The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[JimBowie1958]

Then one easy solution is that the multiverse is infinite.
Whew, that was hard!

Any moron can fail a test easily.

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

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, an axiom is self-evidently true.

A self-refuting assertion if I ever saw one.

roflmao

I dont think you know what you just typed means

Of course I do, please don't project your ignorance on me.

Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then one easy solution is that the multiverse is infinite.
Whew, that was hard!

Any moron can fail a test easily.

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

lol

^^
Does anyone know what this guy just tried to say?

Oh, I get it. He doesnt have the mental tools to grapple with the actual arguments presented. So he lols himself to soothe himself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ohhhhh right right...he exists "eternally" but not "infinitely," and uh..in his own special little magical place

Yes, dude, to be outside the flow of time means one is infinite in mass and power, but also NOT IN OUR UNIVERSE.

Are you playing dumb or is it for reals?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, dude, to be outside the flow of time means one is infinite in mass and power, but also NOT IN OUR UNIVERSE.

So, god is everywhere, but he's not in our universe.

The absurdity just keeps piling up...

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, an axiom is self-evidently true.
An ALLEGED axiom is one that lacks that trait, but is only asserted as having it.

Axioms are not necessarily self-evident. They are assumptions in many cases.

That two parallel lines do not intersect is an axiom in regular geometry, but if you change it you still have a coherent rational system of mathematics.

The strength of each axiom an argument is based on can vary by certitude, and no argument is stronger than its weakest axiom.

The semantic cloud of dry horse shit you are kicking up is only a typical attempt for an atheist to obfuscate what he cannot rationally refute.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is not the function of an axiom. It is simply a focus on what is assumed and why. It is not given as itself a proof of anything.

He wasnt saying that. He was saying that asserting something as an axiom does not make it an axiom. You really need to slow down.

And I only had to say that in the 1st place because buffoons special plead like theyre paid to fuckin do it

There is no special pleading being done here, dude.

If you cannot accept the idea that something cannot emerge from nothingness, then no one can remedy your affliction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Axioms are not necessarily self-evident.

Yes, they are. Else they are simply premises, or assumptions. These three words are NOT SYNONYMS. Get it through your head!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you cannot accept the idea that something cannot emerge from nothingness, then no one can remedy your affliction.

See? No tools of logic or argument. None. You honestly and very obviously think that saying "it's true, else you are dumb" is an argument for the truth of something. Sad.

 

[diver52]

I do not accept the validity of "laws of thought". I accept the validity of reality. Without that, it's just words. A bit of mental masturbation.

So you reject mathematics?

That entire field is nothing but a big 'thought universe'.

So Sine and Cosine cant be real, can they, and yet, there they are!

I don't reject mathematics as long as it reflects reality. I reject 2+2=5.

 

[G.T.]

Axioms are not necessarily self-evident.

Yes, they are. Else they are simply premises, or assumptions. These three words are NOT SYNONYMS. Get it through your head!

Im not sure why you'd need to explain thaylt...when he could have learned it on the very device he's posting from and save his ass the embarrassment.

People dont come here for discussions, they come here to pick bones. Its a time waster, and I feel lame every time I use it.

 

[ding]

The universe was created from nothing by no thing.

Spirit is no thing.

Only no thing can exist outside of space and time. The existence of "things" creates space and time.

 

[diver52]

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?

 

[G.T.]

That is not the function of an axiom. It is simply a focus on what is assumed and why. It is not given as itself a proof of anything.

He wasnt saying that. He was saying that asserting something as an axiom does not make it an axiom. You really need to slow down.

And I only had to say that in the 1st place because buffoons special plead like theyre paid to fuckin do it

There is no special pleading being done here, dude.

If you cannot accept the idea that something cannot emerge from nothingness, then no one can remedy your affliction.

'Something cannot emerge from nothingness' is an assumption ~> here's how to tell:

Premise 1. IF this Universe is all that there is...
and premise 2. IF this Universe came from nothing...

then conclusion: literally EVERYTHING came from nothing.


But barring that aside...lets grant, for the sake of fucks and giggles...that something cannot come from nothing because of ...hmm, magical rule x we can call it.


Umm, its merely a bald assertion, to begin with, that the philosophical "nothing" has ever even occurred and so "something cannot come from nothing" is an unconvincing, as well as an unsubstanciated premise.

Same with SLOT. The Universe isnt known to be a closed system, so its mere assertion to use SLOT in any "proof" syllogisms for God. Special pleading is where all this stuff fails.

 

[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?

Since it is made of energy it must exist inside of space and time. So it absolutely does exist regardless of whether or not we know it exists or we can detect it's existence.

To me the question is can it exist outside of space and time. And the answer to that is no. It can only exist inside of space and time in the material form.

So the next question is can information exist outside of space and time? I see no reason why it can't. Information is no thing and is not bound by the laws of space and time.

 

[G.T.]

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?

You've created a space. On some grounds, that exists...but then it depends on what youre using as your definition of existence.

It exists as a concept.

It has parameters, as a space.

Its not nothing.

 

[diver52]

That is not the function of an axiom. It is simply a focus on what is assumed and why. It is not given as itself a proof of anything.

He wasnt saying that. He was saying that asserting something as an axiom does not make it an axiom. You really need to slow down.

And I only had to say that in the 1st place because buffoons special plead like theyre paid to fuckin do it

There is no special pleading being done here, dude.

If you cannot accept the idea that something cannot emerge from nothingness, then no one can remedy your affliction.

'Something cannot emerge from nothingness' is an assumption ~> here's how to tell:

Premise 1. IF this Universe is all that there is...
and premise 2. IF this Universe came from nothing...

then conclusion: literally EVERYTHING came from nothing.


But barring that aside...lets grant, for the sake of fucks and giggles...that something cannot come from nothing because of ...hmm, magical rule x we can call it.


Umm, its merely a bald assertion, to begin with, that the philosophical "nothing" has ever even occurred and so "something cannot come from nothing" is an unconvincing, as well as an unsubstanciated premise.

Same with SLOT. The Universe isnt known to be a closed system, so its mere assertion to use SLOT in any "proof" syllogisms for God. Special pleading is where all this stuff fails.

I agree. You must accept the unsupported assumption as a given and you are not allowed to question it. The basis of religion.

The real hole in this, as I see it, is that if the universe came from something, then that something had to come from something, and that something had to come from something, and on and on. Then you arrive at the only solution which stops the cycle - the uncaused cause. The problem with that, of course, the very existence of an uncaused cause is a refutation of the argument that something cannot come from nothing.

 

[ding]

EVERYTHING came from nothing.

Not quite. Everything was created from nothing.

 

[ding]

There is zero doubt that the material universe was created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

An interesting question, but it is predicated on magic, so doesn't really have a right or wrong answer. But fun to think about anyway.


The vacuum would immediately collapse the box. To say such a box could even exist is predicated on leaving behind all natural laws. So, it's like asking: if I put a unicorn against a leprechaun in a cage match, would dragons fly?