It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence

[Ringtone]

Question: how do we know that God necessarily exists?

Short Answer: because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists. The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.

The Cosmological Argument​

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

2. The cosmos began to exist.​

3. The cosmos has a cause of its existence.​

The thoughtless fail to grasp the cogency of the Cosmological Argument because (1) they fail to grasp the fundamental imperatives of existence itself and because (2) they fail to grasp the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument. To grasp the latter especially requires the thought of an open and logical mind. While the first major premise in the above is a given, one begins by observing the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing. ​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

​

​

We can now move on to regard the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument. Happy reading.

2. The cosmos 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.​

​

(In other words, an infinite regress of causality/temporality cannot be traversed to the present. Absurdity!)​

​

3. The cosmos 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.​

Broadly summarized

The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

​

Distinctively summarized

By the nature of the case, the cause of the universe cannot have a beginning of its existence nor any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence.

Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal, and yet the effect which is produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why is not the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

We know that the first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why is the effect not coeternal with its cause?

Answer: the only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions.

Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.​

 

[Moonglow]

Then what is God's address and or phone number?

 

[Innocynioc]

How do you know that an infinite can not exist?

 

[jwoodie]

I agree that the Big Bang Theory is a de facto recognition of a causational force of the universe. However, I doubt that force was anthropomorphic.

 

[BackAgain]

Rather than bother with Goonblow’s drooling, let me ask this:

Taking the same lines of logic set forth in the OP, wouldn’t the same apply to God? If He is the Creator, then where did He come from? Logically, He couldn’t have sprung out of nothing, either.

So, we either derive an endless series of Gods who create Gods, super Gods, etc., and we can never get to the Original Creator OR we have to admit that SOMETHING or SOME BEING had to have sprung forth from nothing.

A lot flows from that premise. But I lay no claim to rigorous studies in Philosoohy. The most honest and persuasive philosophers I’ve ever heard or read seem (to me) to share one trait: they share the intellectual honesty required to admit that some things are just not known and may not be knowable.

 

[Ringtone]

How do you know that an infinite can not exist?

Not an infinity, by which you apparently mean infinity, which is merely the idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something. It's a mathematical concept that only exists in minds. Only the potentially infinite actually exists outside of minds at any given moment.

 

[Ringtone]

I agree that the Big Bang Theory is a de facto recognition of a causational force of the universe. However, I doubt that force was anthropomorphic.

The Big Bang Theory pertains to the beginning of the prevailing universe, not necessarily to the beginning of the cosmos at large. Your observation regarding an anthropomorphic force makes no sense to me. I do not follow.

 

[Ringtone]

Rather than bother with Goonblow’s drooling, let me ask this:

Taking the same lines of logic set forth in the OP, wouldn’t the same apply to God? If He is the Creator, then where did He come from? Logically, He couldn’t have sprung out of nothing, either.

So, we either derive an endless series of Gods who create Gods, super Gods, etc., and we can never get to the Original Creator OR we have to admit that SOMETHING or SOME BEING had to have sprung forth from nothing.

A lot flows from that premise. But I lay no claim to rigorous studies in Philosoohy. The most honest and persuasive philosophers I’ve ever heard or read seem (to me) to share one trait: they share the intellectual honesty required to admit that some things are just not known and may not be knowable.

What?! Come on, BackAgain, you're smarter than that.

You don't seem to grasp that what you're actually arguing is that existence sprung from nonexistence, That's absurd. Something has necessarily always existed. Logic 101.

Once again the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!
3. Hence, something has always existed.

From there we see from the logical imperatives of the cosmological argument that the eternal ground of existence cannot be material/physical.

Virtually all the great philosophers have held that God must be precisely because the necessity of divinity is readily within the bounds of knowledge via the imperatives of logic.

 

[BackAgain]

What?! Come on, BackAgain, you're smarter than that.

You don't seem to grasp that what you're actually arguing is that existence sprung from nonexistence, That's absurd. Something has necessarily always existed. Logic 101.

Once again the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!
3. Hence, something has always existed.

From there we see from the logical imperatives of the cosmological argument that the eternal ground of existence cannot be material/physical.

Virtually all the great philosophers have held that God must be precisely because the necessity of divinity is readily within the bounds of knowledge via the imperatives of logic.

