The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[Ringtone]

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.

Look, you lunatic, everybody knows that the current version of the KCA was devised by Craig. I didn't steal anything from him. I added the underlying logic for the first premise for those not familiar with it and my syllogistic summary of the conclusion. The sub-premises for the second premises are Craig's. I didn't claim those as mine.

Guess what other arguments are not mine. That would be every other classical argument for God's existence.

Sensible people understand the essence of my presentation. Lunatics like you make baby talk.

Now back to reality. . . .

I'm attempting to understand and respond to your criticisms, but it is not at all clear to me what they are. One thing at a time. You allege that there is a contradiction between divine omniscience and omnipotence. What is this supposed contradiction?

 

[Ringtone]

Maybe this universe exists in an infinite amount of space and time? Think about a lava lamp.

If god is eternal so is space and time.

The whole point of the KCA is that spacetime cannot be eternal. You're alleging an infinite regress of causality or an actual infinite of materiality. Please give a coherent account as to how such things are possible. Also, are you equating divinity to a material being?

 

[ding]

Maybe this universe exists in an infinite amount of space and time? Think about a lava lamp.

If god is eternal so is space and time.

The whole point of the KCA is that spacetime cannot be eternal. You're alleging an infinite regress of causality or an actual infinite of materiality. Please give a coherent account as to how such things are possible. Also, are you equating divinity to a material being?

It’s a given that our space time is not eternal into the past.

If we start from the position that our existence had a beginning and was created from nothing according to the laws of nature then we know that the laws of nature existed before our existence. Which supports the assertion that existence can only be created by a preexisting existence as the laws of nature were already in place.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

It is predicated on the fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity (x: x = x), the law of noncontradiction (x: x ≠ not-x) and the law of the excluded middle (x: x = x OR x = not-x). The fundamental laws of logic, like the fundamental imperatives of mathematics, are axioms. It also entails the law of sufficient reason (or the principle of necessity): if x, then y (or because of x, y). In other words: x necessarily implies y (symbolically, x —> y; i.e., y is the corollary of x). The fundamental laws of logic are axioms. The only people who agree with your meaningless prattle, wherein axioms are mere assertions and facts are facts because they're facts, are drooling retards.

You write: "My take on the KALAM is the same as any cogent philosopher's" Translation: anyone who agrees with me is a cogent philosopher even though they are allegedly using the fundamental laws of logic—which are mere assertions, not facts—to make their arguments.

So as for Morriston-Malpass, you're telling me you don't actually know what they're arguing, just like you apparently don't grasp what Craig is actually arguing about actual infinities?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Look, you lunatic, everybody knows that the current version of the KCA was devised by Craig. I didn't steal anything from him. I added the underlying logic for the first premise for those not familiar with it and my syllogistic summary of the conclusion. The sub-premises for the second premises are Craig's. I didn't claim those as mine.

Guess what other arguments are not mine. That would be every other classical argument for God's existence.

Sensible people understand the essence of my presentation. Lunatics like you make baby talk.

Now back to reality. . . .

I'm attempting to understand and respond to your criticisms, but it is not at all clear to me what they are. One thing at a time. You allege that there is a contradiction between divine omniscience and omnipotence. What is this supposed contradiction?

Yes. Now back to reality.

Before we can address the contradictions between divine omniscience and omnipotence, you need to define a divine entity. It is theists who attach such attributes to their various gods. For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness of such attributes, I cannot help but point out that a demonstration of your gods is in order before we can move your opinions from the realm of hopeful speculation to something deserving of more serious consideration.

Like most religionists, you have accepted then gods of convenience that are a part of your cultural backgtound and have made no effort to rationally reconcile the implications of the Christian concepts of the gods, and in particular the associated salvation scheme.

You repeatedly assert that your beliefs are “reasoned to,” but when we look at them we find only dogma and circular argument. AS theists do, you use the assumption that your gods are true to “prove” that the Bibles are true. You use the assumption that the authors of the bibles were infallible guides to “prove” that the authors were infallible guides. When you make the claim that your sources of knowledge are infallible, yet the only reason you believe that is because the sources themselves say so… well, you must admit, you are far a field from a serious argument.

