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

[Ringtone]

I have been very open minded. I have found you very close minded. But, time will tell.

You say this based on what, precisely?

Yeah. You just claimed that.

You insist on using the phrase “ontological” like a touchstone. It doesn’t strengthen your argument. And again. No need to try to talk down to me. The object here is for you to speak (write) clearly. For example, your use of “ontological order” is a packed term, but not one you choose (or have chosen) to define.

According to faith. But faith alone doesn’t prove a logical point. Indeed, it is a failure to utilize logic since it presumes the sought to be established conclusion as a premise. So, instead of just stating the conclusion as a premise, I am pressing you to properly support that premise

Up to a point, I agree with that. But the highlighted part is not a stipulation of the first law of thermodynamics. It is something you have seen fit to add to it. If it’s a correct qualification of the 1st Law, then tell me your basis for that qualification. Can you?


Let’s say for the sake of discussion (preliminarily) that God created nature and the scientific laws. Then, yes. It would make abundant good sense to presume that nature is now bound by the laws of physics. It would also make good sense to say that God is not so bound. But — and again, I’m asking a question not stating a premise — to merely state your belief that God created nature and the rules that bind nature is essentially to assume your conclusion as your premise in order to “derive” you conclusion. You said, in your original statement (in effect) that your syllogisms “proved” the existence of God. My question is: “do your syllogisms do that?”

I maintain that they don’t , because you cannot use the existence of God as a premise to craft a syllogism to prove the existence of that very God. Or, to be a bit more precise, you can’t do that and maintain that you’ve done so by any valid set of syllogisms. It is the fallacy of begging the question.

I could continue, but this one is plenty long enough. I will (in the way I’ve asked you to proceed) similarly await your response.

I just wanted to make sure.

It's official. You're a drooling 'tard.

 

[BackAgain]

I just wanted to make sure.

It's official. You're a drooling 'tard.

Good head fake. I almost bought that you could be mature. My mistake.

 

[Ringtone]

Good head fake. I almost bought that you could be mature. My mistake.

You drooling 'tard, if you can't see how irrationally insane and stupid your blather is, I cannot help you. There's something wrong with your thinker. It's broken, beyond repair but for God.

 

[BackAgain]

You drooling 'tard, if you can't see how irrationally insane and stupid your blather is, I cannot help you. There's something wrong with your thinker. It's broken, beyond repair but for God.

No need to be so obvious about turning tail and running away. We all see your modus operandi is that of a cowardly pussy. Too bad.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not sure I follow you. I would say that God and His creation are readably apprehensible but not comprehendible. That seems to be what you're saying. I would agree.

From the Jewish perspective, The Creator is neither, but contemplation of such is not an offense.

 

[Ringtone]

From the Jewish perspective, The Creator is neither, but contemplation of such is not an offense.

From the Jewish perspective?! Jews and Christians share the very same fundamental perspective of classical theism regarding the essential attributes of God. Indeed, the classical view is universally apprehensible. One cannot contemplate what one cannot apprehend. What are you talking about?

On the other hand, no one can comprehend God but God.

 

[Indeependent]

From the Jewish perspective?! Jews and Christians share the very same fundamental perspective of classical theism regarding the essential attributes of God. Indeed, the classical view is universally apprehensible. One cannot contemplate what one cannot apprehend. What in the world are you talking about?

You couldn't be further from the truth...
GOD HAS NO INTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES!!!!
God has manifestations which are a reflection of how we as humans behave in a manner demanded by God.

The NT considers God to be an emotionally, out of control, bastard, which is why He needs an Empathetic SON!
The sad fact is that anyone who actually studies Tanach, verse by verse, cannot possibly find the NT to be anything but a satire, not unlike Mad magazine.

I'm not saying this to be nasty as I have read the NT 6 times back in the late 90s and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry.

You can contemplate God's creation; you cannot contemplate God, but it isn't a sin for a non-Jew to attempt such.

 

[Ringtone]

I have been very open minded. I have found you very close minded. But, time will tell.

You say this based on what, precisely?

Yeah. You just claimed that.

You insist on using the phrase “ontological” like a touchstone. It doesn’t strengthen your argument. And again. No need to try to talk down to me. The object here is for you to speak (write) clearly. For example, your use of “ontological order” is a packed term, but not one you choose (or have chosen) to define.

According to faith. But faith alone doesn’t prove a logical point. Indeed, it is a failure to utilize logic since it presumes the sought to be established conclusion as a premise. So, instead of just stating the conclusion as a premise, I am pressing you to properly support that premise

Up to a point, I agree with that. But the highlighted part is not a stipulation of the first law of thermodynamics. It is something you have seen fit to add to it. If it’s a correct qualification of the 1st Law, then tell me your basis for that qualification. Can you?


Let’s say for the sake of discussion (preliminarily) that God created nature and the scientific laws. Then, yes. It would make abundant good sense to presume that nature is now bound by the laws of physics. It would also make good sense to say that God is not so bound. But — and again, I’m asking a question not stating a premise — to merely state your belief that God created nature and the rules that bind nature is essentially to assume your conclusion as your premise in order to “derive” you conclusion. You said, in your original statement (in effect) that your syllogisms “proved” the existence of God. My question is: “do your syllogisms do that?”

