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

[BackAgain]

Wait a minute! What are you going on about now? I see what you were hinting at. You're right.

Once again:

Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy (something cannot be the cause of it's own existence), would simply be there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. The term known gratuitously confounds both the philosophical and scientific reality of the matter.​

​

Good eye!​

​

Hence, simply, there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.​

Thinking and writing about logical arguments is especially hard. One should always avoid gratuitous words, as they readily serve to imply or express things not intended.

I offered known to be fair. I allow for the possibility only. But my comment works either way. Let’s say that there is (definitively) NO such mechanism. What follows? Simply that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

And yet, it exists. So, if it wasn’t created …. Where’d it come from? If it came from God, presumably he may have created it. But we get back to that violation of the premise problem.

It seems as though you think that maybe I’m just being quarrelsome. That’s not my intent. I’m genuinely asking questions. I’m more than willing to consider each and every proposed answer. But if they don’t scratch that itch, I’ll say so. If the answer raises another (maybe tangentially related) question, I’ll ask that too.
Not to be vexatious. But to see if I can get a clear handle on it.

 

[Ringtone]

I offered known to be fair. I allow for the possibility only. But my comment works either way. Let’s say that there is (definitively) NO such mechanism. What follows? Simply that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

And yet, it exists. So, if it wasn’t created …. Where’d it come from? If it came from God, presumably he may have created it. But we get back to that violation of the premise problem.

It seems as though you think that maybe I’m just being quarrelsome. That’s not my intent. I’m genuinely asking questions. I’m more than willing to consider each and every proposed answer. But if they don’t scratch that itch, I’ll say so. If the answer raises another (maybe tangentially related) question, I’ll ask that too.
Not to be vexatious. But to see if I can get a clear handle on it.

No. Think carefully!

What I thought you were hinting at is correct! Including the word known absolutely confounds the matter.

There are two parts to the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

1. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing that can be transferred from one location to another or converted from one form to another.​

​

2. Matter/energy is always conserved, i.e., matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.​

​

There is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed. ​

Wrong!

That expression implies that there might/could be an unknown natural mechanism by which matter/energy could be created or destroyed. That's absurd! Such a mechanism does not and could not exist in the first place! Such a mechanism would be a violation of the philosophical principle of causative primacy, which is a priori predicated on the principle of existence (or the principle of eternality), and a violation of the scientific principle of conservation within open, closed, and isolated systems.

Hence, while there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed is fine, there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed is problematical.

Ultimately, however, what you don't seem to understand is the ontological parameters of the open, closed, and isolated systems of the universe. The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to them, not to the purview of philosophical imperatives, which ontologically and a priori precede and have primacy over the laws of nature. It is understood that the laws of nature only pertain to the systems within the universe.

I also wrote a study on the Laws of Thermodynamics that might be helpful in understanding why they would only apply to nature (i.e., the physical/material world):

Thermodynamics and the Entropy of the Curse

THERMODYNAMICSBy David Thompson (Ctrl-Left Click on links or copy and paste links to URL-browser window.)Thermodynamics may be defined as

www.yumpu.com

​

Click on document to magnify.​

 

[BackAgain]

No. Think carefully!

What I thought you were hinting at is correct! Including the word known absolutely confounds the matter.

There are two parts to the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

1. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing that can be transferred from one location to another or converted from one form to another.​

​

2. Matter/energy is always conserved, i.e., matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.​

​

There is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed. ​

Wrong!

That expression implies that there might/could be an unknown natural mechanism by which matter/energy could be created or destroyed. That's absurd! Such a mechanism does not and could not exist in the first place! Such a mechanism would be a violation of the philosophical principle of causative primacy, which is a priori predicated on the principle of existence (or the principle of eternality), and a violation of the scientific principle of conservation within open, closed, and isolated systems.

Hence, while there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed is fine, there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed is problematical.

Ultimately, however, what you don't seem to understand is the ontological parameters of the open, closed, and isolated systems of the universe. The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to them, not to the purview of philosophical imperatives, which ontologically and a priori precede and have primacy over the laws of nature. It is understood that the laws of nature only pertain to the systems within the universe.

