The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[ding]

When classical theists speak of God as being infinite, they're not saying that He's an actual infinite; certainly learned, biblically orthodox Christians aren't. Rather, such theologians mean that He's infinite, not in the quantitative sense, but in the superlative sense of quality as compared to all other existents. In other words, God is incomparably superior, magnificent, wonderful. He's gloriously unique among all other existents, which, of course, He created from nothing but the sheer power of His will. God's omnipotence is not the power to do anything. It's the power to do all things possible. God's omniscience is not an innumerable collection of facts, but a single apprehension of all things possible at once. Only the contents of finite minds are comprised of bits and pieces of information.

Gravitational Time Dilation.

If God is outside the flow of time, He has infinite mass and energy.

I'm not there. We can't possible describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. My premise is that God is spirit so to speak. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of all space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have my own notions that make sense to me, albeit, as informed by logic and God's word ... Certainly the A theory of time applies to finite minds, not to that of God.[

you've created a limited capacity to satisfy your self made logic ....

Lol, yeah, Ringtone just made all this up.

Do you have even a sliver of shame in your whole body?

.

Lol, yeah, Ringtone just made all this up.

who implied it was just ringtone ...

Certainly the A theory of time applies to finite minds, not to that of God.

their life experiences happens to conclude they have a finite "mind" - rather their modeling requires a finite mind for their world view to make sense where the Almighty's is senseless ... or maybe an apex of knowledge is the same for both just reaching that isn't just a riddle nor the end.

 

[diver52]

vacuum

Then, it would exert pressure on the box. Right?

All I am getting at is that, while it is an excellent thought exercise, it presumes magic from the start, and so there is no right or wrong answer. And thus, no answer at all.

Vacuum cannot exert pressure. It has no pressure to exert.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So under QET you can actually count to infinity.

That's not what that means. Then the insult? Embarrassing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Vacuum cannot exert pressure. It has no pressure to exert.

Sorry,the quote function failed me. You said the space outside the box was not a vacuum. It would therefore exert pressure on the box,right?.

 

[G.T.]

"The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other.

No reason to think our universe began? roflmao

That is just stupid. I guess you have to buy a sheepskin in order to get stupid enough to think it may be valid.

I quoted a stronger theorem, the “Quantum Eternity Theorem” (QET) — under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future.

So under QET you can actually count to infinity.

Again, most stupidity from morons that like to pose as superior minded erudite sophisticates.

Sean carrol is a moron, jim bowie on the internet is a genius!!

 

[G.T.]

You're boring and transparent, dude.

LOL! Translation: I'm a slogan-spouting fool what doesn't actually understand the matter.

Slogan spouting! Do youeven READ ypur posts!!!

lol the fakk

DUDE


The KALAM has been debunked.

Sorry that your magical sky fairy took another L, but this one happened literally decades ago.

lol slogans

His posts have quite a bit of substance to them. He's not just saying these guys said these things so we should believe these things. He's actually explaining the logic behind the proof.

You on the other hand are doing exactly what you allege he is doing. Your posts do not have any substance to them. It seems to me that you are acknowledging that you can't defeat the logic.

Youre too big of a moron.

A quantum physicist just explained why the SLOT doesnt say what you continue to say that it says aboht the origins of the universe ...and you dont refute him you just reassert your dogshit

its a waste of time

 

[ding]

Here's a question which goes to this issue of existence vs non-existence.

You take a box of a cubic meter. You cover it in a heavy metal, such as lead, to prevent any sort of radiation penetration and you close it in an absolute vacuum. No matter, radiation, energy of any sort inside. Does the inside of the cube exist?

Yes, dude it does.

So nothing is something. I tend to agree.

Do the laws of nature stop applying to the inside of the box? No. So nothing is something but I would refer to it differently. I would say that no thing is something. Music, science, math, laws of nature, truth, love, thought, potential, etc are intangible. The definition of intangible is unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence. Intangibles are something but they are not things that can be touched or grasped. Which is to say they are no things.

 

[diver52]

Vacuum cannot exert pressure. It has no pressure to exert.

Sorry,the quote function failed me. You said the space outside the box was not a vacuum. It would therefore exert pressure on the box,right?.

No. I said the outside was vacuum - just not a perfect vacuum. Space contains a lot of stuff. Stray atoms, radiation, light, etc. The entire point of the box was to create a space which had none of that and was a perfect vacuum. The pressure differential between a deep space vacuum and a perfect vacuum is miniscule and wouldn't have any impact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said the outside was vacuum - just not a perfect vacuum.

So would therefore exert pressure. As we have established about empty space. Minimal impact? By what measure? Any impact would collapse the box.

The "perfect vacuum" inside the box also seems like a magical idea, now, too.

 

[ding]

You're boring and transparent, dude.

LOL! Translation: I'm a slogan-spouting fool what doesn't actually understand the matter.

Slogan spouting! Do youeven READ ypur posts!!!

lol the fakk

DUDE


The KALAM has been debunked.

Sorry that your magical sky fairy took another L, but this one happened literally decades ago.

lol slogans

His posts have quite a bit of substance to them. He's not just saying these guys said these things so we should believe these things. He's actually explaining the logic behind the proof.

