The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

You're boring and transparent, dude.

not exactly inspirational ... their point of view.

 

[Ringtone]

Secondly, stating that actual infinites cannot exist, which I'm not saying but you are...refutes almost every deity in every religion in existence.

An Eternal Creator does not exist in *this* *material* *Universe*, hence it is not an *actual* infinity, as our universe is not infinite and therefore nothing infinite is possible in it.

Things we regard as infinite sequence processes are only infinite potentially, not actually.

Actually, G.T., like Morriston and Malpass, is merely demonstrating his ignorance of classical theism, which is typical of your average atheist, but in the case of Morriston we have a twist.

G.T.'s just another slogan-spouting atheist arguing against something he doesn't understand. We see the same thing when atheists invoke the Euthyphro dilemma, for example, against the construct of divinity of classical theism. The Euthyphro dilemma only impinges on the created gods (or immortals) of paganism or the god of pantheism, i.e., on the materially contingent gods of irrationalism and myth. Logic tells us that God and goodness are not categorically distinct entities, but one and the same existent. Also, God is not an actual infinite either. Once again, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic tell us that an actual infinite does not and cannot exist in any world, material or otherwise.

Morriston is actually a Christian, that is to say, a liberal Christian who thinks that God is an actual infinite. He thinks he's refuting Craig, when actually he's arguing against rational and textual orthodoxy in defense of his liberal theology in this wise. In other words, Morriston is trying to cram his theology down reality's throat, rather than let God's uncreated logic that He bestowed on us to speak for itself and lead us where it will as God intended. This is why G.T.'s appeal to Morriston-Malpass' line of argumentation is so hilarious.

When classical theists speak of God as being infinite, they're not saying that He's an actual infinite; certainly learned, biblically orthodox Christians aren't. Rather, such theologians mean that He's infinite, not in the quantitative sense, but in the superlative sense of quality as compared to all other existents. In other words, God is incomparably superior, magnificent, wonderful. He's gloriously unique among all other existents, which, of course, He created from nothing but the sheer power of His will. God's omnipotence is not the power to do anything. It's the power to do all things possible. God's omniscience is not an innumerable collection of facts, but a single apprehension of all things possible at once. Only the contents of finite minds are comprised of bits and pieces of information.

G.T. raised Malpass' video when he thought he was springing something new and profound on me, but he lost interest in discussing it, apparently, when he realized it wasn't new or profound to me. LOL! In the final analysis, all they're really saying, aside from the nonsense that the past and future directions of time are symmetrical, is that the complete infinities of abstraction are actual because they exist in minds. But such only exist as theoretical apprehensions of possibility in minds, and even then only as ideas without any definitive quantity or amount. For example, we all understand that any line from point A to point B can in theory be "infinitely" divided without end. But at any given moment in the process of division, the number of segments into which the line has been divided is finite, and the sum of its segments are equal to the origin whole. No one is arguing that infinity doesn't exist, but that it doesn't exist as anything more than an idea of a boundlessly large and indeterminable number or amount of something in minds. Outside minds, an actual infinite does not and cannot exist in any sense but as a potential infinite tending toward infinity, but never reaching infinity, as, ultimately, infinity has no extremity.

I can't really speak to the rest of their argument regarding Craig's alleged beliefs. I've read a few of Craig's articles on cosmology and I've obviously studied his version of the Kalam argument. I've read and concur with his evaluation of Morriston's benighted critique. I know that he ascribes to the A theory of time, as I do, for the material realm of being. Beyond that I don't really know the details of his beliefs regarding the A theory, i.e., I don't know anything about Malpass' claim that Craig's view on the A theory includes a "presentist-like" notion regarding the existence of the past. I have my own notions that make sense to me, albeit, as informed by logic and God's word. Certainly the A theory of time applies to finite minds, not to that of God.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When classical theists speak of God as being infinite, they're not saying that He's an actual infinite; certainly learned, biblically orthodox Christians aren't. Rather, such theologians mean that He's infinite, not in the quantitative sense, but in the superlative sense of quality as compared to all other existents. In other words, God is incomparably superior, magnificent, wonderful. He's gloriously unique among all other existents, which, of course, He created from nothing but the sheer power of His will. God's omnipotence is not the power to do anything. It's the power to do all things possible. God's omniscience is not an innumerable collection of facts, but a single apprehension of all things possible at once. Only the contents of finite minds are comprised of bits and pieces of information.

Gravitational Time Dilation.

If God is outside the flow of time, He has infinite mass and energy.

 

[Hollie]

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?

“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.”

“.... because I say so”.

Masterful concision in such an argument.

