The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[G.T.]

Here, Doctor Alex Malpass (Doctorate in actual philosophy, not screen-names named ringtone on the internet with blank youtube pages)...

goes in-depth into the "infinity" issue as presented by William Lane Craig.

Careful, it takes more than 4 brain-cells to process this discussion:

 

[Ringtone]

That channel has 0 videos.

There are doctorates in philosophy that have published papers refuting the KALAM...peer reviewed ...unlike Mr. Craig.

The refutation on that channel directly refutes the gibberish featured in Cosmic Simpleton's video; indeed, it refutes the entire line of rubbish routinely spouted by new atheists about the KCA on Youtube. It refutes a philosopher who stupidly conflates potential infinities and actual infinities, and stupidly argues that God is an actual infinity by stupidly confounding the categorical distinction between quantity and quality! Another silly as materialist who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of classical theism because he's incapable of objectively standing back from his metaphysical bias long enough to grasp them. And Craig has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers, you liar, including papers on the KCA and actual infinities.

The rest of your post is mindless gibberish. You didn't read my refutation on that channel. You don't know what its contents are.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Ahh. So basically, you re-wrote William Lane Craig.

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith


It is in the various “Supernatural Design” arguments that the religious extremists show their inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the standard formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion


B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion


C. Exempt god from "A"


Is that your intention? To defend the Kalam Cosmological Argument? How droll.

For sadly, the KCA tells us nothing about the character of the gods it claims to demonstrate. It is particularly silent on such “god’s” omniscience.

And that is the weakest of the KCA's already weak contentions. The KCA’s presumption, like so many of the fatally flawed arguments for gods, rests on “timelessness”.

Sadly, the excuse of "timelessness" when considering the omniscience or omnipotence of the gods remains simply that, an excuse. It does not actually solve any of the problems with the contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. In fact, it creates further problems for you, since it puts even a finer point on the inability of an omniscient (or timeless) entity to act with volition.

“Timelessness” is the essentially the exact same thing as “omniscience.” It serves theologically both as a mechanism explaining the capacity of various gods to know everything, and as a tool for trying to short circuit the major logical flaw of all the many versions of cosmological arguments for their existence. But its own implications are equally (in fact identically) problematic for omnipotence.

For while “timelessness” might be a third assumed characteristic of various gods, it is not a possible assumption for the creation. We all exist rather firmly imbedded in a temporal context that (following the second law of thermodynamics) moves inexorably (though not uniformly) in one direction, as does everything else within the known universe. Whatever the gods “experience” of that temporal context might be is irrelevant since all consequences of choice, decision, action or plan can only take place within this one.

This is particularly critical when considering the Christian “salvation schemes,” or the concept of a “test on earth.” These can only be meaningful in a temporal context, and for the gods to be timeless is to eliminate the possibility that such “tests” are real. For while humans might go through the motions of “justifying” the gods eventual judgment for an eternal fate in hell or in paradise, for the gods, the results of the test have always been known, certain, and irrevocable. There is no test at all, only the inexorable performance of a prewritten script with a predetermined outcome that was ultimately and arbitrarily assigned by the gods, without any input from human intention or behavior.

Further, for the gods to be timeless also requires logically that everything else also be timeless. With no experience of time, the gods knowledge, experience, decisions and actions must also be timeless. There can never be a “time” in which the gods were not the creators of the universe, since that would means there was a “time before the universe was created” during which the gods existed but the universe did not. Of course, “timelessness” proscribes such a possibility. Therefore, the universe (and everything in it) must also be timeless, and the very concept of “creation” as an effect of a “divine act” is rendered meaningless.

Rather than the OP having taken place under one mistaken preassumption, it already has fully subsumed and considered “timelessness” within its consideration of “omniscience.” It turns out to be just another example of the internal contradiction and self refutation of the Abrahamic concept of god.

 

[Hollie]

That channel has 0 videos.