I also wrote a study on the Laws of Thermodynamics that might be helpful in understanding why they would only apply to nature (i.e., the physical/material world):

Thermodynamics and the Entropy of the Curse

THERMODYNAMICSBy David Thompson (Ctrl-Left Click on links or copy and paste links to URL-browser window.)Thermodynamics may be defined as

www.yumpu.com

​

Click on document to magnify.​

Yes. There are indeed things which we don’t yet know which could control. Just because you label something as “absurd” doesn’t make it so. But you’re spinning wheels here, anyway. Because, as I noted, I’m quite content to stipulate that there is absolutely no mechanism of any kind by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. As I said before, that doesn’t help you case.

So let’s dispense with terms like “imperatives,” like a priori, which you ASSUME have primacy over the laws of nature. Why? Because your assumptions may not be correct. I’ll reiterate what I said before about one disputed premise:

It is either true that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed OR it’s not true. But when you find it expedient, because your bullet proof formulation doesn’t satisfy a variety of logical and scientific preconditions, like a liberal, you adjust by changing the meaning of words or by specifying new “conditions” under which your axioms are axiomaric

So, now, you (referring to the logic of others which you support) come up with notions like “temporality.” Ah. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed EXCEPT when it can. When it has to have been. Once again, your axioms aren’t so axiomatic.

I understand the claim you make about the nature of your initial premises. But your claims about their nature don’t appear to be supported.

Accordingly, I restate what you’ve said: There are rules of logic and rules of science that apply forever and always except where they don’t. Your a priori reasoning gives you an ability to “grant” yourself exceptions. Convenient, but not supported and not logically persuasive.

 

[Ringtone]

BTW, in the above I've been referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Brain fart!

The First Law, regarding the transfer/transformation and the conservation of energy therein, is what I've been discussing.

The Second Law goes to the principle of entropy and the Third Law goes to the principle of absolute zero.

I trust you knew what I meant.

 

[Ringtone]

Yes. There are indeed things which we don’t yet know which could control. Just because you label something as “absurd” doesn’t make it so. But you’re spinning wheels here, anyway. Because, as I noted, I’m quite content to stipulate that there is absolutely no mechanism of any kind by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. As I said before, that doesn’t help you case.

So let’s dispense with terms like “imperatives,” like a priori, which you ASSUME have primacy over the laws of nature. Why? Because your assumptions may not be correct. I’ll reiterate what I said before about one disputed premise:



I understand the claim you make about the nature of your initial premises. But your claims about their nature don’t appear to be supported.

Accordingly, I restate what you’ve said: There are rules of logic and rules of science that apply forever and always except where they don’t. Your a priori reasoning gives you an ability to “grant” yourself exceptions. Convenient, but not supported and not logically persuasive.

You're talking relativist nonsense again.

A priori imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.

Your objection is falsified. You are refuted.

 

[BackAgain]

You're talking relativist nonsense again.

A priori imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.

Your objection is falsified. You are refuted.

Wrong. Your claim about the negation of an unestablished premise yielding an “absurdity “ is just your silly way of claiming that your assumption is “true” without having to demonstrate it. Therefore my objection hasn’t been falsified at all. Your refutation is what has failed.

It’s evident why you can’t answer my questions. Quite clear in fact.

It’s ok. If you can’t defend your claim, you don’t have to feel embarrassed. Your claim is simply overstated. That’s all.

The KCA first premise, which you claim is “a priori,” has to be subject to the test you hold out as supporting it. That is: the negation has to yield an absurdity. So, let’s try.

KCA premise 1 is: “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.” The negation of that can be stated as “for something to begin to exist it need not have a cause for its existence.” You would be constrained to declare that an absurdity. Why is it allegedly “absurd?” It can’t be absurd. Again, you yourself hold that to be true.

For, although we know that matter/energy does exist, you do agree with the laws of thermodynamics. That is: matter/energy cannot be created. Yet if it exists, it has to have been created. (Your quibble there is that it could have come into existence via a supernatural creation not constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.) Therefore, as I noted, you hold an a priori premise as self evidently and necessarily true EXCEPT for some inexplicable state of the cosmos before space/time/matter/energy.