 

[Hollie]

When classical theists speak of God as being infinite, they're not saying that He's an actual infinite; certainly learned, biblically orthodox Christians aren't. Rather, such theologians mean that He's infinite, not in the quantitative sense, but in the superlative sense of quality as compared to all other existents. In other words, God is incomparably superior, magnificent, wonderful. He's gloriously unique among all other existents, which, of course, He created from nothing but the sheer power of His will. God's omnipotence is not the power to do anything. It's the power to do all things possible. God's omniscience is not an innumerable collection of facts, but a single apprehension of all things possible at once. Only the contents of finite minds are comprised of bits and pieces of information.

Gravitational Time Dilation.

If God is outside the flow of time, He has infinite mass and energy.

Substitute the Easter Bunny for gods. You still have a viable argument.

 

[G.T.]

Secondly, stating that actual infinites cannot exist, which I'm not saying but you are...refutes almost every deity in every religion in existence.

An Eternal Creator does not exist in *this* *material* *Universe*, hence it is not an *actual* infinity, as our universe is not infinite and therefore nothing infinite is possible in it.

Things we regard as infinite sequence processes are only infinite potentially, not actually.

Actually, G.T., like Morriston and Malpass, is merely demonstrating his ignorance of classical theism, which is typical of your average atheist, but in the case of Morriston we have a twist.

G.T.'s just another slogan-spouting atheist arguing against something he doesn't understand. We see the same thing when atheists invoke the Euthyphro dilemma, for example, against the construct of divinity of classical theism. The Euthyphro dilemma only impinges on the created gods (or immortals) of paganism or the god of pantheism, i.e., on the materially contingent gods of irrationalism and myth. Logic tells us that God and goodness are not categorically distinct entities, but one and the same existent. Also, God is not an actual infinite either. Once again, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic tell us that an actual infinite does not and cannot exist in any world, material or otherwise.

Morriston is actually a Christian, that is to say, a liberal Christian who thinks that God is an actual infinite. He thinks he's refuting Craig, when actually he's arguing against rational and textual orthodoxy in defense of his liberal theology in this wise. In other words, Morriston is trying to cram his theology down reality's throat, rather than let God's uncreated logic that He bestowed on us to speak for itself and lead us where it will as God intended. This is why G.T.'s appeal to Morriston-Malpass' line of argumentation is so hilarious.

When classical theists speak of God as being infinite, they're not saying that He's an actual infinite; certainly learned, biblically orthodox Christians aren't. Rather, such theologians mean that He's infinite, not in the quantitative sense, but in the superlative sense of quality as compared to all other existents. In other words, God is incomparably superior, magnificent, wonderful. He's gloriously unique among all other existents, which, of course, He created from nothing but the sheer power of His will. God's omnipotence is not the power to do anything. It's the power to do all things possible. God's omniscience is not an innumerable collection of facts, but a single apprehension of all things possible at once. Only the contents of finite minds are comprised of bits and pieces of information.

G.T. raised Malpass' video when he thought he was springing something new and profound on me, but he lost interest in discussing it, apparently, when he realized it wasn't new or profound to me. LOL! In the final analysis, all they're really saying, aside from the nonsense that the past and future directions of time are symmetrical, is that the complete infinities of abstraction are actual because they exist in minds. But such only exist as theoretical apprehensions of possibility in minds, and even then only as ideas without any definitive quantity or amount. For example, we all understand that any line from point A to point B can in theory be "infinitely" divided without end. But at any given moment in the process of division, the number of segments into which the line has been divided is finite, and the sum of its segments are equal to the origin whole. No one is arguing that infinity doesn't exist, but that it doesn't exist as anything more than an idea of a boundlessly large and indeterminable number or amount of something in minds. Outside minds, an actual infinite does not and cannot exist in any sense but as a potential infinite tending toward infinity, but never reaching infinity, as, ultimately, infinity has no extremity.

I can't really speak to the rest of their argument regarding Craig's alleged beliefs. I've read a few of Craig's articles on cosmology and I've obviously studied his version of the Kalam argument. I've read and concur with his evaluation of Morriston's benighted critique. I know that he ascribes to the A theory of time, as I do, for the material realm of being. Beyond that I don't really know the details of his beliefs regarding the A theory, i.e., I don't know anything about Malpass' claim that Craig's view on the A theory includes a "presentist-like" notion regarding the existence of the past. I have my own notions that make sense to me, albeit, as informed by logic and God's word. Certainly the A theory of time applies to finite minds, not to that of God.

That's a high opinion of yourself and a cool theory of why I dont engage with you ~ but I told you the reason. Deal with it. The kalam is fucktarded...and everyone except fundies apparently knows that, and understands that, which is why its not and was never accepted mainstream as a philosophical mainstay. That you cannot understand why and think that you have the magic work-around is nice, and its also friggin tedious. You just melted like 6 booklong paragraphs of nothingness at me, for example...thats what you freaks do.