There are doctorates in philosophy that have published papers refuting the KALAM...peer reviewed ...unlike Mr. Craig.

The refutation on that channel directly refutes the gibberish featured in Cosmic Simpleton's video; indeed, it refutes the entire line of rubbish routinely spouted by new atheists about the KCA on Youtube. It refutes a philosopher who stupidly conflates potential infinities and actual infinities, and stupidly argues that God is an actual infinity by stupidly confounding the categorical distinction between quantity and quality! Another silly as materialist who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of classical theism because he's incapable of objectively standing back from his metaphysical bias long enough to grasp them. And Craig has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers, you liar, including papers on the KCA and actual infinities.

The rest of your post is mindless gibberish. You didn't read my refutation on that channel. You don't know what its contents are.

Soooo, Craig "has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers".

Peer reviewed by competing Christian fundamentalists?

 

[G.T.]

That channel has 0 videos.

There are doctorates in philosophy that have published papers refuting the KALAM...peer reviewed ...unlike Mr. Craig.

The refutation on that channel directly refutes the gibberish featured in Cosmic Simpleton's video; indeed, it refutes the entire line of rubbish routinely spouted by new atheists about the KCA on Youtube. It refutes a philosopher who stupidly conflates potential infinities and actual infinities, and stupidly argues that God is an actual infinity by stupidly confounding the categorical distinction between quantity and quality! Another silly as materialist who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of classical theism because he's incapable of objectively standing back from his metaphysical bias long enough to grasp them. And Craig has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers, you liar, including papers on the KCA and actual infinities.

The rest of your post is mindless gibberish. You didn't read my refutation on that channel. You don't know what its contents are.

That channel has 5 subs and zero videos or content.

Are you touched in the head, bro? Its aight.

 

[Ringtone]

Here, Doctor Alex Malpass (Doctorate in actual philosophy, not screen-names named ringtone on the internet with blank youtube pages)...

goes in-depth into the "infinity" issue as presented by William Lane Craig.

Careful, it takes more than 4 brain-cells to process this discussion:

Morriston. LOL! This is a perfect example of a second-rate philosopher, a total hack with a PhD in front of his name, who fails to grasp what mathematicians and classical theists are asserting about actual infinities. We are not talking about the complete infinities of abstract, theoretical sets or collections of something that only exist in minds. Infinity is not even a definitive number or amount of something; it's an idea. You might as well say that infinity = cow. Even in minds an actual (or complete) infinite only exists as a very large, unknown number or amount of something, not as a concrete existent of any kind outside of minds. A past-eternal series of events cannot be traversed to the present! To forever move backwards in time is to never move forward in time. To forever move forward in time is to move forward from a finite beginning in time in the past. Hence, not only is the notion of a past-eternity in time absurd, but an ever-increasing, potential infinity toward the past is impossible.

 

[G.T.]

Here, Doctor Alex Malpass (Doctorate in actual philosophy, not screen-names named ringtone on the internet with blank youtube pages)...

goes in-depth into the "infinity" issue as presented by William Lane Craig.

Careful, it takes more than 4 brain-cells to process this discussion:

Morriston. LOL! This is a perfect example of a second-rate philosopher, a total hack with a PhD in front of his name, who fails to grasp what mathematicians and classical theists are asserting about actual infinities. We are not talking about the complete infinities of abstract, theoretical sets or collections of something that only exist in minds. Infinity is not even a definitive number or amount of something; it's an idea. You might as well say that infinity = cow. Even in minds an actual (or complete) infinite only exists as a very large, unknown number or amount of something, not as a concrete existent of any kind outside of minds. A past-eternal series of events cannot be traversed to the present! To forever move backwards in time is to never move forward in time. To forever move forward in time is to move forward from a finite beginning in time in the past. That's why past-eternity in time and a potential infinity into to the future are not symmetrical.

way to prove it was over your head, dude.

 

[Ringtone]

That channel has 0 videos.

