The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

 

[ding]

So we know the laws of nature existed outside/before the creation of existence. Therefore, existence (i.e. our space and time) was created from no thing. The laws of nature are no thing.

Ergo, it is not possible for existence to be created from non-existence.

 

[G.T.]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

Have you ever brought up, or have you heard, the 3 doors experiment...in a crowd?

50/50!!!

its 50/50!!! everyone screams at first, because thats what they intuit until deeper reflection reveals that its 33/66. (percent)

Try it on someone.

Theres 3 closed doors. 1 has a prize. You do not know which door has the prize...the host does.

Youre told to pick a door.

The host opens one of the two doors you DIDNT pick, and its not the prize.

He offers you to change you pick before the remaining doors are opened.

Most people, at first, think that by staying with your original pick, youve got a 50/50 shot at winning by staying or switching.

No, the odds that the prize is the other door became 66%.

Sometimes you need to explain why...and heads explode. Its fun as hell

 

[diver52]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside. An atom may wander into a vacuum, a stray gamma ray. The question really doesn't relate to box but do the space inside the box. If that space consists of nothing, does it exist?

 

[G.T.]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside. An atom may wander into a vacuum, a stray gamma ray. The question really doesn't relate to box but do the space inside the box. If that space consists of nothing, does it exist?

Is a concept a thing?
Is an area with boundaries a thing?

Does the mere utterance inside of your brain... of a previously non-existent thing...make it exist at least in the sense that conceptually, your brain fired some neurons and made it a concept?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

Have you ever brought up, or have you heard, the 3 doors experiment...in a crowd?

50/50!!!

its 50/50!!! everyone screams at first, because thats what they intuit until deeper reflection reveals that its 33/66. (percent)

Try it on someone.

Theres 3 closed doors. 1 has a prize. You do not know which door has the prize...the host does.

Youre told to pick a door.

The host opens one of the two doors you DIDNT pick, and its not the prize.

He offers you to change you pick before the remaining doors are opened.

Most people, at first, think that by staying with your original pick, youve got a 50/50 shot at winning by staying or switching.

No, the odds that the prize is the other door became 66%.

Sometimes you need to explain why...and heads explode. Its fun as hell

Oh yes, that's a good one. And even after explaining it, a lot peole still will refuse to accept the correct answer.

A variant:

You meet a girl. She has one sibling. What is the probability that her sibling is a boy?

Answer: 2/3

That one really ticks people off,haha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside.

Right, but the box either has substance, or it is magical.

It's a good phenomenology exercise, but it requires suspension of physical laws from the start. But its not useless, per se. Physicists have to think about this sort of thing.

 

[diver52]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside. An atom may wander into a vacuum, a stray gamma ray. The question really doesn't relate to box but do the space inside the box. If that space consists of nothing, does it exist?

Is a concept a thing?
Is an area with boundaries a thing?

Does the mere utterance inside of your brain... of a previously non-existent thing...make it exist at least in the sense that conceptually, your brain fired some neurons and made it a concept?

My response is yes and no. A concept is a thing in that it does exist within my brain. But that does not mean it exists outside my brain. My applying a label to something in my head does not create that something. The example of the cube does exist as a concept, but only in my brain. That concept has zero impact upon the space. It exists as a defined space, but that definition exists only in my brain and likewise has zero impact upon the space itself. It is not improbable that existence and non-existence simply has no relation to reality. They are just concepts we create to make sense of our environment.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

 

[diver52]

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside.

Right, but the box either has substance, or it is magical.

It's a good phenomenology exercise, but it requires suspension of physical laws from the start. But its not useless, per se. Physicists have to think about this sort of thing.

I really don't see how it requires suspension of physical laws. Could you elaborate on that? I don't think it matters in the basic question which is really whether a perfect vacuum exists, but you have pricked my curiosity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My response is yes and no.

Also my answer

 

[G.T.]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside. An atom may wander into a vacuum, a stray gamma ray. The question really doesn't relate to box but do the space inside the box. If that space consists of nothing, does it exist?

Is a concept a thing?
Is an area with boundaries a thing?

Does the mere utterance inside of your brain... of a previously non-existent thing...make it exist at least in the sense that conceptually, your brain fired some neurons and made it a concept?

My response is yes and no. A concept is a thing in that it does exist within my brain. But that does not mean it exists outside my brain. My applying a label to something in my head does not create that something. The example of the cube does exist as a concept, but only in my brain. That concept has zero impact upon the space. It exists as a defined space, but that definition exists only in my brain and likewise has zero impact upon the space itself. It is not improbable that existence and non-existence simply has no relation to reality. They are just concepts we create to make sense of our environment.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

All good points...its what makes "it depends on the definitions we use" a truism for so much, in philosophy. And actually makes philosophy kind of annoying at times, too, lol...but its toward the greater good of a more disciplined reasoning I guess.