I maintain that they don’t , because you cannot use the existence of God as a premise to craft a syllogism to prove the existence of that very God. Or, to be a bit more precise, you can’t do that and maintain that you’ve done so by any valid set of syllogisms. It is the fallacy of begging the question.

I could continue, but this one is plenty long enough. I will (in the way I’ve asked you to proceed) similarly await your response.

Look, everybody, the imbecile of imbeciles BackAgain finally conceded that (1) I never said that the universe has always existed and that (2) if the universe began to exist, it had to have been created by God . . . but not really because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, not even by God.


This level of stupidity is stratospheric.

The drooling 'tard is strong in this one.

 

[BackAgain]

Look, everybody, the imbecile of imbeciles BackAgain finally conceded that (1) I never said that the universe has always existed and that (2) if the universe began to exist, it had to have been created by God . . . but not really because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, not even by God.

Still unable to control your immaturity and unwilling to answer questions. It’s clear, you aren’t the philosopher you pose as. You aren’t even especially intelligent.

Your helter skelter continuing retreat is duly noted and quite obvious — as is the reason for it. You’re humiliated. As you should be.

 

[Ringtone]

You couldn't be further from the truth...
GOD HAS NO INTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES!!!!
God has manifestations which are a reflection of how we as humans behave in a manner demanded by God.

The NT considers God to be an emotionally, out of control, bastard, which is why He needs an Empathetic SON!
The sad fact is that anyone who actually studies Tanach, verse by verse, cannot possibly find the NT to be anything but a satire, not unlike Mad magazine.

I'm not saying this to be nasty as I have read the NT 6 times back in the late 90s and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry.

You can contemplate God's creation; you cannot contemplate God, but it isn't a sin for a non-Jew to attempt such.

I don't know why you're going off on some subjective theological tangent, but you're talking some bizarre batch of apples to my oranges.

I logically observed that one cannot contemplate that which one cannot apprehend. That is an objectively undeniable imperative!

I logically observed that one need not comprehend something in order to apprehend it. That is an objectively undeniable imperative!
Finally, I'm talking about God's attributes in the ontological sense of being. The fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology absolutely tell us what God's fundamental attributes are! They are readily apprehensible.

God the Creator is necessarily eternally self-subsistent, transcendent, immutable, immaterial, timeless, and incomparably great (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent). Moreover, He would necessarily be the very embodiment of logic, goodness, beauty, and truth. All of the above emboldened would necessarily be His constitutional attributes!​

 

[Indeependent]

I don't know why you're going off on some subjective theological tangent, but you're talking some bizarre batch of apples to my oranges.

I logically observed that one cannot contemplate that which one cannot apprehend. That is an objectively undeniable imperative!

I logically observed that one need not comprehend something in order to apprehend it. That is an objectively undeniable imperative!
Finally, I'm talking about God's attributes in the ontological sense of being. The fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology absolutely tell us what God's fundamental attributes are! They are readily apprehensible.

God the Creator is necessarily eternally self-subsistent, transcendent, immutable, immaterial, timeless, and incomparably great (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent). Moreover, He would necessarily be the very embodiment of logic, goodness, beauty, and truth. All of the above emboldened would necessarily be His constitutional attributes!​

I misunderstood you.

 

[Blues Man]

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.​

What caused gods to exist ( if they exist)?

 

[Ringtone]

What caused gods to exist ( if they exist)?

Troll Alert!

 

[cnm]

https://plato.stanford.edu › entries › cosmological-argument​

The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.​

 

[Ringtone]

Still unable to control your immaturity and unwilling to answer questions. It’s clear, you aren’t the philosopher you pose as. You aren’t even especially intelligent.

Your helter skelter continuing retreat is duly noted and quite obvious — as is the reason for it. You’re humiliated. As you should be.

You literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe after all because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism.

You are the moron of morons! The drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.

 

[cnm]

God the Creator is necessarily eternally self-subsistent, transcendent, immutable, immaterial, timeless, and incomparably great (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent). Moreover, He would necessarily be the very embodiment of logic, goodness, beauty, and truth. All of the above emboldened would necessarily be His constitutional attributes!

So why would he

?

 

[cnm]

The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.

Ringtone's cosmological argument is the god of gaps. We don't know so god done it.

 

[BackAgain]

You literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe after all because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism.

You are the moron of morons! The drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.

As usual, your ability to comprehend is shown to be lacking. What I did say, you poor pathetic utter retard, was that “if” matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then the existence of God as the creator violates that law. In fact, what I also said was that it appears that something or some entity HAD to have come into existence without having been “created.” Either matter/energy or God.

All of which amounts to you still running from the question like the devil is trying to butt-fuck you. Remember, your fleeing doesn’t hide it. Your OP still claims “proof” that God exists — but one of your premises is that God exists. Your entire “proof” [sic] rests on a fallacious argument.

I still invite you to correct that mistake, if you can. But you’re a pussy, so you won’t try. And that’s just as well, because there is no answer to it capable of being “found” in your “argument.” A dope you were and a dope you remain.

 

[Ringtone]

https://plato.stanford.edu › entries › cosmological-argument​

The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.​

More essentially, the cosmological argument presupposes that the Universe does in fact exist and, via the logically incontrovertible imperatives of ontology, proves that God must be.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone's cosmological argument is the god of gaps. We don't know so god done it.

Who is this we, and what don't they know exactly? Precisely what is the logical gap in the argument.