There are doctorates in philosophy that have published papers refuting the KALAM...peer reviewed ...unlike Mr. Craig.

The refutation on that channel directly refutes the gibberish featured in Cosmic Simpleton's video; indeed, it refutes the entire line of rubbish routinely spouted by new atheists about the KCA on Youtube. It refutes a philosopher who stupidly conflates potential infinities and actual infinities, and stupidly argues that God is an actual infinity by stupidly confounding the categorical distinction between quantity and quality! Another silly as materialist who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of classical theism because he's incapable of objectively standing back from his metaphysical bias long enough to grasp them. And Craig has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers, you liar, including papers on the KCA and actual infinities.

The rest of your post is mindless gibberish. You didn't read my refutation on that channel. You don't know what its contents are.

That channel has 5 subs and zero videos or content.

Are you touched in the head, bro? Its aight.

That channel is mine, you idiot! I'm well aware of the fact that it has no videos! I gave a link to the discussion page, wherein I refute the atheist rubbish regarding the KCA. What do videos have to do with anything? Read it! Rawlings To read the refutation, you must have a Youtube account.

 

[G.T.]

That channel has 0 videos.

There are doctorates in philosophy that have published papers refuting the KALAM...peer reviewed ...unlike Mr. Craig.

The refutation on that channel directly refutes the gibberish featured in Cosmic Simpleton's video; indeed, it refutes the entire line of rubbish routinely spouted by new atheists about the KCA on Youtube. It refutes a philosopher who stupidly conflates potential infinities and actual infinities, and stupidly argues that God is an actual infinity by stupidly confounding the categorical distinction between quantity and quality! Another silly as materialist who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of classical theism because he's incapable of objectively standing back from his metaphysical bias long enough to grasp them. And Craig has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers, you liar, including papers on the KCA and actual infinities.

The rest of your post is mindless gibberish. You didn't read my refutation on that channel. You don't know what its contents are.

That channel has 5 subs and zero videos or content.

Are you touched in the head, bro? Its aight.

That channel is mine, you idiot! I'm well aware of the fact that it has no videos! I gave a link to the discussion page, wherein I refute the atheist rubbish regarding the KCA. What do videos have to do with anything? Read it! Rawlings

Here is where your link goes, dunce.

You've got the universe figured out, but linking to a <blank> youtube page is rocket science

 

[Ringtone]

way to prove it was over your head, dude.

Way to pretend you understand what's going on when you don't, clueless.

There's nothing profound about what Morriston is claiming. A potential infinity is not in any way, shape or form contingent on an actual infinity. A potential infinity does not in any way, shape or form imply an actual infinity.

Craig utterly smashes Morriston's baby talk: Taking Tense Seriously in Differentiating Past and Future: A Response to Wes Morriston | Reasonable Faith

But I don't need Craig to explain the matter to me. I understand the mathematics just fine, and one of the most compelling ways to get at the matter is through the actualities of division by infinity:

From the refutation on Youtube see:

"Part XII. Infinity by the Numbers
B. Dividing Finite Numbers by Infinity"

See link: Rawlings

To read the refutation you must have an account with Youtube and sign into it.


__________

Though more famous for his revolutionary proofs in algebra and geometry, and for advancing the mathematical formulations of quantum physics, one of history's most brilliant mathematicians David Hilbert most vividly demonstrated the absurdities of infinity in his Grand Hotel Paradox. When asked about the notion of an eternal cosmos, he acerbically quipped, "If an essential use of infinity occurs as a core part of any explanatory model, it's not science." The world renowned mathematician and cosmologist George Ellis echoed this sentiment in his paper "On the philosophy of Cosmology": "One should remember here the true nature of infinity: it is an entity that can never be attained; it is by definition always beyond reach, so no physical process can create an infinity of anything."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

way to prove it was over your head, dude.

Way to pretend you understand what's going on when you don't, clueless.

There's nothing profound about what Morriston is claiming. A potential infinity is not in any way, shape or form contingent on an actual infinity. A potential infinity does not in any way, shape or form imply an actual infinity.

