert most vividly demonstrated the absurdities of infinity in his Grand Hotel Paradox. When asked about the notion of an eternal cosmos, he acerbically quipped, "If an essential use of infinity occurs as a core part of any explanatory model, it's not science." The world renowned mathematician and cosmologist George Ellis echoed this sentiment in his paper "On the philosophy of Cosmology": "One should remember here the true nature of infinity: it is an entity that can never be attained; it is by definition always beyond reach, so no physical process can create an infinity of anything."
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.
So you assert that the universe all sprang out of nothing?
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.
But they have to deny that in order to remain atheists.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.
He wasnt saying that. He was saying that asserting something as an axiom does not make it an axiom. You really need to slow down.That is not the function of an axiom. It is simply a focus on what is assumed and why. It is not given as itself a proof of anything.
1st of all, we can start with...: "asserting something as an axiom, does not make it so."
roflmao
That is not the function of an axiom. It is simply a focus on what is assumed and why. It is not given as itself a proof of anything.
Gawd.
Secondly, stating that actual infinites cannot exist, which I'm not saying but you are...refutes almost every deity in every religion in existence.
An Eternal Creator does not exist in *this* *material* *Universe*, hence it is not an *actual* infinity, as our universe is not infinite and therefore nothing infinite is possible in it.
Things we regard as infinite sequence processes are only infinite potentially, not actually.
And I only had to say that in the 1st place because buffoons special plead like theyre paid to fuckin do itHe wasnt saying that. He was saying that asserting something as an axiom does not make it an axiom. You really need to slow down.That is not the function of an axiom. It is simply a focus on what is assumed and why. It is not given as itself a proof of anything.
Excuse you. If you do not have the mental tools to be in the debate, then sit and read.to remain atheists.
Therefore they deny it.
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.
So you assert that the universe all sprang out of nothing?
lol, your absurdity does not weaken that axiom one shred.
The strength of these kinds of arguments is that they lay all the logical assertions and links out to examine.
You question obviously true axioms that only make you look like a fool.
An axiom is simply a proposition presumed true.
No, an axiom is self-evidently true.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.
So you assert that the universe all sprang out of nothing?
lol, your absurdity does not weaken that axiom one shred.
The strength of these kinds of arguments is that they lay all the logical assertions and links out to examine.
You question obviously true axioms that only make you look like a fool.
An axiom is simply a proposition presumed true. An axiom is neither true nor false. Religious extremists tend to define selected axioms as true as a way to avoid the uncomfortable exercise of providing evidence for a supportable claim.
I do not accept the validity of "laws of thought". I accept the validity of reality. Without that, it's just words. A bit of mental masturbation.
A self-refuting assertion if I ever saw one.No, an axiom is self-evidently true.
I dont think you know what you just typed meansA self-refuting assertion if I ever saw one.No, an axiom is self-evidently true.
roflmao
(here is where you use your big boy words to argue why that is)A self-refuting assertion if I ever saw one.