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

[cnm]

via the logically incontrovertible imperatives of ontology,

Circular arguments are imperative, there's no doubt of that.

 

[cnm]

Who is this we, and what don't they know exactly? Precisely what is the logical gap in the argument.

Humanity. How the world was created. God.

 

[Ringtone]

You need to answer my question. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

 

[Ringtone]

Circular arguments are imperative, there's no doubt of that.

Circular arguments are imperative? What the hell are you talking about, donkey?

 

[BackAgain]

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Zzz. You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy

 

[Ringtone]

Humanity. How the world was created. God.

You might as well have said goo goo g’joob.

Gesundheit.

 

[Ringtone]

Zzz. You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

 

[BackAgain]

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.

 

[Ringtone]

You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Thanks.

 

[cnm]

Circular arguments are imperative?

Yes, in your case. They are urgent and necessary.

 

[cnm]

You might as well have said goo goo g’joob.

It is true you would have comprehended that reply to your own question as easily as the one you received.

 

[Ringtone]

It is true you would have comprehended that reply to your own question as easily as the one you received.

You're an idiot making baby talk about nothing every time you open your yap.

 

[BackAgain]

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Thanks.

You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.

 

[Colin norris]

Question: how do we know that God necessarily exists?

Short Answer: because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists. The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.

The Cosmological Argument​

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

2. The cosmos began to exist.​

3. The cosmos has a cause of its existence.​

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. Happy reading.

2. The cosmos 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.​

​

(In other words, an infinite regress of causality/temporality cannot be traversed to the present. Absurdity!)​

​

3. The cosmos 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.​

Broadly summarized

The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

​

Distinctively summarized

By the nature of the case, the cause of the universe cannot have a beginning of its existence nor any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence.

Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal, and yet the effect which is produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why is not the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

We know that the first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why is the effect not coeternal with its cause?

Answer: the only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions.

Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.​

Very well plagiarised.
Its a shame its the same tired old bullshit about being guilty and embarrassed because you know its all crap and lies.

Get down to some basic evidence and I'll debate you anything.

 

[Ringtone]

Very well plagiarised.
Its a shame its the same tired old bullshit about being guilty and embarrassed because you know its all crap and lies.

Get down to some basic evidence and I'll debate you anything.

Oh, look, another syphilitic moron chimes in only to tell us that he has absolutely nothing to add. What a friggin' 'tard.

 

[Blues Man]

Troll Alert!

You said everything has a cause didn't you?

So what is the cause of the existence of a god?

 

[Ringtone]

You said everything has a cause didn't you?

So what is the cause of the existence of a god?

Blues Man: You said everything has a cause didn't you?​

No. I've never said any such stupid thing in my life, and the cosmological argument asserts no such stupid thing.

 

[Ringtone]

You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Useless pap. Masturbatory exercise performed by college sophomores. Not taken seriously by any true intellectual or any educated person without preconceived notions of gods.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh, look, another syphilitic moron chimes in only to tell us that he has absolutely nothing to add. What a friggin' 'tard.

At least cockring is now admitting that he’s a syphilitic moron.