Craig utterly smashes Morriston's baby talk: Taking Tense Seriously in Differentiating Past and Future: A Response to Wes Morriston | Reasonable Faith

But I don't need Craig to explain the matter to me. I understand the mathematics just fine, and one of the most compelling ways to get at the matter is the actualities of division by infinity:



__________

Though more famous for his revolutionary proofs in algebra and geometry, and for advancing the mathematical formulations of quantum physics, one of history's most brilliant mathematicians David Hilbert most vividly demonstrated the absurdities of infinity in his Grand Hotel Paradox. When asked about the notion of an eternal cosmos, he acerbically quipped, "If an essential use of infinity occurs as a core part of any explanatory model, it's not science." The world renowned mathematician and cosmologist George Ellis echoed this sentiment in his paper "On the philosophy of Cosmology": "One should remember here the true nature of infinity: it is an entity that can never be attained; it is by definition always beyond reach, so no physical process can create an infinity of anything."

Then one easy solution is that the multiverse is infinite.

Whew, that was hard!

 

[Ringtone]

That channel has 0 videos.

There are doctorates in philosophy that have published papers refuting the KALAM...peer reviewed ...unlike Mr. Craig.

The refutation on that channel directly refutes the gibberish featured in Cosmic Simpleton's video; indeed, it refutes the entire line of rubbish routinely spouted by new atheists about the KCA on Youtube. It refutes a philosopher who stupidly conflates potential infinities and actual infinities, and stupidly argues that God is an actual infinity by stupidly confounding the categorical distinction between quantity and quality! Another silly as materialist who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of classical theism because he's incapable of objectively standing back from his metaphysical bias long enough to grasp them. And Craig has written dozens of peer-reviewed papers, you liar, including papers on the KCA and actual infinities.

The rest of your post is mindless gibberish. You didn't read my refutation on that channel. You don't know what its contents are.

That channel has 5 subs and zero videos or content.

Are you touched in the head, bro? Its aight.

That channel is mine, you idiot! I'm well aware of the fact that it has no videos! I gave a link to the discussion page, wherein I refute the atheist rubbish regarding the KCA. What do videos have to do with anything? Read it! Rawlings

Here is where your link goes, dunce.

You've got the universe figured out, but linking to a <blank> youtube page is rocket science

View attachment 279160

You have to go onto Youtube and sign into your account first. You brought Youtube up so I assumed you had an account. If you don't, make one.

 

[Ringtone]

Then one easy solution is that the multiverse is infinite.

Whew, that was hard!

Whew! Looks like you're a damn fool who understands neither the mathematics of the matter nor the relevant cosmological science. Whew! Looks like you're a damn fool who has no idea of the caliber of intellect and learning of the person you're talking to.

Which multiverse would that be? The one that necessarily begins in the finite past in terms of inflationary theory or in terms of string theory? They are not actual infinities in terms of time, number or space.

Link to article and diagrams:
Sci-Hub | Dying eternity resurrects need for cosmic starter gun. New Scientist, 213(2847), 6–7 | 10.1016/S0262-4079(12)60079-7

Links to Proofs
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Proof (2003)
Abstract: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete
Paper: https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Inflation past0110012v2.pdf
Regarding the "Cosmic Egg" and Cyclic Models of Inflationary Theory
"Collapse of simple harmonic universe", Mithani-Vilenkin Poof (2011)
Abstract: Collapse of simple harmonic universe
"Did the universe have a beginning", Mithani-Vilenkin Poof (2012)
Abstract: Did the universe have a beginning?
Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf


Excerpt from an article I wrote:

As it seems to be the most likely and is certainly the most predictively useful relative to the fine-tuning problem and the anthropic principle, it's helpful to contrast the multiverse version of inflationary theory with that of string theory. Inflationary theory implies a process that continuously creates other regions (or pockets) of space, wherein the inflationary epoch settles down into a more sedate expansion epoch as it did in ours. Accordingly, the multiverse of inflationary theory entails a potentially infinite configuration of other, distant regions of space with different physical parameters, but the same basic laws of physics. Some split the multiverse version of inflationary theory into two versions relative to the statistical probability of there being a virtual copy of our solar system somewhere within the cosmological configuration. But the distinction strikes me as trivial given that the pertinent issue is the range of habitability for embodied observers, not the range of lifeforms that might occur under virtually identical, local conditions.