Think it through.

1. Something does exist. (I would say this one is undeniable.)

2. Existence cannot arise from non-existence. (A very Questionable premise.)
_______________________________________
∴ something has always existed???

We have a problem, Houston. It is almost impossible to accept a syllogism which leads to a conclusion we recognize as an error. As a consequence, we have to go back and consider the premises. See above. Premise 1 strikes me as unassailable. The Conclusion strikes me as likely erroneous. Therefore, I am forced to consider premise 2 as being dubious.

It seems to me that something (at least one thing) had to have come from nothing. Why? Because of the proposition that “nothing can pre-exist itself.” That is, for everything, there has to be some causation. (Akin to the scientific law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.) Yet, that rule seems to require the exception we refer to as the very beginning. What or what got the ball rolling?

Big Bang? That little infinitesimal point which exploded the seeds of everything into existence? Where did that come from? Either it was created (let’s call the Creator “God”) or it is the initial thing which didn’t require causation. If God, however, is the entity that created matter/energy/time/space (via His Creation of the Big Bang?), then the question remains: who or what created God?

I suggest that the answer to the question of the 2nd Premise is that it is necessarily true that at least one thing must have come from nothing. For, otherwise, everything that exists violates the law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

What caused God? To simply declare that God “always” existed (without having first to have been created) kind of begs the question. Why is it that God is the one believed to have always existed rather than that matter/energy and quantum probability did?

 

[Ringtone]

Think it through.

1. Something does exist. (I would say this one is undeniable.)

2. Existence cannot arise from non-existence. (A very Questionable premise.)
_______________________________________
∴ something has always existed???

We have a problem, Houston. It is almost impossible to accept a syllogism which leads to a conclusion we recognize as an error. As a consequence, we have to go back and consider the premises. See above. Premise 1 strikes me as unassailable. The Conclusion strikes me as likely erroneous. Therefore, I am forced to consider premise 2 as being dubious.

It seems to me that something (at least one thing) had to have come from nothing. Why? Because of the proposition that “nothing can pre-exist itself.” That is, for everything, there has to be some causation. (Akin to the scientific law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.) Yet, that rule seems to require the exception we refer to as the very beginning. What or what got the ball rolling?

Big Bang? That little infinitesimal point which exploded the seeds of everything into existence? Where did that come from? Either it was created (let’s call the Creator “God”) or it is the initial thing which didn’t require causation. If God, however, is the entity that created matter/energy/time/space (via His Creation of the Big Bang?), then the question remains: who or what created God?

I suggest that the answer to the question of the 2nd Premise is that it is necessarily true that at least one thing must have come from nothing. For, otherwise, everything that exists violates the law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

What caused God? To simply declare that God “always” existed (without having first to have been created) kind of begs the question. Why is it that God is the one believed to have always existed rather than that matter/energy and quantum probability did?

So you're saying that it's sensible to believe that nonexistence can cause existence?

crickets chirping

Are you insane?

 

[BackAgain]

You're saying that existence can arise from nonexistence? Logically, that's the entirety of your objection.

Are you insane?

You’re claiming that something (God) can exist without ever having first come into existence. No sense you make.

So no. I’m not insane. I’m just attacking the problem from a different perspective. But, turn it around.

If your view is that “something” (God) can exist without having first been created then what excludes the alternative that it was matter/energy/space/time which exists without having first been created?

 

[Ringtone]

You’re claiming that something (God) can exist without ever having first come into existence. No sense you make.

So no. I’m not insane. I’m just attacking the problem from a different perspective. But, turn it around.

If your view is that “something” (God) can exist without having first been created then what excludes the alternative that it was matter/energy/space/time which exists without having first been created?

The only one claiming that something must come into existence in order to exist is you, dummy.

Once again, are you insane?

The inescapable logical imperative of ontology
Something does exist rather than nothing.
Nonexistence cannot cause existence. Absurdity!
Hence, something has necessarily always existed, i.e., DID NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE.

 

[BackAgain]

The only one claiming that something must come into existence in order to exist is you, dummy.

Once again, are you insane?

The inescapable logical imperative of ontology
Something does exist rather than nothing.
Nonexistence cannot cause existence. Absurdity!
Hence, something has necessarily always existed, i.e., DID NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE.

