The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[Taz]

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.

And you know that how?

 

[diver52]

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'?

My response was because I saw no point in arguing with the person.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Whew! Looks like you're a damn fool who understands neither the mathematics of the matter nor the relevant cosmological science.

Sorry whiner,that is no substitute for an actual argument. Yes, an infinite universe defeats the stated argument completely.

Yes, in an infinite universe, nature can have infinities.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Maybe this universe exists in an infinite amount of space and time? Think about a lava lamp.

If god is eternal so is space and time. Gods time. So really if god Time and space have always existed then you don’t really need god. Time and space have always existed and always will. Not this one universe though. It was born and will die.

We know everything in our solar system including you came from stars that exploded billions of years before our star was even born.

 

[Hollie]

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."

Religious extremists typically retreat to “philosophical” arguments in attempts to deride science and to “prove” their gods.

Philosophical arguments serve nothing in the realm of science where appeals to magic and supernaturalism face the harsh light of scrutiny.

Philosophy (as it’s employed by those to support a religious belief) is among the most hopeless of positions that can be used to argue the mechanics of either religion or the natural world. It delivers essentially nothing of true utility. It can be used to support virtually any position since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

next hymnal please...

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you assert that the universe all sprang out of nothing?

You are making an elementary error of logic. All GT has to do is argue that its possible it sprang from nothing, or that we can't possibly know whether it did or not, to undermine the authoritative assertion that it is impossible.

Your question is irrelevant.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

But they have to deny that in order to remain atheists.

Therefore they deny it.

As to axioms, while one can display them as undeniable, that is presupposing that the person denying is actually rational.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Ohhhhh right right...he exists "eternally" but not "infinitely," and uh..in his own special little magical place

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

And I only had to say that in the 1st place because buffoons special plead like theyre paid to fuckin do it

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

to remain atheists.

Therefore they deny it.

Excuse you. If you do not have the mental tools to be in the debate, then sit and read.

The axiom was denied for precisely the reasons stated. If you can't grapple with those, you have nothing relevant to add.

 

[Hollie]

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An axiom is simply a proposition presumed true.

And also presumed self evidently true, or previously proven true.

 

[G.T.]

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.

No, an axiom is self-evidently true.

An ALLEGED axiom is one that lacks that trait, but is only asserted as having it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

So you reject mathematics?

That entire field is nothing but a big 'thought universe'.

So Sine and Cosine cant be real, can they, and yet, there they are!

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, an axiom is self-evidently true.

A self-refuting assertion if I ever saw one.

roflmao

 

[G.T.]

No, an axiom is self-evidently true.

A self-refuting assertion if I ever saw one.

roflmao

I dont think you know what you just typed means

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A self-refuting assertion if I ever saw one.

(here is where you use your big boy words to argue why that is)