It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence

[Ringtone]

No. They. Don't.

Yes. They. Do.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes. They. Do.

How does the ontological argument support the existence of God?

How does the ontological argument support the existence of God? What are the divisions of ontological argument? Why should I study ontological argument?

www.compellingtruth.org

In short, the ontological argument does not conclusively prove the existence of God,

 

[Ringtone]

How does the ontological argument support the existence of God?

How does the ontological argument support the existence of God? What are the divisions of ontological argument? Why should I study ontological argument?

www.compellingtruth.org

In short, the ontological argument does not conclusively prove the existence of God,

How would you know? You've demonstrated again and again that you can't think straight from one moment to the next.

This thread is not about any ontological argument, of which there are five kinds: conceptual, modal, definitional, Meinongian, and experiential. A logical proof of the ontological argument is in the eye of the thinker, as it were. In any event, this thread is about the Kalam Ontological Argument.

 

[BackAgain]

The First Law of Thermodynamics does not and could not prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy.

Put a thumbs up on this post and we'll call it a day.

Thanks.

143

 

[Ringtone]

How would you know? You've demonstrated again and again that you can't think straight from one moment to the next.

This thread is not about any ontological argument, of which there are five kinds: conceptual, modal, definitional, Meinongian, and experiential. A logical proof of the ontological argument is in the eye of the thinker, as it were. In any event, this thread is about the Kalam Ontological Argument.

Edit

Now you got me doing it. LOL

The above should read Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[Blues Man]

How would you know? You've demonstrated again and again that you can't think straight from one moment to the next.

This thread is not about any ontological argument, of which there are five kinds: conceptual, modal, definitional, Meinongian, and experiential. A logical proof of the ontological argument is in the eye of the thinker, as it were. In any event, this thread is about the Kalam Ontological Argument.

tomato tomahto



Many critics dismiss the kalam argument for failing to do what it never attempts: conclusively prove the existence of the God of Christianity.

Arguments Against the Kalam Cosmological Argument

If you are anything like me, and the vast majority of the country, you are now no doubt stuck at home for the foreseeable future while we ride out this pandemic. If you are also anything like me this has you thinking about philosophy, apologetics, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Come on...

www.cambridgeskeptics.org.uk

Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing”.

 

[Ringtone]

tomato tomahto



Many critics dismiss the kalam argument for failing to do what it never attempts: conclusively prove the existence of the God of Christianity.

Arguments Against the Kalam Cosmological Argument

If you are anything like me, and the vast majority of the country, you are now no doubt stuck at home for the foreseeable future while we ride out this pandemic. If you are also anything like me this has you thinking about philosophy, apologetics, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Come on...

www.cambridgeskeptics.org.uk

Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing”.

Well, the critique you posted is riddled with the tiresome and sophomoric objections routinely raised by the new atheists of postmodernism who incessantly lose sight of the underlying principles of ontology or the attending, fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics. I say tiresome because the argument is bullet proof. Those of us who have studied it in depth, from every angle, those of us who have deconstructed and reformulated it in our own terms, note these fallacious objections at a glance!

BackAgain, for example, keeps raising the same questions . . . all the while failing to recognize that my response answers those very questions and disembowels their underlying objections.​

The argument incontrovertibly proves the existence of God, i.e., the divinity of classical theism. I would think it's silly to dismiss any extensive line of logic, especially regarding divinity, because additional revelation from God is required to discern which of the arguably five expressions of classical theism, if any, is true. And, yes, there's only five: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Deism. The argument falsifies the materialistic divinities of paganism.

I have no respect for the contrived counterarguments that arise from the minds of those who don't strive to objectively and correctly understand it on its own terms first, then attempt to relentlessly tear it to pieces. Good luck with that. I have incessantly tried to falsify it for more than a decade to no avail.

 

[Ringtone]

tomato tomahto



Many critics dismiss the kalam argument for failing to do what it never attempts: conclusively prove the existence of the God of Christianity.

Arguments Against the Kalam Cosmological Argument

If you are anything like me, and the vast majority of the country, you are now no doubt stuck at home for the foreseeable future while we ride out this pandemic. If you are also anything like me this has you thinking about philosophy, apologetics, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Come on...

www.cambridgeskeptics.org.uk

Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing”.

As for this:

Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing”.​

Sigh

READ THE ENTIRE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD! PAY ATTENTION!

Excerpt:

The thoughtless fail to grasp the cogency of the Cosmological Argument because (1) they fail to grasp the fundamental imperatives of existence itself and because (2) they fail to grasp the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument. To grasp the latter especially requires the thought of an open and logical mind. While the first major premise in the above is a given, one begins by observing the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:​

​

1. Something does exist rather than nothing. ​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

​

We can now move on to regard the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument.​

​

​

 

[Blues Man]

Well, the critique you posted is riddled with the tiresome and sophomoric objections routinely raised by the new atheists of postmodernism who incessantly lose sight of the underlying principles of ontology or the attending, fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics. I say tiresome because the argument is bullet proof. Those of us who have studied it in depth, from every angle, those of us who have deconstructed and reformulated it in our own terms, note these fallacious objections at a glance!