If non existence cannot cause existence, then you ARE claiming that something must have come into existence without causation, stupid. Are you actually so utterly simplistic that you can’t follow along? Or maybe you’re just “insane.”

If anything can exist without causation then why does it have to be GOD? The import of what you’re claiming (whether you see it or just simply wish to deny it) is that since something exists (let’s call it matter/energy), then matter/energy necessarily “always” existed. <— That however doesn’t square with the scientific proposition that matter/energy cannot be either created or destroyed. <— That requires a conclusion that EITHER matter/energy’s very existence is necessarily reliant on something that created it. <— Which is a contradiction of the prior premise OR if matter/energy does exist, then it MUST have “always existed.”<— and that is a contradiction of the proposition that something can exist without having first been created. It doesn’t answer the question. It actually begs the question. It evades the question. It is a non-answer that purports to “be” an answer.

Forget all your frustration and name calling. They aren’t persuasive. Just answer the question. You originally claimed, in essence, that God must logically exist. Your syllogism was that 1. Something does exist; 2. Non existence cannot “cause” existence, and; therefore “something” must have always existed. So: why is it that you demand the conclusion that the “something” must be God? Why exactly (according to your logic) could the conclusion not be “the ‘something’ which has always existed is matter/energy”?

 

[Ringtone]

If non existence cannot cause existence, then you ARE claiming that something must have come into existence without causation, stupid. Are you actually so utterly simplistic that you can’t follow along? Or maybe you’re just “insane.”

If anything can exist without causation then why does it have to be GOD? The import of what you’re claiming (whether you see it or just simply wish to deny it) is that since something exists (let’s call it matter/energy), then matter/energy necessarily “always” existed. <— That however doesn’t square with the scientific proposition that matter/energy cannot be either created or destroyed. <— That requires a conclusion that EITHER matter/energy’s very existence is necessarily reliant on something that created it. <— Which is a contradiction of the prior premise OR if matter/energy does exist, then it MUST have “always existed.”<— and that is a contradiction of the proposition that something can exist without having first been created. It doesn’t answer the question. It actually begs the question. It evades the question. It is a non-answer that purports to “be” an answer.

Forget all your frustration and name calling. They aren’t persuasive. Just answer the question. You originally claimed, in essence, that God must logically exist. Your syllogism was that 1. Something does exist; 2. Non existence cannot “cause” existence, and; therefore “something” must have always existed. So: why is it that you demand the conclusion that the “something” must be God? Why exactly (according to your logic) could the conclusion not be “the ‘something’ which has always existed is matter/energy”?

Wrong again.

There is no imperative, scientific or otherwise, that matter/energy cannot come into existence. Rather, there is no material/physical mechanism by which existing matter/energy could be destroyed, or by which new matter/energy could be created.

 

[Ringtone]

I agree that the Big Bang Theory is a de facto recognition of a causational force of the universe. However, I doubt that force was anthropomorphic.

Perhaps you would explain what you mean by an anthropomorphic force.

 

[jwoodie]

Your observation regarding an anthropomorphic force makes no sense to me. I do not follow.

Sorry for the inductive leap. My conclusion is that the Creator could not have been a human because it created humans, not vice versa. If the universe(s) was created along an infinite time line, then the force that created it must have an infinite existence. Some people describe this force as having human characteristics, while others ignore its existence altogether and believe that infinite human knowledge will someday explain everything. Both are wrong, since human beings are have neither infinite existence nor infinite knowledge.

 

[BackAgain]

LOL! Dummy, there is no imperative, scientific or otherwise, that matter/energy cannot come into existence. Rather, there is no material/physical mechanism by which matter/energy could be destroyed or created.

You're either dumb as dirt, insane, or trolling. Which is it?

A simple, clear and accurate answer to your stupid final question: you are an arrogant nitwit.

If matter/energy can’t be created as you contend, you’re left with the idiotic conclusion that it “always” existed. It sounds as though you’re invoking magic. Since you seem unable to explain where the “stuff”came from, you declare that “ergo, it must have always existed.” But Aquinas disagrees:

"There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." — Summa Theologiae I.2.3

No thing (nothing) can be the cause of its own existence because for any one thing to cause a thing requires that it must exist already. But if a thing exists already, it (itself) can’t “be” created. It already was. (Just as I couldn’t do anything in life before my own conception.)