You on the other hand are doing exactly what you allege he is doing. Your posts do not have any substance to them. It seems to me that you are acknowledging that you can't defeat the logic.

Youre too big of a moron.

A quantum physicist just explained why the SLOT doesnt say what you continue to say that it says aboht the origins of the universe ...and you dont refute him you just reassert your dogshit

its a waste of time

Not to me he didn't. Of course I have listened to quantum physicists that said it does mean that cyclical universes cannot avoid the fate of thermal equilibrium no matter how many times it cycles between expansion and contraction.

I also understand that if I place two objects of different temperatures next to each other they will equilibrate to the same temperature and that the culprit is the SLoT.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, GT. There are no perfect transfers or exchanges of energy to matter or vice versa that are perfectly efficient. Energy will be lost to the system as a reduction in usable energy. It's never gained back. That's the SLoT too.

So maybe you misunderstood what he was saying, which seems like the most likely answer because you can't explain how the SLoT doesn't preclude a universe eternal into the past. All you can do is say that guy says it doesn't. I know better than that. I don't believe he did.

 

[ding]

Before we can address the contradictions between divine omniscience and omnipotence, you need to define a divine entity. It is theists who attach such attributes to their various gods. For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness of such attributes, I cannot help but point out that a demonstration of your gods is in order before we can move your opinions from the realm of hopeful speculation to something deserving of more serious consideration.

Like most religionists, you have accepted then gods of convenience that are a part of your cultural backgtound and have made no effort to rationally reconcile the implications of the Christian concepts of the gods, and in particular the associated salvation scheme.

You repeatedly assert that your beliefs are “reasoned to,” but when we look at them we find only dogma and circular argument. AS theists do, you use the assumption that your gods are true to “prove” that the Bibles are true. You use the assumption that the authors of the bibles were infallible guides to “prove” that the authors were infallible guides. When you make the claim that your sources of knowledge are infallible, yet the only reason you believe that is because the sources themselves say so… well, you must admit, you are far a field from a serious argument.

There is little difference between the natural Big Bang paradigm and a Prime Mover Who Stays Completely Out of It paradigm. With the former you have causal "omnipotence" -- nothing is as all powerful as all of existence (i.e., gravity is likewise omnipotent). But that's all you have. No "omniscience" and no "omnibenvolence" or any of those extraneous human-ego attributes. So why opt for the latter, and then go assigning it characteristics that deconstruct the very thing you opt for?

An invisible, undetectable, unknown and completely and perfectly uninvolved entity is synonymous with "Nothingness". So why give this nothingness human attributes?

Back to reality. . . .

The first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic tell us precisely why the universe began to exist from nothing, that the KCA is incontrovertible, and precisely what the fundamental attributes of divinity are. One need not appeal to the Bible. One need only think. From my summary of the conclusion of the KCA and as ding argued in a series of posts, we have:

God is a wholly transcendent (spiritual), eternally self-subsistent being (Mind) of incomparable greatness and free will Who created everything else that exists from nothing. Such a being would necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.

Now back to my question: why do you say that divine omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory, or that there is some contradiction between them?

“God is a wholly transcendent (spiritual), eternally self-subsistent being (Mind) of incomparable greatness and free will Who created everything else that exists from nothing. Such a being would necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.”

“.... because I say so”.

Masterful concision in such an argument.

No, because observations tell us that universe literally popped into existence and began to expand and cool. And that the creation of the universe followed the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created.

 

[BreezeWood]

Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science.

Such utter nonsense. That is so fucking dumb.

First of all, metaphysics is useless, magical horseshit.

Second, logic is merely a method. Via valid logic, one can argue anything. Anything at all. The only way to know if your logic is sound is to know the empirical truth value of your premises. You can only know this via empirical knowledge. You can only arrive at empirical knowledge via the scientific method.

Clearly, empiricism has primacy over all of it. That is,, if you are seeking truth, and not just self affirmation. You are clearly seeking the latter.

.

First of all, metaphysics is useless, magical horseshit.

"First of all" -

View attachment 279368

the metaphysical is real and transforms one physical being into an entirely new one through its single spiritual presence.

If you are arguing that God is a physical being, I disagree.

If you are arguing one physical being is transformed into a new physical being, I disagree.

The only way my brain can make sense of it all is to believe that a non-material being willed the material world into existence.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

sure, I've been saying the same thing all along, except - "rather than emerging as a late outgrowth" - I relate the condition (mind) to all beings not just an anomaly of humanity. - "has existed always as the matrix."


that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff ...

I've stated previously, physiology is a metaphysical substance that disappears when its spiritual component is removed.


If you are arguing that God is a physical being, I disagree.

not sure why you restrict a deity to being only spiritual - obviously, one might think whatever they create they must also be able to conform to ... a physical presence. what is not physical is the metaphysical from whence all has come from. the Everlasting.

 

[diver52]

I said the outside was vacuum - just not a perfect vacuum.

So would therefore exert pressure. As we have established about empty space. Minimal impact? By what measure? Any impact would collapse the box.

The "perfect vacuum" inside the box also seems like a magical idea, now, too.