BackAgain, for example, keeps raising the same questions . . . all the while failing to recognize that my response answers those very questions and disembowels their underlying objections.​

The argument incontrovertibly proves the existence of God, i.e., the divinity of classical theism. I would think it's silly to dismiss any extensive line of logic, especially regarding divinity, because additional revelation from God is required to discern which of the arguably five expressions of classical theism, if any, is true. And, yes, there's only five: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Deism. The argument falsifies the materialistic divinities of paganism.

I have no respect for the contrived counterarguments that arise from the minds of those who don't strive to objectively and correctly understand it on its own terms first, then attempt to relentlessly tear it to pieces. Good luck with that. I have incessantly tried to falsify it for more than a decade to no avail.

That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything

 

[Ringtone]

That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything

What's that supposed to mean?

Are you saying that something doesn't exist?



That existence could arise from nonexistence?



That something has not necessarily always existed?

 

[Blues Man]

What's that supposed to mean?

Are you saying that something doesn't exist?



That existence could arise from nonexistence?



That something has not necessarily always existed?

Does not prove god.

 

[Ringtone]

Does not prove god.

Logical proofs are constructed from fundamental axioms that necessarily follow.

The universal imperative of being/existence:​

1. Something does exist rather than nothing. ​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. ​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

These three statements as a whole constitute a syllogistic argument comprised of incontrovertible axioms whose conclusion necessarily follows. Collectively, the three assertions above also constitute the universal imperative of being/existence, an apriority that underscores the manifest veracity of the first major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.​

2. The Universe (i.e., the material world) began to exist.​

​

Question: have you ever asked yourself how or thought about why the second premise necessarily comes to the fore? Have you ever regarded its justification?

​

​

 

[Blues Man]

Logical proofs are constructed from fundamental axioms that necessarily follow.

The universal imperative of being/existence:​

1. Something does exist rather than nothing. ​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. ​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

These three statements as a whole constitute a syllogistic argument comprised of incontrovertible axioms whose conclusion necessarily follows. Collectively, the three assertions above also constitute the universal imperative of being/existence, an apriority that underscores the manifest veracity of the first major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.​

2. The Universe (i.e., the material world) began to exist.​

​

Question: have you ever asked yourself how or thought about why the second premise necessarily comes to the fore? Have you ever regarded its justification?

​

​

None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.

Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive

 

[Ringtone]

None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.

Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive

Dude! That's not the whole of the argument! What the hell is wrong with you? We are in the midst of the argument, and you keep stupidly saying "that doesn't prove God's existence."

Derp Derp
____________

Once again:

The universal imperative of being/existence:​

1. Something does exist rather than nothing. ​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. ​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

These three statements as a whole constitute a syllogistic argument comprised of incontrovertible axioms whose conclusion necessarily follows. Collectively, the three assertions above also constitute the universal imperative of being/existence, an apriority that underscores the manifest veracity of the first major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.​

The argument has been proved up to this point, ya dumbass! We have not reached the final conclusion of the argument yet, ya dumbass!

 

[Ringtone]

None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.

Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive

You're more clueless than this dumbass!

Abortionist Argument: Read My Poster

I'm guessing she's still convinced she held her own 😄

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Ringtone]

None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.

Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive

You're intellectually lazy and stupid!

 

[BackAgain]

Examine ringtonedeaf’s OP closely. You will see that he posits (AS a premise) the existence of a CREATOR. Then, he utilizes that premise in a string forming a purported syllogism. And he uses his syllogism as “proof” of the existence of the Creator.

But, he can’t quite grasp how he’s committed the fallacy of begging the question.

 

[Blues Man]

Dude! That's not the whole of the argument! What the hell is wrong with you? We are in the midst of the argument, and you keep stupidly saying "that doesn't prove God's existence."

Derp Derp
____________

Once again:

The universal imperative of being/existence:​

1. Something does exist rather than nothing. ​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. ​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

These three statements as a whole constitute a syllogistic argument comprised of incontrovertible axioms whose conclusion necessarily follows. Collectively, the three assertions above also constitute the universal imperative of being/existence, an apriority that underscores the manifest veracity of the first major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.​

The argument has been proved up to this point, ya dumbass! We have not reached the final conclusion of the argument yet, ya dumbass!

And It's what the cause is that is not proven.

This is just another version of the ontological argument for the existence of a god that has been since the eleventh century.

And it has never been a convincing argument for the existence of a god.

 

[Blues Man]

Examine ringtonedeaf’s OP closely. You will see that he posits (AS a premise) the existence of a CREATOR. Then, he utilizes that premise in a string forming a purported syllogism. And he uses his syllogism as “proof” of the existence of the Creator.

But, he can’t quite grasp how he’s committed the fallacy of begging the question.

You have to assume there is a god for this argument to prove there is a god.

 

[BackAgain]

You have to assume there is a god for this argument to prove there is a god.

He doesn’t recognize it. But it’s true. He has employed a fallacy.

For anything to exist, there must be a Creator.
Lots of things exist.
——————————
Therefore, everything must be caused by the Creator.