So, exactly how would it be held to be an “absurdity” to say that something can exist without the necessity of having been created (having a cause of its existence). If GOD is the force of creation of that which can’t be created or destroyed, moreover, then where did GOd come from? Presumably, from that time before time and space before space. But that too constitutes an example of the very thing you claim is an absurdity.

No sir. The problem isn’t my incomplete understanding of your argument (which is probably a given); the real problem is that your argument requires acceptance of internal contradictions.

In short, akin to a work of fiction, your argument requires the suspension of disbelief. “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.” — has to be accepted at face value even though the premise itself requires its own negation because it simply fails to provide many explanation of how the basic building blocks of everything could have had any cause for their existence.

 

[Ringtone]

) Therefore, as I noted, you hold an a priori premise as self evidently and necessarily true EXCEPT for some inexplicable state of the cosmos before space/time/matter/energy.

So, exactly how would it be held to be an “absurdity” to say that something can exist without the necessity of having been created (having a cause of its existence). If GOD is the force of creation of that which can’t be created or destroyed, moreover, then where did GOd come from? Presumably, from that time before time and space before space. But that too constitutes an example of the very thing you claim is an absurdity.

No sir. The problem isn’t my incomplete understanding of your argument (which is probably a given); the real problem is that your argument requires acceptance of internal contradictions.

In short, akin to a work of fiction, your argument requires the suspension of disbelief. “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.” — has to be accepted at face value even though the premise itself requires its own negation because it simply fails to provide many explanation of how the basic building blocks of everything could have had any cause for their existence.

You're making baby talk again—goo-goo-ga-ga. Just like you don't understand the ontological parameters of thermodynamics, you don't understand what the logical negation of an a priori imperative is. Your objections are increasingly juvenile and tiresome. To logically negate an imperative is to assert that the opposite of what it asserts or something other than what it asserts is true, i.e., to contradict or deny its veracity.

The universal principle of negation:

​

A priori imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) or something else is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.​

This incontrovertible principle is predicated on the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of identity and its exegetical extensions, (2) the law of noncontradiction, and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

The negation of the first premise is clearly an absurdity! Things that begin to exist do not just pop into existence without causes.

As for the rest of your nonsense. . . .

(1) the laws of thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO THE ISOLATED SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE! Your claim or insinuation that they pertain to anything beyond the ontological parameters of the Universe is scientifically false.

(2) The KCA is in no way, shape, or form contingent on knowledge about the laws of thermodynamics, let alone on knowledge about their ontological parameters. Even if your pseudoscientific gibberish regarding their ontological parameters were true, the KCA was formulated centuries before the exegesis of the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory.

Stop being stupid.

Earlier, I only observed in passing that logically the God of creation wouldn't be constrained by the laws of physics. I never once appealed to that observation as a contingent aspect of the KCA itself. As you keep mindlessly insisting, there is no premature appeal in the KCA to God's existence, to a supernatural being unconstrained by the laws of physics, in the first place!

The historical developers of the cosmological argument Aristotle, Philoponus, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas didn't know anything about the pertinent laws of physics.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!

Their observations, expounded in the sub-premises of the second major premise, about why the Universe could not be the eternal existent are purely logical and mathematical, and entail absolutely no assertion about the identity or the attributes of the eternal existent.

It's the exegesis of the third premise that culminates with the divulsion of the eternal existent's identity.

The KCA is logically linear throughout, not circular. It's solely informed by logical, mathematical, and metaphysical imperatives throughout, not by presumptive or scientific imperatives.

Your objections are falsified. You are refuted.

 

[BackAgain]

You're making baby talk again—goo-goo-ga-ga. Just like you don't understand the ontological parameters of thermodynamics, you don't understand what the logical negation of an a priori imperative is. Your objections are increasingly juvenile and tiresome. The logical negation of an imperative is to assert that the opposite of what it asserts or something other than what it asserts is true, i.e., to contradict or deny its veracity.

The universal principle of negation:

​

A priori imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) or something else is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.​

This incontrovertible principle is predicated on the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of identity and its exegetical extensions, (2) the law of noncontradiction, and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

The negation of the first premise is clearly an absurdity! Things that begin to exist do not just pop into existence without causes.

As for the rest of your nonsense. . . .