Nevertheless, you claim that “it” always existed. It didn’t come into existence — it simply “always” did exist.

And you call me insane.

 

[Ringtone]

A simple, clear and accurate answer to your stupid final question: you are an arrogant nitwit.

If matter/energy can’t be created as you contend, you’re left with the idiotic conclusion that it “always” existed. It sounds as though you’re invoking magic. Since you seem unable to explain where the “stuff”came from, you declare that “ergo, it must have always existed.” But Aquinas disagrees:

"There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." — Summa Theologiae I.2.3

No thing (nothing) can be the cause of its own existence because for any one thing to cause a thing requires that it must exist already. But if a thing exists already, it (itself) can’t “be” created. It already was. (Just as I couldn’t do anything in life before my own conception.)

Nevertheless, you claim that “it” always existed. It didn’t come into existence — it simply “always” did exist.

And you call me insane.

Are you a nutjob? Are you on drugs?

I didn't contend that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. That would be a scientifically indemonstrable contention entailing the metaphysical presupposition of ontological naturalism.

It's YOU who contends that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.

It's you who unwittingly begs the question and inexplicably attributed your dumbass belief to me—not once but twice!

Rather, the laws of thermodynamics hold that there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be destroyed or created.

Let's review. The first contention in bold below is yours. I never made your false and foolish contention. I made the second contention below. Note the ≠ sign. Thanks.

Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed​

≠ ​

There is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be destroyed or created​

 

[BackAgain]

Are you a nutjob? Are you on drugs?

I didn't contend that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. That would be a scientifically indemonstrable contention entailing the metaphysical presupposition of ontological naturalism.

It's YOU who contends that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.

It's you who unwittingly begs the question and inexplicably attributed your dumbass belief to me—not once but twice!

Rather, the laws of thermodynamics hold that there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be destroyed or created.

Let's review. The first contention in bold below is yours. I never made your false and foolish contention. I made the second contention below. Note the ≠ sign. Thanks.

Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed​

≠ ​

There is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be destroyed or created​

Studious way to miss the point. Bravo.

Once again, I’ll try to educate you.

Once again: It is because you contend (as I noted) that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, you have to come up with some way to explain their existence. Having no where else to go, you engage in faulty logic to “conclude” that matter/energy “must have” always and eternally existed. Therefore, you try to deny the Aquinas contention I quoted.

Let’s see if you can handle it, rather than merely avoiding it. Where did this stuff come from? Your answer that it “must have” always existed is obviously insufficient since it violates the Aquinas observation that nothing can be the cause of its own existence. So, Where did the stuff come from?

I suspect that you will merely continue to go round and round in circles. You know the concept. Like matter/energy around and around, forever and ever without any beginning or end. Great concept.

Question two: if all of the universe’s matter/energy can all exist without having been created, cool. Dispense with a Creator.
But, now tel me again how this establishes the existence of God?

 

[Ringtone]

Studious way to miss the point. Bravo.

Once again, I’ll try to educate you.

Once again: It is because you contend (as I noted) that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, you have to come up with some way to explain their existence. Having no where else to go, you engage in faulty logic to “conclude” that matter/energy “must have” always and eternally existed. Therefore, you try to deny the Aquinas contention I quoted.

Let’s see if you can handle it, rather than merely avoiding it. Where did this stuff come from? Your answer that it “must have” always existed is obviously insufficient since it violates the Aquinas observation that nothing can be the cause of its own existence. So, Where did the stuff come from?

I suspect that you will merely continue to go round and round in circles. You know the concept. Like matter/energy around and around, forever and ever without any beginning or end. Great concept.

Question two: if all of the universe’s matter/energy can all exist without having been created, cool. Dispense with a Creator.
But, now tel me again how this establishes the existence of God?

Are you on shrooms? LSD? Weed?

Like Aquinas, I'm a classical theist. Aquinas and I wholeheartedly agree. Logic 101. Of course, any given thing cannot be the cause of it's own existence.

You write, "It is because you contend that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. . . .

No. I. Don't! I have never asserted that, you drooling 'tard. Not once, not ever.

You write, "you conclude that matter/energy must have always existed."

No. I. Didn't! I have never asserted that, you drooling 'tard. Not once, not ever.