The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[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.

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.

That's what cognitive dissonance does to people. There are literal fucking geniuses that make silly arguments...actually on both sides of the equation...but there exists no proof of any deities and if there were, these discussions are not had. It would be proven! end of. Evidences are not proofs, assertions are not axioms by magical proxy and special pleading is a weak brick.

 

[ding]

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

 

[G.T.]

EVERYTHING came from nothing.

Not quite. Everything was created from nothing.

Dont kick up a convo with me man. I like you outside of the way that you behave in philosophical discussions, and can leave it at that...I find no interest in engaging you in these types of things but Id love to know how your dog(s)?, kids..family, job etc are doing, perhaps

 

[ding]

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

 

[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?

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.

But it is nothing except a defined area of nothing. If that nothing has existence, then what does that mean regarding non-existence? For example, consider the singularity prior to the big bang. Did the space surrounding the singularity exist?

 

[ding]

EVERYTHING came from nothing.

Not quite. Everything was created from nothing.

Dont kick up a convo with me man. I like you outside of the way that you behave in philosophical discussions, and can leave it at that...I find no interest in engaging you in these types of things but Id love to know how your dog(s)?, kids..family, job etc are doing, perhaps

I wasn't trying to have a discussion with you on it. I was correcting your error. You used imprecise words. The universe was created from nothing.

 

[ding]

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

 

[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.

But it is nothing except a defined area of nothing. If that nothing has existence, then what does that mean regarding non-existence? For example, consider the singularity prior to the big bang. Did the space surrounding the singularity exist?

There's a 2 hour...on-stage panel discussion with cosmologists, theoretical physicists and philosophers on the nature of "nothing." Its awesome..I can try and find it if youd be interested.

Suffice it to say, its a pretty dicey topic! Even conceptualizing this space inside of these parameters makes it, in one sense, "something."

Its a concept.

 

[ding]

The universe is an intelligence creating machine so to speak. That's it's purpose.

 

[G.T.]

EVERYTHING came from nothing.

Not quite. Everything was created from nothing.

Dont kick up a convo with me man. I like you outside of the way that you behave in philosophical discussions, and can leave it at that...I find no interest in engaging you in these types of things but Id love to know how your dog(s)?, kids..family, job etc are doing, perhaps

I wasn't trying to have a discussion with you on it. I was correcting your error. You used imprecise words. The universe was created from nothing.

Whatever ya say dude ^ thats exactly why I was right in my umm..objection to chatting with you.

 

[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?

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?

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere. Consider the box in deep space.

 

[ding]

All I have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws (along with the other laws of nature) existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

EVERYTHING came from nothing.

Not quite. Everything was created from nothing.

Dont kick up a convo with me man. I like you outside of the way that you behave in philosophical discussions, and can leave it at that...I find no interest in engaging you in these types of things but Id love to know how your dog(s)?, kids..family, job etc are doing, perhaps

I wasn't trying to have a discussion with you on it. I was correcting your error. You used imprecise words. The universe was created from nothing.

Whatever ya say dude ^ thats exactly why I was right in my umm..objection to chatting with you.

You said it came from nothing, right? Came from implies it existed before. Created means it did not exist before.

 

[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?

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.

But it is nothing except a defined area of nothing. If that nothing has existence, then what does that mean regarding non-existence? For example, consider the singularity prior to the big bang. Did the space surrounding the singularity exist?

There's a 2 hour...on-stage panel discussion with cosmologists, theoretical physicists and philosophers on the nature of "nothing." Its awesome..I can try and find it if youd be interested.

Suffice it to say, its a pretty dicey topic! Even conceptualizing this space inside of these parameters makes it, in one sense, "something."

Its a concept.

Actually, I'd love to see that. I know it is a dicey subject and it isn't the first time I've discussed it. I really brought it up to show that this issue of existence vs non-existence isn't as obvious as the op would have us accept.

 

[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?

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?

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere. Consider the box in deep space.

Its a fun thought experiment ... but in the event you accept certain commonly used definitions...the "inside of the box" exists in a few ways.

It exists conceptually.

It exists as an area, a space, that youve given borders visa vie the box.

But hey ... some posit that philosophical "nothingness" is literally impossible, as the mere conception of it...makes it a "thing."

 

[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?

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?

It's only magic to you because whatever exists outside of space and time is totally foreign to you.

 

[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.

But it is nothing except a defined area of nothing. If that nothing has existence, then what does that mean regarding non-existence? For example, consider the singularity prior to the big bang. Did the space surrounding the singularity exist?

There's a 2 hour...on-stage panel discussion with cosmologists, theoretical physicists and philosophers on the nature of "nothing." Its awesome..I can try and find it if youd be interested.

Suffice it to say, its a pretty dicey topic! Even conceptualizing this space inside of these parameters makes it, in one sense, "something."

Its a concept.

Actually, I'd love to see that. I know it is a dicey subject and it isn't the first time I've discussed it. I really brought it up to show that this issue of existence vs non-existence isn't as obvious as the op would have us accept.

If you can ignore ND Tyson's penchant for being a mic-hoe, and attention slut...its awesome

 

[ding]

The definition of create is to bring into existence.

 

[ding]

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[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.

But it is nothing except a defined area of nothing. If that nothing has existence, then what does that mean regarding non-existence? For example, consider the singularity prior to the big bang. Did the space surrounding the singularity exist?

There's a 2 hour...on-stage panel discussion with cosmologists, theoretical physicists and philosophers on the nature of "nothing." Its awesome..I can try and find it if youd be interested.

Suffice it to say, its a pretty dicey topic! Even conceptualizing this space inside of these parameters makes it, in one sense, "something."

Its a concept.

Actually, I'd love to see that. I know it is a dicey subject and it isn't the first time I've discussed it. I really brought it up to show that this issue of existence vs non-existence isn't as obvious as the op would have us accept.

If you can ignore ND Tyson's penchant for being a mic-hoe, and attention slut...its awesome

The basic take-away though is that Krausse pulled an okie-doke with his book, A Universe from Nothing...by hoping that folks would buy the book on the basis of him proving the origins of the Universe were "nothing," but then inside the book he does come clean and implore you not to conflate "philosophical" nothing (what we typically conceieve of as the literal "nothing",) and cosmological "nothing,' which, using the colloquial use of the term "nothing," ISNT ACTUALLY NOTHING.

Slick move to sell a book, but at least inside the book and on this stage...he's honest about it