There is little difference between the natural Big Bang paradigm and a Prime Mover Who Stays Completely Out of It paradigm. With the former you have causal "omnipotence" -- nothing is as all powerful as all of existence (i.e., gravity is likewise omnipotent). But that's all you have. No "omniscience" and no "omnibenvolence" or any of those extraneous human-ego attributes. So why opt for the latter, and then go assigning it characteristics that deconstruct the very thing you opt for?

An invisible, undetectable, unknown and completely and perfectly uninvolved entity is synonymous with "Nothingness". So why give this nothingness human attributes?

 

[Ringtone]

If we start from the position that our existence had a beginning and was created from nothing according to the laws of nature then we know that the laws of nature existed before our existence. Which supports the assertion that existence can only be created by a preexisting existence as the laws of nature were already in place.

Hey, ding, are you an advocate of Vilenkin's cosmological model?

 

[G.T.]

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.

It is predicated on the fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity (x: x = x), the law of noncontradiction (x: x ≠ not-x) and the law of the excluded middle (x: x = x OR x = not-x). The fundamental laws of logic, like the fundamental imperatives of mathematics, are axioms. It also entails the law of sufficient reason (or the principle of necessity): if x, then y (or because of x, y). In other words: x necessarily implies y (symbolically, x —> y; i.e., y is the corollary of x). The fundamental laws of logic are axioms. The only people who agree with your meaningless prattle, wherein axioms are mere assertions and facts are facts because they're facts, are drooling retards.

You write: "My take on the KALAM is the same as any cogent philosopher's" Translation: anyone who agrees with me is a cogent philosopher even though they are allegedly using the fundamental laws of logic—which are mere assertions, not facts—to make their arguments.

So as for Morriston-Malpass, you're telling me you don't actually know what they're arguing, just like you apparently don't grasp what Craig is actually arguing about actual infinities?

You're boring and transparent, dude.

 

[diver52]

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?

The external vacuum is not a perfect vacuum. It has random matter, radiation, etc. The only reason for the box is to isolate a particular bit of space which is perfect vacuum. The box outside the box is the universe.

 

[Hollie]

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.

It is predicated on the fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity (x: x = x), the law of noncontradiction (x: x ≠ not-x) and the law of the excluded middle (x: x = x OR x = not-x). The fundamental laws of logic, like the fundamental imperatives of mathematics, are axioms. It also entails the law of sufficient reason (or the principle of necessity): if x, then y (or because of x, y). In other words: x necessarily implies y (symbolically, x —> y; i.e., y is the corollary of x). The fundamental laws of logic are axioms. The only people who agree with your meaningless prattle, wherein axioms are mere assertions and facts are facts because they're facts, are drooling retards.

You write: "My take on the KALAM is the same as any cogent philosopher's" Translation: anyone who agrees with me is a cogent philosopher even though they are allegedly using the fundamental laws of logic—which are mere assertions, not facts—to make their arguments.

So as for Morriston-Malpass, you're telling me you don't actually know what they're arguing, just like you apparently don't grasp what Craig is actually arguing about actual infinities?

A tedious carnival side show that does nothing to bring your gods any closer to reality. Hence, your retreat to pointless 'philosophical' arguments.

I understand you must abdicate reason and rationality regarding the gods and delve into the philosophical (and metaphysical), because reason and rationality do not survive in the realm of the supernatural. Philosophical arguments are essentially useless for drawing conclusions because ultimately, there's no requirement for the conclusions to be valid or not. They produce nothing of any real utility for problem solving.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

And with that post, ding, concludes a masterful argument from a series posts!

 

[Hollie]

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.

And with that, ding, concludes a masterful argument!

".... except when the gods did it"

After all, appending every irrational and unsupportable claim with that masterful concision of "the gods did it", resolves outrageous claims to supernaturalism and magic.

 

[Ringtone]

You're boring and transparent, dude.

And another insult on top of a rash of slogans in response to this:

It [KCA] is predicated on the fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity (x: x = x), the law of noncontradiction (x: x ≠ not-x) and the law of the excluded middle (x: x = x OR x = not-x). The fundamental laws of logic, like the fundamental imperatives of mathematics, are axioms. It also entails the law of sufficient reason (or the principle of necessity): if x, then y (or because of x, y). In other words: x necessarily implies y (symbolically, x —> y; i.e., y is the corollary of x). The fundamental laws of logic are axioms. The only people who agree with your meaningless prattle, wherein axioms are mere assertions and facts are facts because they're facts, are drooling retards.