I think the answer to the cube thing youve created has always been..."depends on what you mean by nothing," lol

 

[G.T.]

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside.

Right, but the box either has substance, or it is magical.

It's a good phenomenology exercise, but it requires suspension of physical laws from the start. But its not useless, per se. Physicists have to think about this sort of thing.

I really don't see how it requires suspension of physical laws. Could you elaborate on that? I don't think it matters in the basic question which is really whether a perfect vacuum exists, but you have pricked my curiosity.

Thats what she said

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ireally don't see how it requires suspension of physical laws. Could you elaborate on that?

Either the box has substance, or it is magical. If it has substance, then it would immediately collapse. If it has substance and is assumed not to collapse, it is magical. If it has no substance, it is magical.

Therefore, in all cases, the box is magical.

 

[G.T.]

ireally don't see how it requires suspension of physical laws. Could you elaborate on that?

in all cases, the box is magical.

Thats what she said


lol wheeeewwwwww, two in a row!!

 

[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?

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.

Yes. I got that. In fact, I'm familiar with his argument. I touch on it in my refutation of O'Connor's critique on Youtube. What you don't seem to understand is that it's Wes Morriston's argument, albeit, with an additional line of critique supposedly predicated on Hilbert's Hotel analogy. That aspect of it is Malpass'. These lines of counter are not new to me! You act as if their counterarguments necessarily hold, and I was looking for you to articulate your understanding of the KCA from the perspective of classical theism and to articulate your understanding of the Morriston-Malpass counterargument.

Morriston's critique: https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/NewKalamCritique.pdf

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You act as if their counterarguments necessarily hold

Oops, another silly error. He is not doing that, nor does he need to do so. You are the one making the assertions. All one has to do to undermine your useless argument is to show counterarguments exist that undermine your assertion and that you cannot definitvely rule out.

You put yourself in this weak position with your universal, unsupported, unevidenced assertions. Maybe you will learn your lesson. But i doubt it. Religion does that to people's brains.

 

[diver52]

You are assuming the box is in an atmosphere.

The box itself is your "atmosphere".

Alternatively, if you assert the box itself is contained in a perfect vacuum, you have just subjected the argument to infinite regression. What box holds the vacuum that holds the box?

The purpose of the box is to ensure that the vacuum is not infected from the outside. An atom may wander into a vacuum, a stray gamma ray. The question really doesn't relate to box but do the space inside the box. If that space consists of nothing, does it exist?

Is a concept a thing?
Is an area with boundaries a thing?

Does the mere utterance inside of your brain... of a previously non-existent thing...make it exist at least in the sense that conceptually, your brain fired some neurons and made it a concept?

My response is yes and no. A concept is a thing in that it does exist within my brain. But that does not mean it exists outside my brain. My applying a label to something in my head does not create that something. The example of the cube does exist as a concept, but only in my brain. That concept has zero impact upon the space. It exists as a defined space, but that definition exists only in my brain and likewise has zero impact upon the space itself. It is not improbable that existence and non-existence simply has no relation to reality. They are just concepts we create to make sense of our environment.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

All good points...its what makes "it depends on the definitions we use" a truism for so much, in philosophy. And actually makes philosophy kind of annoying at times, too, lol...but its toward the greater good of a more disciplined reasoning I guess.

I think the answer to the cube thing youve created has always been..."depends on what you mean by nothing," lol

Exactly.

 

[diver52]

ireally don't see how it requires suspension of physical laws. Could you elaborate on that?

Either the box has substance, or it is magical. If it has substance, then it would immediately collapse. If it has substance and is assumed not to collapse, it is magical. If it has no substance, it is magical.

Therefore, in all cases, the box is magical.

It would not collapse. What collapses the box isn't the vacuum inside, it's the pressure on the outside. By putting the box in deep space there is no pressure differentiation to collapse the box.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It would not collapse. What collapses the box isn't the vacuum inside, it's the pressure on the outside.

But,if the space outside the box is also a vacuum, you are now in an infinitely regressive loop. What box holds the vacuum outside the box?

 

[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.

Yes. I got that. In fact, I'm familiar with his argument. I touch on it in my refutation of O'Connor's critique on Youtube. What you don't seem to understand is that it's Wes Morriston's argument, albeit, with an additional line of critique supposedly predicated on Hilbert's Hotel analogy. That aspect of it is Malpass'. These lines of counter are not new to me! You act as if their counterarguments necessarily hold, and I was looking for you to articulate your understanding of the KCA from the perspective of classical theism and to articulate your understanding of the Morriston-Malpass counterargument.

Morriston's critique: https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/NewKalamCritique.pdf

My take on the KALAM is the same as any cogent philosopher's, as well as most "men on the street," and that's that it cannot act as a proof because its based on assertions as opposed to what we'd colloquially refer to as facts...and to demonstrate that can take anywhere from 15 minutes, to 2 hours, to 6, 000 word peer reviewed essays.