String theory proposes a multiverse in which our universe was created by either a collision between two bubbles (or universes) or by the fission of a bubble into two bubbles (or universes) within a higher-dimensional spacetime. For many the problem with string theory in general is that it predicts some 10^500 physically distinct spacetimes that are not connected to ours in any meaningful way and would probably have an entirely different set of basic physical laws. Specifically, those universes whose physical parameters are arrayed around a significantly stronger "force of gravity" would be uninhabitable for embodied observers, as they couldn't effectuate the kind of nucleosynthesis necessary for the formation of inhabitable astronomical structures and systems. For obvious reasons this is highly problematic in terms of observability and predictability. On the other hand, see "String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought": String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought

In any event, short of an appeal to a reductio ad absurdum, string theory's version of the multiverse tells us nothing about its origin in terms of a natural mechanism, and it entails a successive process of nucleation within a continuously inflating (or expanding) medium with an initial extremity, namely, the higher-dimensional spacetime encompassing the nucleating bubbles (BGV, p. 4). While the universe in which we live might be just one bubble among many others within a higher-dimensional spacetime that is potentially infinite into the future, the latter is not past-eternal. There is yet another version of multiverse theory known as the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). Due to the superimposed nature of its locus, it’s radically different than the other notions and will be discussed separately later. In the meantime, it too is not past eternal; in fact, it would only arise within the habitable universe(s) of inflationary theory or string theory in any significant sense.​

 

[ding]

way to prove it was over your head, dude.

Way to pretend you understand what's going on when you don't, clueless.

There's nothing profound about what Morriston is claiming. A potential infinity is not in any way, shape or form contingent on an actual infinity. A potential infinity does not in any way, shape or form imply an actual infinity.

Craig utterly smashes Morriston's baby talk: Taking Tense Seriously in Differentiating Past and Future: A Response to Wes Morriston | Reasonable Faith

But I don't need Craig to explain the matter to me. I understand the mathematics just fine, and one of the most compelling ways to get at the matter is the actualities of division by infinity:



__________

Though more famous for his revolutionary proofs in algebra and geometry, and for advancing the mathematical formulations of quantum physics, one of history's most brilliant mathematicians David Hilbert most vividly demonstrated the absurdities of infinity in his Grand Hotel Paradox. When asked about the notion of an eternal cosmos, he acerbically quipped, "If an essential use of infinity occurs as a core part of any explanatory model, it's not science." The world renowned mathematician and cosmologist George Ellis echoed this sentiment in his paper "On the philosophy of Cosmology": "One should remember here the true nature of infinity: it is an entity that can never be attained; it is by definition always beyond reach, so no physical process can create an infinity of anything."

Then one easy solution is that the multiverse is infinite.

Whew, that was hard!

And by that do you mean that each universe has a beginning?

 

[Ringtone]

I'

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.

Ahh. So basically, you re-wrote William Lane Craig.

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith


It is in the various “Supernatural Design” arguments that the religious extremists show their inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the standard formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion


B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion


C. Exempt god from "A"


Is that your intention? To defend the Kalam Cosmological Argument? How droll.

For sadly, the KCA tells us nothing about the character of the gods it claims to demonstrate. It is particularly silent on such “god’s” omniscience.

And that is the weakest of the KCA's already weak contentions. The KCA’s presumption, like so many of the fatally flawed arguments for gods, rests on “timelessness”.