(1) the laws of thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO THE ISOLATED SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE! Your claim or insinuation that they pertain to anything beyond the ontological parameters of the Universe is scientifically false.

(2) The KCA is in no way, shape, or form contingent on knowledge about the laws of thermodynamics, let alone knowledge about their ontological parameters. Even if your pseudoscientific gibberish regarding their ontological parameters were true, the KCA was formulated centuries before the exegesis of the laws of thermodynamics or the Big Bang Theory.

Stop being stupid.

Earlier, I only observed in passing that logically the God of creation wouldn't be constrained by the laws of physics. I never once appealed to that observation as a contingent aspect of the KCA itself. As you keep mindlessly insisting, there is no premature appeal in the KCA to God's existence, to a supernatural being unconstrained by the laws of physics, in the first place!

The historical developers of the cosmological argument Aristotle, Philoponus, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas didn't know anything about the pertinent laws of physics.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!

Their observations, expounded in the sub-premises of the second major premise, about why the Universe could not be the eternal existent are purely logical and mathematical, and entail absolutely no assertion about the identity or the attributes of the eternal existent.

It's the exegesis of the third premise that culminates with the divulsion of the eternal existent's identity.

The KCA is logically linear throughout, not circular.

Your objections are falsified. You are refuted.

I keep trying to patient with you. But nothing stops you from being perpetually an arrogant twat. If only you were half as smart as you erroneously imagine yourself to be.

Too bad. You suck as a teacher. That’s usually a good clue that you don’t really understand the subject matter. You babble a great deal. But I now recognize that you are actually just a blowhard. I’m done with you. Adios, you jerkoff.

 

[Ringtone]

I keep trying to patient with you. But nothing stops you from being perpetually an arrogant twat. If only you were half as smart as you erroneously imagine yourself to be.

Too bad. You suck as a teacher. That’s usually a good clue that you don’t really understand the subject matter. You babble a great deal. But I now recognize that you are actually just a blowhard. I’m done with you. Adios, you jerkoff.

You're making baby talk again—goo-goo-ga-ga. Just like you don't understand the ontological parameters of thermodynamics, you don't understand what the logical negation of an a priori imperative is. Your objections are increasingly juvenile and tiresome. To logically negate an imperative is to assert that the opposite of what it asserts or something other than what it asserts is true, i.e., to contradict or deny its veracity.

The universal principle of negation:

A priori imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) or something else is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.​

This incontrovertible principle is predicated on the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of identity and its exegetical extensions, (2) the law of noncontradiction, and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

The negation of the first premise is clearly an absurdity! Things that begin to exist do not just pop into existence without causes.

As for the rest of your nonsense. . . .

(1) the laws of thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO THE ISOLATED SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE! Your claim or insinuation that they pertain to anything beyond the ontological parameters of the Universe is scientifically false.

(2) The KCA is in no way, shape, or form contingent on knowledge about the laws of thermodynamics, let alone on knowledge about their ontological parameters. Even if your pseudoscientific gibberish regarding their ontological parameters were true, the KCA was formulated centuries before the exegesis of the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory.

Stop being stupid.

Earlier, I only observed in passing that logically the God of creation wouldn't be constrained by the laws of physics. I never once appealed to that observation as a contingent aspect of the KCA itself. As you keep mindlessly insisting, there is no premature appeal in the KCA to God's existence, to a supernatural being unconstrained by the laws of physics, in the first place!

The historical developers of the cosmological argument Aristotle, Philoponus, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas didn't know anything about the pertinent laws of physics.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!

Their observations, expounded in the sub-premises of the second major premise, about why the Universe could not be the eternal existent are purely logical and mathematical, and entail absolutely no assertion about the identity or the attributes of the eternal existent.

It's the exegesis of the third premise that culminates with the divulsion of the eternal existent's identity.

The KCA is logically linear throughout, not circular. It's informed by logical, mathematical, and metaphysical imperatives throughout, not by presumptive or scientific imperatives.

Your objections are falsified. You are refuted.

 

[BackAgain]

I had hoped that ringtone could get past his own arrogance so that we could have an actually productive conversation. It is clearly impossible for him to control his arrogance. So, he has been sent to the Ignore Zone with a few other useless blood clots like him. But the other hacks I’ve sent to the Ignore Zone, I believe, are simply libtarded. Ringtone is (I believe) the first more or less conservative I’ve ever found it necessary to discard.