 

[G.T.]

"The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down. Indeed, I quoted a stronger theorem, the “Quantum Eternity Theorem” (QET) — under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future. For convenience I quoted my own paper as a reference, although I’m surely not the first to figure it out; it’s a fairly trivial result once you think about it. (The Hartle-Hawking model is not eternal to the past, which is fine because they imagine a universe with zero energy. In that situation time is an approximation rather than fundamental in any case — that’s the “problem of time” in quantum gravity.)"

just a snippet on Carrol's post-debate Article from his N. Orleans take-down of the charlatan, Craig.

Actual PhDs with accomplishments, peer-review successes and not a bunch of dopes going rahrah on the internet.

That these papers exist, is why the kalam doesnt exist. He also explains the refutation of theists' misapprehension of MANY of the physics models they MISuse to make their arguments.










except for fundies.

Post-Debate Reflections

 

[Erinwltr]

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.

Guessing that you never read Spinoza?

 

[BreezeWood]

I have my own notions that make sense to me, albeit, as informed by logic and God's word ... Certainly the A theory of time applies to finite minds, not to that of God.[

you've created a limited capacity to satisfy your self made logic ... what's in the box is your mind. not so the metaphysical as the component for the beings spirit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

vacuum

Then, it would exert pressure on the box. Right?

All I am getting at is that, while it is an excellent thought exercise, it presumes magic from the start, and so there is no right or wrong answer. And thus, no answer at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's a high opinion of yourself and a cool theory of why I dont engage with you ~ but I told you the reason. Deal with it. The kalam is fucktarded...

No, you make unwarranted assertions about obviously true things and demonstrate that you are the fucktard, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have my own notions that make sense to me, albeit, as informed by logic and God's word ... Certainly the A theory of time applies to finite minds, not to that of God.[

you've created a limited capacity to satisfy your self made logic ....

Lol, yeah, Ringtone just made all this up.

Do you have even a sliver of shame in your whole body?

 

[JimBowie1958]

"The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other.

No reason to think our universe began? roflmao

That is just stupid. I guess you have to buy a sheepskin in order to get stupid enough to think it may be valid.

I quoted a stronger theorem, the “Quantum Eternity Theorem” (QET) — under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future.

So under QET you can actually count to infinity.

Again, most stupidity from morons that like to pose as superior minded erudite sophisticates.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

about obviously true things

Oops, you're still making the same, dumb error. "Obviously true"...by what measure? Your gut tells you it feels true?

 

[ding]

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?

Yes, I am. Why do you ask?

 

[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.

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

Thanks. The SLoT is quite interesting. In and of itself it kills the theory of our universe being eternal into the past. No cyclical model can avoid this fate. But it also hints that what preceded the universe could not be matter/energy either because that matter and energy would run into the same problem (i.e. thermal equilibrium). Not to mention that the existence of matter and energy literally creates time and space. So there's that problem too (i.e. one time and space creating another time and space). So the answer to what came first cannot be something which is tangible or material. So we are left with "something" which is intangible no matter how uncomfortable that makes us. I put quotes around"something" because in reality the correct way of saying it is "no thing."

So where doe this leave us? It leaves us needing to explain how the universe (i.e. energy/matter which creates time and space) can pop into existence without violating the FLoT. Inflation theory does that. It also explains what we see or don't see in the universe (i.e. horizon, flatness and lack of observing magnetic monopoles).

But the most interesting outcome of this theory is that it requires the laws of nature to exist or be in place before our existence (i.e. the universe) was created. So we know "something" (i.e. the laws of nature) existed before our existence (i.e. the universe) was created from nothing. Therefore, our existence was not created by non-existence.

 

[ding]

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

His posts have quite a bit of substance to them. He's not just saying these guys said these things so we should believe these things. He's actually explaining the logic behind the proof.

You on the other hand are doing exactly what you allege he is doing. Your posts do not have any substance to them. It seems to me that you are acknowledging that you can't defeat the logic.

 

[ding]

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" -

View attachment 279368

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

If you are arguing that God is a physical being, I disagree.

If you are arguing one physical being is transformed into a new physical being, I disagree.

The only way my brain can make sense of it all is to believe that a non-material being willed the material world into existence.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

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.

The cool thing about math and music and science is that we don't invent or create them, we discover them. They have been waiting in time to be discovered. But the really cool thing is that they existed as potentiality before the beginning of space and time. Mind blowing shit.

 

[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?

Yes, dude it does.

So nothing is something. I tend to agree.