Sadly, the excuse of "timelessness" when considering the omniscience or omnipotence of the gods remains simply that, an excuse.
In fact, it creates further problems for you, since it puts even a finer point on the inability of an omniscient (or timeless) entity to act with volition.

“Timelessness” is the essentially the exact same thing as “omniscience.” It serves theologically both as a mechanism explaining the capacity of various gods to know everything, and as a tool for trying to short circuit the major logical flaw of all the many versions of cosmological arguments for their existence. But its own implications are equally (in fact identically) problematic for omnipotence.

For while “timelessness” might be a third assumed characteristic of various gods, it is not a possible assumption for the creation. We all exist rather firmly imbedded in a temporal context that (following the second law of thermodynamics) moves inexorably (though not uniformly) in one direction, as does everything else within the known universe. Whatever the gods “experience” of that temporal context might be is irrelevant since all consequences of choice, decision, action or plan can only take place within this one.

This is particularly critical when considering the Christian “salvation schemes,” or the concept of a “test on earth.” These can only be meaningful in a temporal context, and for the gods to be timeless is to eliminate the possibility that such “tests” are real. For while humans might go through the motions of “justifying” the gods eventual judgment for an eternal fate in hell or in paradise, for the gods, the results of the test have always been known, certain, and irrevocable. There is no test at all, only the inexorable performance of a prewritten script with a predetermined outcome that was ultimately and arbitrarily assigned by the gods, without any input from human intention or behavior.

Further, for the gods to be timeless also requires logically that everything else also be timeless. With no experience of time, the gods knowledge, experience, decisions and actions must also be timeless. There can never be a “time” in which the gods were not the creators of the universe, since that would means there was a “time before the universe was created” during which the gods existed but the universe did not. Of course, “timelessness” proscribes such a possibility. Therefore, the universe (and everything in it) must also be timeless, and the very concept of “creation” as an effect of a “divine act” is rendered meaningless.

Rather than the OP having taken place under one mistaken preassumption, it already has fully subsumed and considered “timelessness” within its consideration of “omniscience.” It turns out to be just another example of the internal contradiction and self refutation of the Abrahamic concept of god.

As usual, Hollie, a litany of mindless, bald claims sans any logical argumentation! Let's start with this nonsense and then we can move onto your mindless contradiction in which you make baby talk about there being time in timelessness.

The contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. What would that be?

 

[G.T.]

way to prove it was over your head, dude.

Way to pretend you understand what's going on when you don't, clueless.

There's nothing profound about what Morriston is claiming. A potential infinity is not in any way, shape or form contingent on an actual infinity. A potential infinity does not in any way, shape or form imply an actual infinity.

Craig utterly smashes Morriston's baby talk: Taking Tense Seriously in Differentiating Past and Future: A Response to Wes Morriston | Reasonable Faith

But I don't need Craig to explain the matter to me. I understand the mathematics just fine, and one of the most compelling ways to get at the matter is through the actualities of division by infinity:

From the refutation on Youtube see:

"Part XII. Infinity by the Numbers
B. Dividing Finite Numbers by Infinity"

See link: Rawlings

To read the refutation you must have an account with Youtube and sign into it.


__________

Though more famous for his revolutionary proofs in algebra and geometry, and for advancing the mathematical formulations of quantum physics, one of history's most brilliant mathematicians David Hilbert most vividly demonstrated the absurdities of infinity in his Grand Hotel Paradox. When asked about the notion of an eternal cosmos, he acerbically quipped, "If an essential use of infinity occurs as a core part of any explanatory model, it's not science." The world renowned mathematician and cosmologist George Ellis echoed this sentiment in his paper "On the philosophy of Cosmology": "One should remember here the true nature of infinity: it is an entity that can never be attained; it is by definition always beyond reach, so no physical process can create an infinity of anything."

Morriston?

No, Dr. Alex Malpass.

*Hilbert's Hotel

 

[Ringtone]

Morriston?

No, Dr. Alex Malpass.