I think we've beaten the box to death.

 

[ding]

Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science.

Such utter nonsense. That is so fucking dumb.

First of all, metaphysics is useless, magical horseshit.

Second, logic is merely a method. Via valid logic, one can argue anything. Anything at all. The only way to know if your logic is sound is to know the empirical truth value of your premises. You can only know this via empirical knowledge. You can only arrive at empirical knowledge via the scientific method.

Clearly, empiricism has primacy over all of it. That is,, if you are seeking truth, and not just self affirmation. You are clearly seeking the latter.

.

First of all, metaphysics is useless, magical horseshit.

"First of all" -

View attachment 279368

the metaphysical is real and transforms one physical being into an entirely new one through its single spiritual presence.

If you are arguing that God is a physical being, I disagree.

If you are arguing one physical being is transformed into a new physical being, I disagree.

The only way my brain can make sense of it all is to believe that a non-material being willed the material world into existence.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

sure, I've been saying the same thing all along, except - "rather than emerging as a late outgrowth" - I relate the condition (mind) to all beings not just an anomaly of humanity. - "has existed always as the matrix."


that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff ...

I've stated previously, physiology is a metaphysical substance that disappears when its spiritual component is removed.


If you are arguing that God is a physical being, I disagree.

not sure why you restrict a deity to being only spiritual - obviously, one might think whatever they create they must also be able to conform to ... a physical presence. what is not physical is the metaphysical from whence all has come from. the Everlasting.

Mind has always existed as the matrix, beings that know and create have not. Ancient man understood the distinction between man and the rest of the animal kingdom. He captured this knowledge allegorically in the account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. All creatures are God's creatures, but man is his only creature that is a being that knows and creates. To say we are made in his image is to say we know and create.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said the outside was vacuum - just not a perfect vacuum.

So would therefore exert pressure. As we have established about empty space. Minimal impact? By what measure? Any impact would collapse the box.

The "perfect vacuum" inside the box also seems like a magical idea, now, too.

I think we've beaten the box to death.

Ha, no doubt. But that's the fun of such a thought exercise.

 

[G.T.]

You're boring and transparent, dude.

LOL! Translation: I'm a slogan-spouting fool what doesn't actually understand the matter.

Slogan spouting! Do youeven READ ypur posts!!!

lol the fakk

DUDE


The KALAM has been debunked.

Sorry that your magical sky fairy took another L, but this one happened literally decades ago.

lol slogans

His posts have quite a bit of substance to them. He's not just saying these guys said these things so we should believe these things. He's actually explaining the logic behind the proof.

You on the other hand are doing exactly what you allege he is doing. Your posts do not have any substance to them. It seems to me that you are acknowledging that you can't defeat the logic.

Youre too big of a moron.

A quantum physicist just explained why the SLOT doesnt say what you continue to say that it says aboht the origins of the universe ...and you dont refute him you just reassert your dogshit

its a waste of time

Not to me he didn't. Of course I have listened to quantum physicists that said it does mean that cyclical universes cannot avoid the fate of thermal equilibrium no matter how many times it cycles between expansion and contraction.

I also understand that if I place two objects of different temperatures next to each other they will equilibrate to the same temperature and that the culprit is the SLoT.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, GT. There are no perfect transfers or exchanges of energy to matter or vice versa that are perfectly efficient. Energy will be lost to the system as a reduction in usable energy. It's never gained back. That's the SLoT too.

So maybe you misunderstood what he was saying, which seems like the most likely answer because you can't explain how the SLoT doesn't preclude a universe eternal into the past. All you can do is say that guy says it doesn't. I know better than that. I don't believe he did.

Youre ding on the internet, youre not a well degreed astro physicist, youre not a quantum theorist/physicist, youre a guy that uses bad logic on the internet and therefore asserts bad conclusions...JUST a dude, with sloppy reasoning that write 6 paragraphs of baseless assertions making any CHANCE for a dialogue of any substance too tedious, its a head banging against a wall level of stupidity, in you.

 

[G.T.]

I said the outside was vacuum - just not a perfect vacuum.

So would therefore exert pressure. As we have established about empty space. Minimal impact? By what measure? Any impact would collapse the box.

The "perfect vacuum" inside the box also seems like a magical idea, now, too.

I think we've beaten the box to death.

Lol, Id say so.

 

[ding]

If you are arguing that God is a physical being, I disagree.

not sure why you restrict a deity to being only spiritual - obviously, one might think whatever they create they must also be able to conform to ... a physical presence. what is not physical is the metaphysical from whence all has come from. the Everlasting.

Because we can't possibly comprehend consciousness without form. Which is why you believe God must be physical. At the end of the day, the only solution to an endless regression is something which is eternal. For God to exist in the material form would mean he was not eternal. Matter and energy cannot be eternal. So whatever God is, he is beyond matter and energy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Youre ding on the internet, youre not a well degreed astro physicist, youre not a quantum theorist/physicist, youre a guy that uses bad logic on the internet

Lol, is that Argument from Authority or what?

roflmao

GT, you clueless ape, there is no consensus among any of these groups to assert an argument form authority anyway.