 

[Ringtone]

View attachment 637825
I had hoped that ringtone could get past his own arrogance so that we could have an actually productive conversation. It is clearly impossible for him to control his arrogance. So, he has been sent to the Ignore Zone with a few other useless blood clots like him. But the other hacks I’ve sent to the Ignore Zone, I believe, are simply libtarded. Ringtone is (I believe) the first more or less conservative I’ve ever found it necessary to discard.

You said useless blood clots.



Starting with the first premise, if you would only carefully examine the KCA with me via the Socratic method, whereby we establish an objectively correct and mutual understanding of things one principle and concept at a time you might finally see that it's your objections that are premature and only serve to confound the actualities of the argument.

But you refuse to do that.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
※→ et al,

---

(PREFACE)

The current discussion seems to smear the insights to the various arguments all over the wall.

(COMMENT)

I am a bit confused. Using a classical Thomistic cosmological argument (inspired by Thomas Aquinas from Aristoten teaching) one might be able to say that these arguments are Metaphysical in nature.

The question becomes: What is the question?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ringtone]

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
※→ et al,

---

(PREFACE)

The current discussion seems to smear the insights to the various arguments all over the wall.

(COMMENT)

I am a bit confused. Using a classical Thomistic cosmological argument (inspired by Thomas Aquinas from Aristoten teaching) one might be able to say that these arguments are Metaphysical in nature.

The question becomes: What is the question?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not classically Thomistic. Its origin precedes Aquinas by centuries. It is metaphysical by nature.

You write: "The question becomes: What is the question?"

What does that mean?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
SUBTOPIC:
※→ Ringtone, et al,

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not classically Thomistic. Its origin precedes Aquinas by centuries. It is metaphysical by nature.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I think I did mention "[inspired by Thomas Aquinas from Aristoten teaching)( (384 – 322 BC)]." Not very much of much of the original Aristotelian manuscripts have survived through the last 23 Centuries. Aristotle studied under Plato (428 - 348 BC). Platonian material and thinking centered on a much narrower view of the world science and philosophy. Where as Aristotle's field of view was much wider then the Metaphysics of questions discussed before the common era. Plato (Aristotle's teacher) was more abstract in Metaphysical concepts. Aristotle ultimately chose a path supprted by common sense and empirical evidence.

You write: "The question becomes: What is the question?"

What does that mean?

(COMMENT)

Yes, what is the question as it relates to the topic: Cosmological Argument for God's Existence. That is to say:

What do we review relative to an
"undefined Entity"
shut as the
Supreme Being.​

◈. Is there a hard fact in evidence for a Supreme Being?​

◈. Can you review our knowledge of the unknown?​

◈. Are we sure there is only one deity?​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ringtone]

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
SUBTOPIC:
※→ Ringtone, et al,


(COMMENT)

Yes, I think I did mention "[inspired by Thomas Aquinas from Aristoten teaching)( (384 – 322 BC)]." Not very much of much of the original Aristotelian manuscripts have survived through the last 23 Centuries. Aristotle studied under Plato (428 - 348 BC). Platonian material and thinking centered on a much narrower view of the world science and philosophy. Where as Aristotle's field of view was much wider then the Metaphysics of questions discussed before the common era. Plato (Aristotle's teacher) was more abstract in Metaphysical concepts. Aristotle ultimately chose a path supprted by common sense and empirical evidence.


(COMMENT)

Yes, what is the question as it relates to the topic: Cosmological Argument for God's Existence. That is to say:

What do we review relative to an
"undefined Entity"
shut as the
Supreme Being.​

◈. Is there a hard fact in evidence for a Supreme Being?​

◈. Can you review our knowledge of the unknown?​

◈. Are we sure there is only one deity?​

Most Respectfully,
R

You still don't seem to grasp the historical realities of the matter.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument was developed by the Muslim philosophers Avicenna, Al-Kind, and Al-Ghazali, and by the early Christian empiricist Philoponus.

As for the rest of your post, the a priori imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics tell us that (1) God does necessarily exists and (2) what the universal code of morality is.

Your questions have already been answered.