*Hilbert's Hotel

Didn't you listen to your own video? He's talking about Morriston's critique, with which he apparently concurs. He's asserting that the past direction and the future direction in time would be symmetrical. Bull! That's nonsensical per the A theory of time, and classical theism is not predicated on the B theory of time. And what about Hilbert's Hotel?

 

[Hollie]

I'

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.

Ahh. So basically, you re-wrote William Lane Craig.

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith


It is in the various “Supernatural Design” arguments that the religious extremists show their inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the standard formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion


B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion


C. Exempt god from "A"


Is that your intention? To defend the Kalam Cosmological Argument? How droll.

For sadly, the KCA tells us nothing about the character of the gods it claims to demonstrate. It is particularly silent on such “god’s” omniscience.

And that is the weakest of the KCA's already weak contentions. The KCA’s presumption, like so many of the fatally flawed arguments for gods, rests on “timelessness”.

Sadly, the excuse of "timelessness" when considering the omniscience or omnipotence of the gods remains simply that, an excuse.
In fact, it creates further problems for you, since it puts even a finer point on the inability of an omniscient (or timeless) entity to act with volition.

“Timelessness” is the essentially the exact same thing as “omniscience.” It serves theologically both as a mechanism explaining the capacity of various gods to know everything, and as a tool for trying to short circuit the major logical flaw of all the many versions of cosmological arguments for their existence. But its own implications are equally (in fact identically) problematic for omnipotence.

For while “timelessness” might be a third assumed characteristic of various gods, it is not a possible assumption for the creation. We all exist rather firmly imbedded in a temporal context that (following the second law of thermodynamics) moves inexorably (though not uniformly) in one direction, as does everything else within the known universe. Whatever the gods “experience” of that temporal context might be is irrelevant since all consequences of choice, decision, action or plan can only take place within this one.

This is particularly critical when considering the Christian “salvation schemes,” or the concept of a “test on earth.” These can only be meaningful in a temporal context, and for the gods to be timeless is to eliminate the possibility that such “tests” are real. For while humans might go through the motions of “justifying” the gods eventual judgment for an eternal fate in hell or in paradise, for the gods, the results of the test have always been known, certain, and irrevocable. There is no test at all, only the inexorable performance of a prewritten script with a predetermined outcome that was ultimately and arbitrarily assigned by the gods, without any input from human intention or behavior.

Further, for the gods to be timeless also requires logically that everything else also be timeless. With no experience of time, the gods knowledge, experience, decisions and actions must also be timeless. There can never be a “time” in which the gods were not the creators of the universe, since that would means there was a “time before the universe was created” during which the gods existed but the universe did not. Of course, “timelessness” proscribes such a possibility. Therefore, the universe (and everything in it) must also be timeless, and the very concept of “creation” as an effect of a “divine act” is rendered meaningless.

Rather than the OP having taken place under one mistaken preassumption, it already has fully subsumed and considered “timelessness” within its consideration of “omniscience.” It turns out to be just another example of the internal contradiction and self refutation of the Abrahamic concept of god.

As usual, Hollie, a litany of mindless, bald claims sans any logical argumentation! Let's start with this nonsense and then we can move onto your mindless contradiction in which you make baby talk about there being time in timelessness.

The contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. What would that be?

I see you’re suffering from hurt feelings. I’m not responsible for you’re hurt feelings.

Why not attempt to resolve the flaw in the nonsensical argument you stole from William Lane Craig? Here, I’ll present the premise again:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion


B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion


C. Exempt the gods from "A"

I should point out that prior to insisting that your partisan gods are responsible for existence, it would be a reasonable presumption to expect that you would offer a supportable case for your gods.

Thanks.

 

[Hollie]

Then one easy solution is that the multiverse is infinite.

Whew, that was hard!

Whew! Looks like you're a damn fool who understands neither the mathematics of the matter nor the relevant cosmological science. Whew! Looks like you're a damn fool who has no idea of the caliber of intellect and learning of the person you're talking to.

