The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[ding]

"Nothing can come from nothing!

Except my sky daddy. He can come from nothing.

Oh, and except for everything that there is, as it came from the sky daddy, and he came from nothing."

Is that your proof that God doesn't exist?

 

[G.T.]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence are predicated on the first principles of ontology, i.e., the fundamental facts of existence per the imperatives of logic. Many fail to appreciate the intermediate premises of these arguments, particularly those of the KCA.


The following includes my own sub-premises for the first premise and my summary argument for the conclusion:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Horizontal Argument)

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

1.1. Something exists.

1.2. Existence from nonexistence is absurd.

1.3. Something has always existed.
​

2. The universe began to exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

AND

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.

3.11. The universe is a material existent.

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.


The Vertical Cosmological Argument​

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Your're trying too hard. Let everybody think for themselves.

Christianity is a proselytizing religion.

Yupp, and Jehova's witnesses took it and went full retard

 

[buttercup]

Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause.

Yes it does. Now you are being a liar.

Name ONE possible thing, besides the magical sky daddy, that may have had "no cause" in your paradigm.

ONE.

Don't post again until you do. No more of this bait and switch horseshit. Stand and defend your nonsense.

That is a laughable accusation. How am I lying when I have merely corrected your misquoting of the Kalam argument?

How am I lying when I (unlike you) do believe God exists, therefore for me and billions of other believers OBVIOUSLY not everything has a cause.

It seems to me that you're just trying to cover for misquoting the argument, by trying to bash me personally, when all I have been doing is correcting your misstating of the argument.

 

[ding]

The concept of good and evil is a human construct. The sheep doesn't see the wolf as evil for killing her lamb.

Therefore the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a recognition that man is different from the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[Ringtone]

Your're trying too hard. Let everybody think for themselves.

What?!

 

[ding]

Your're trying too hard. Let everybody think for themselves.

What?!

Apparently he's never seen the bell curve for intelligence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause.

Yes it does. Now you are being a liar.

Name ONE possible thing, besides the magical sky daddy, that may have had "no cause" in your paradigm.

ONE.

Don't post again until you do. No more of this bait and switch horseshit. Stand and defend your nonsense.

That is a laughable accusation. How am I lying when I have merely corrected your misquoting of the Kalam argument?

How am I lying when I (unlike you) do believe God exists, therefore for me and billions of other believers OBVIOUSLY not everything has a cause.

It seems to me that you're just trying to cover for misquoting the argument, by trying to bash me personally, when all I have been doing is correcting your misstating of the argument.

That was an adorable bit of irrelevant whining, and a predictable sidestep of what is required of you. It also was another embarrasing series of contrived lies, as i am not misquoting anything. I am stating its equivalent as you present it. You have two choices:

1) admit I was spot on, and that you are demanding that everything but your sky daddy has a cause

2) tell us one thing in your paradigm, besides your magical aky daddy, that has a cause

And don't post again until you do.

Haha, you won't face it. If there is one thing we can be sure of, it's that you religious dogmatists are the biggest intellectual sissies around.

 

[ding]

If you want to know how ancient man captured the knowledge that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it he doesn't abandon the concept and rationalizes he didn't violate it instead you have to read the exchange between God and Adam and Eve after they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Ringtone]

Aww look, testosterone!

You're the one talking about how you're going to spit in the face God, big pants. LOL! I say again, you'll be quaking and wailing like a little girl sitting in a puddle of soiled panties.

 

[ding]

The really really interesting thing is that we can see that exact same behavior in this thread.

God has a wicked sense of humor.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He is going to be a pussy about this. Buttercup and ding are a dime a dozen... Same tactics, same nonsense, same results. Every time. Both willing to shamelessly lie and invent things on the spot, no matter what contradictions arise. Then willing to double down and blame everyone else for their own, amateurish errors.

 

[ding]

I think the problem is that the wisdom in the Bible is beyond the ability of some to comprehend.

 

[ding]

He is going to be a pussy about this. Buttercup and ding are a dime a dozen...

I'm probably not worth even that much.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're the one talking about how you're going to spit in the face God, big pants.

He is being facetious, you moron. Look at what this magical nonsense is doing to your brain.

 

[G.T.]

Aww look, testosterone!

You're the one talking about how you're going to spit in the face God, big pants. LOL! I say again, you'll be quaking and wailing like a little girl sitting in a puddle of soiled panties.

You can say whatever you want! Aint that awesome??!?!?

And I say, your god is a little boy.

 

[ding]

 

[G.T.]

He is going to be a pussy about this. Buttercup and ding are a dime a dozen... Same tactics, same nonsense, same results. Every time. Both willing to shamelessly lie and invent things on the spot, no matter what contradictions arise. Then willing to double down and blame everyone else for their own, amateurish errors.

Its self nurture...dont take it personal. Dings nunnish tactics are entertaining.

 

[ding]

Do I really need to give you guys a lesson on transactional analysis?

 

[buttercup]

Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause.

Yes it does. Now you are being a liar.

Name ONE possible thing, besides the magical sky daddy, that may have had "no cause" in your paradigm.

ONE.

Don't post again until you do. No more of this bait and switch horseshit. Stand and defend your nonsense.

That is a laughable accusation. How am I lying when I have merely corrected your misquoting of the Kalam argument?

How am I lying when I (unlike you) do believe God exists, therefore for me and billions of other believers OBVIOUSLY not everything has a cause.

It seems to me that you're just trying to cover for misquoting the argument, by trying to bash me personally, when all I have been doing is correcting your misstating of the argument.

That was an adorable bit of irrelevant whining, and a predictable sisdestep of what is requured of you. It also was another embarrasing series of contrived lies, as i am not misquoting anything. I am stating its equivalent as you present it. You have two choices:

1) admit I was spot on, and that you are demanding that everything but your sky daddy has a cause

2) tell us one thing in your paradigm, besides your magical aky daddy, that has a cause

And don't post again until you do.

Haha, you won't face it. If there is one thing we can be sure of, it's that you religious dogmatists are the biggest intellectual sissies around.

Not only were you not "spot on" you were blatantly wrong in your re-phrasing of the Kalam argument. I could go back and find those posts if I wanted to, if you continue to deny that.

But first let's get one thing straight. The topic of the thread topic is the Kalam argument. THAT is what we have been talking about. After you incorrectly stated the argument, now you're shifting to Christianity in general, which is not the topic of the thread. THAT is dishonest.

Let's cut to the chase here. There absolutely IS a difference between something that is created and something that always existed. You said they were the same thing. You were wrong. Period.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Aww look, testosterone!

You're the one talking about how you're going to spit in the face God, big pants. LOL! I say again, you'll be quaking and wailing like a little girl sitting in a puddle of soiled panties.

By the way, dipshit, your magical threats hold no weight here. You sound like some crazy fuck on the corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.