You write: "My take on the KALAM is the same as any cogent philosopher's" Translation: anyone who agrees with me is a cogent philosopher even though they are allegedly using the fundamental laws of logic—which are mere assertions, not facts—to make their arguments.

So as for Morriston-Malpass, you're telling me you don't actually know what they're arguing, just like you apparently don't grasp what Craig is actually arguing about actual infinities?
​

You're transparently unoriginal and without any real understanding. Define facts for us, Mr. Excitement. How exactly do rational imperatives differ from these mysterious, undefined facts of yours? As I said before, atheists don't actually do logic. They're the materialist nitwits of reductionism, irrationalism, relativism, sophistry, nihilism. . . . They are mindless slogan spouters.

 

[G.T.]

You're boring and transparent, dude.

LOL! Translation: I'm a slogan-spouting fool what doesn't actually understand the matter.

Slogan spouting! Do youeven READ ypur posts!!!

lol the fakk

DUDE


The KALAM has been debunked.

Sorry that your magical sky fairy took another L, but this one happened literally decades ago.

lol slogans

 

[Ringtone]

Before we can address the contradictions between divine omniscience and omnipotence, you need to define a divine entity. It is theists who attach such attributes to their various gods. For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness of such attributes, I cannot help but point out that a demonstration of your gods is in order before we can move your opinions from the realm of hopeful speculation to something deserving of more serious consideration.

Like most religionists, you have accepted then gods of convenience that are a part of your cultural backgtound and have made no effort to rationally reconcile the implications of the Christian concepts of the gods, and in particular the associated salvation scheme.

You repeatedly assert that your beliefs are “reasoned to,” but when we look at them we find only dogma and circular argument. AS theists do, you use the assumption that your gods are true to “prove” that the Bibles are true. You use the assumption that the authors of the bibles were infallible guides to “prove” that the authors were infallible guides. When you make the claim that your sources of knowledge are infallible, yet the only reason you believe that is because the sources themselves say so… well, you must admit, you are far a field from a serious argument.

There is little difference between the natural Big Bang paradigm and a Prime Mover Who Stays Completely Out of It paradigm. With the former you have causal "omnipotence" -- nothing is as all powerful as all of existence (i.e., gravity is likewise omnipotent). But that's all you have. No "omniscience" and no "omnibenvolence" or any of those extraneous human-ego attributes. So why opt for the latter, and then go assigning it characteristics that deconstruct the very thing you opt for?

An invisible, undetectable, unknown and completely and perfectly uninvolved entity is synonymous with "Nothingness". So why give this nothingness human attributes?

Back to reality. . . .

The first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic tell us precisely why the universe began to exist from nothing, that the KCA is incontrovertible, and precisely what the fundamental attributes of divinity are. One need not appeal to the Bible. One need only think. From my summary of the conclusion of the KCA and as ding argued in a series of posts, we have:

God is a wholly transcendent (spiritual), eternally self-subsistent being (Mind) of incomparable greatness and free will Who created everything else that exists from nothing. Such a being would necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.

Now back to my question: why do you say that divine omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory, or that there is some contradiction between them?

 

[BreezeWood]

Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science.

Such utter nonsense. That is so fucking dumb.

First of all, metaphysics is useless, magical horseshit.

Second, logic is merely a method. Via valid logic, one can argue anything. Anything at all. The only way to know if your logic is sound is to know the empirical truth value of your premises. You can only know this via empirical knowledge. You can only arrive at empirical knowledge via the scientific method.

Clearly, empiricism has primacy over all of it. That is,, if you are seeking truth, and not just self affirmation. You are clearly seeking the latter.

.

First of all, metaphysics is useless, magical horseshit.

"First of all" -

the metaphysical is real and transforms one physical being into an entirely new one through its single spiritual presence.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Cutting edge Mathematics has ZERO to do with Reality.

Physicists find uses for them long after the mathematics is developed. Take a look at the history of Imaginary Numbers for example.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Yes, dude it does.

 

[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.

'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.

Your Premise 1 is a known falsehood.

the rest is just trickledown stupidity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

No, it exists more than just a concept. It has gravity inside it and molecules of various kinds.

MY GAWD, you are a child.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

So don't fucking chat with him, dude!

Jeebus!