Which multiverse would that be? The one that necessarily begins in the finite past in terms of inflationary theory or in terms of string theory? They are not actual infinities in terms of time, number or space.

Link to article and diagrams:
Sci-Hub | Dying eternity resurrects need for cosmic starter gun. New Scientist, 213(2847), 6–7 | 10.1016/S0262-4079(12)60079-7

Links to Proofs
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Proof (2003)
Abstract: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete
Paper: https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Inflation past0110012v2.pdf
Regarding the "Cosmic Egg" and Cyclic Models of Inflationary Theory
"Collapse of simple harmonic universe", Mithani-Vilenkin Poof (2011)
Abstract: Collapse of simple harmonic universe
"Did the universe have a beginning", Mithani-Vilenkin Poof (2012)
Abstract: Did the universe have a beginning?
Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf


Excerpt from an article I wrote:

As it seems to be the most likely and is certainly the most predictively useful relative to the fine-tuning problem and the anthropic principle, it's helpful to contrast the multiverse version of inflationary theory with that of string theory. Inflationary theory implies a process that continuously creates other regions (or pockets) of space, wherein the inflationary epoch settles down into a more sedate expansion epoch as it did in ours. Accordingly, the multiverse of inflationary theory entails a potentially infinite configuration of other, distant regions of space with different physical parameters, but the same basic laws of physics. Some split the multiverse version of inflationary theory into two versions relative to the statistical probability of there being a virtual copy of our solar system somewhere within the cosmological configuration. But the distinction strikes me as trivial given that the pertinent issue is the range of habitability for embodied observers, not the range of lifeforms that might occur under virtually identical, local conditions.

String theory proposes a multiverse in which our universe was created by either a collision between two bubbles (or universes) or by the fission of a bubble into two bubbles (or universes) within a higher-dimensional spacetime. For many the problem with string theory in general is that it predicts some 10^500 physically distinct spacetimes that are not connected to ours in any meaningful way and would probably have an entirely different set of basic physical laws. Specifically, those universes whose physical parameters are arrayed around a significantly stronger "force of gravity" would be uninhabitable for embodied observers, as they couldn't effectuate the kind of nucleosynthesis necessary for the formation of inhabitable astronomical structures and systems. For obvious reasons this is highly problematic in terms of observability and predictability. On the other hand, see "String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought": String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought

In any event, short of an appeal to a reductio ad absurdum, string theory's version of the multiverse tells us nothing about its origin in terms of a natural mechanism, and it entails a successive process of nucleation within a continuously inflating (or expanding) medium with an initial extremity, namely, the higher-dimensional spacetime encompassing the nucleating bubbles (BGV, p. 4). While the universe in which we live might be just one bubble among many others within a higher-dimensional spacetime that is potentially infinite into the future, the latter is not past-eternal. There is yet another version of multiverse theory known as the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). Due to the superimposed nature of its locus, it’s radically different than the other notions and will be discussed separately later. In the meantime, it too is not past eternal; in fact, it would only arise within the habitable universe(s) of inflationary theory or string theory in any significant sense.​

Whew! Looks like you're a damn fool who has no idea that you present yourself like a swaggering teenager who just drank his first six pack.

You’re no less pompous when sober, right?

 

[G.T.]

Morriston?

No, Dr. Alex Malpass.

*Hilbert's Hotel

Didn't you listen to your own video? He's talking about Morriston's critique, with which he apparently concurs. He's asserting that the past direction and the future direction in time would be symmetrical. Bull! That's nonsensical per the A theory of time, and classical theism is not predicated on the B theory of time. And what about Hilbert's Hotel?

No, he's submitted his own critique. Who didnt listen, oh thats you. And another thing is that your long diatribe about infinity is the exact point it refutes. Keep clinging to sky dad, charlatan. One day itll be proven, dont worry. Any day...nobel prize. Medals of honor, the whole gambit...any day now.