The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[ding]

I happen to believe in a personal God. One who cares about our choices. In fact, he cares so much that there is a law of compensation built into the fabric of the moral laws of nature. One that tends to correct our behaviors for the better.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

"if we identify god with the laws of nature..i..dont see why we need another term for the laws of nature." alexander vilenkin

Because God is the prescriber of the laws of nature. God is no more the laws of nature as a painter is his painting.

 

[ding]

You do realize this supports that the universe began, right?

You seemed to be arguing the opposite earlier.

Which is it?

 

[Hollie]

“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.

Why does everything have to be repeated for you atheists?

Because . . . 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.

Go back and carefully read the KCA again, only this time as you do, think. Please note that the material world is a continuously divisible, mutable and, thus, contingent entity of causality. Such an entity cannot be past-eternal. That means it began to exist. The only possible cause for the existence of such an entity would necessarily be a wholly transcendent, eternally self-subsistent being 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 the question: how are omnipotence and omniscience contradictory as you claim?

Thanks.

In a stereotypical attempt to justify his “… because I say so” claims to supernaturalism, the boy retreats to a litany of attributes he carelessly ascribes to his gods unaware of the irrelevant concept of a “… because I say so” claim. Trying to make this nonsensical red herring relevant to his already hopeless argument, he then applies this “concept” with gross incompetence of the most unsophisticated sort.

Your position is of a religious extremist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of mal-formed opinions on what you think about matters you don’t understand. The concept of an “uncreated creator” was derived first and foremost by explicitly religious apologists, and it has no legacy outside of that agenda. It is certainly not a widely held belief among other religions of the world. Even the ancient European religions posited a spontaneous generation of the creator (or creators) out of primordial elements that preexisted them. The concept of an eternal, uncreated creator derives almost uniquely from the polytheism of Christianity. Even the Jewish Yahweh evolved out of an earlier polytheism with ambiguous origins for their pantheon.

Your nonsensical “… because I say so” claim is a useless one for determining the existence (let alone character) of an “uncreated creator,” since it is purely (and viciously) circular.

Your hope was (and still is) to hold up the argument of the “uncaused cause” as a genuine syllogism of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously for generations. The fact that you hold it to be so regardless of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you.

You want it to be useful, even though it sadly is not.
Unfortunately, the religious perspectives you so loudly thump over have been the prime antecedent of 2,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

Now, back to the question: why are you so hopelssly inadequate at providing even the most rudimentary evidence for your claims to magic and supernaturalism as the cause for existence?

 

[idb]

The cosmological argument fails as a special pleading fallacy.

Make the argument. Because what you wrote isn’t an argument, dummy.

Baseless assertions about that which we know not.

It's a logical argument that can only be refuted with logic.

Saying it is baseless is rhetoric, not logic.

As I've observed many times, ding, atheists don't actually do logic, as they incessantly spout nonsense about nonexistent logical fallacies.

Atheism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of atheism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Atheism seeks equality through uniformity. Atheism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Atheists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

You first state "There is no formal defined dogma of atheism." and then go on to list the things that all atheists believe.
Is this the logic you're talking about?

 

[idb]

If you need justification for a God then you are missing the point of the exercise.

Exactly!!
What happened to Faith?

 

[ding]

The cosmological argument fails as a special pleading fallacy.

Make the argument. Because what you wrote isn’t an argument, dummy.

Baseless assertions about that which we know not.

It's a logical argument that can only be refuted with logic.

Saying it is baseless is rhetoric, not logic.

As I've observed many times, ding, atheists don't actually do logic, as they incessantly spout nonsense about nonexistent logical fallacies.

Atheism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of atheism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Atheism seeks equality through uniformity. Atheism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Atheists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

You first state "There is no formal defined dogma of atheism." and then go on to list the things that all atheists believe.
Is this the logic you're talking about?

Just because it hasn’t been formalized doesn’t mean their underlying behaviors and beliefs aren’t observable.

I don’t blame them for not owning it. I wouldn’t either if I were them.

 

[ding]

If you need justification for a God then you are missing the point of the exercise.

Exactly!!
What happened to Faith?

The definition of faith is putting complete trust in something or someone. Would you put complete trust in something or someone without good reason?

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Do the laws of nature stop applying to the inside of the box? No. So nothing is something but I would refer to it differently. I would say that no thing is something. Music, science, math, laws of nature, truth, love, thought, potential, etc are intangible. The definition of intangible is unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence. Intangibles are something but they are not things that can be touched or grasped. Which is to say they are no things.

I use different terminology but I understand what you're getting at.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Do the laws of nature stop applying to the inside of the box? No. So nothing is something but I would refer to it differently. I would say that no thing is something. Music, science, math, laws of nature, truth, love, thought, potential, etc are intangible. The definition of intangible is unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence. Intangibles are something but they are not things that can be touched or grasped. Which is to say they are no things.

I use different terminology but I understand what you're getting at.

Among your shared, meaningless expressions, you have found common ground. That’s so cute.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Do the laws of nature stop applying to the inside of the box? No. So nothing is something but I would refer to it differently. I would say that no thing is something. Music, science, math, laws of nature, truth, love, thought, potential, etc are intangible. The definition of intangible is unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence. Intangibles are something but they are not things that can be touched or grasped. Which is to say they are no things.

I use different terminology but I understand what you're getting at.

Among your shared, meaningless expressions, you have found common ground. That’s so cute.

lol its cute

 

[ding]

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.

Do the laws of nature stop applying to the inside of the box? No. So nothing is something but I would refer to it differently. I would say that no thing is something. Music, science, math, laws of nature, truth, love, thought, potential, etc are intangible. The definition of intangible is unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence. Intangibles are something but they are not things that can be touched or grasped. Which is to say they are no things.

I use different terminology but I understand what you're getting at.

Among your shared, meaningless expressions, you have found common ground. That’s so cute.

Technically we are having a philosophical discussion.

It seems that you guys would rather not discuss it.

 

[ding]

Yes, dude it does.

So nothing is something. I tend to agree.

Do the laws of nature stop applying to the inside of the box? No. So nothing is something but I would refer to it differently. I would say that no thing is something. Music, science, math, laws of nature, truth, love, thought, potential, etc are intangible. The definition of intangible is unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence. Intangibles are something but they are not things that can be touched or grasped. Which is to say they are no things.

I use different terminology but I understand what you're getting at.

Among your shared, meaningless expressions, you have found common ground. That’s so cute.

lol its cute

Right on cue.

 

[ding]

Who knew making a logical argument for spirit creating the material world would make some people so upset.

Actually I did.

 

[ding]

The reality is that many atheists prove they believe God exists through their behaviors and never realize it.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Yea, our space time. Our one little bubble in an infinite sea of bubbles.

 

[G.T.]

The reality is that many atheists prove they believe God exists through their behaviors and never realize it.

You give your self assurances with post after post...thats insecurity in your belief, dude. Sorry!

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Spacetime can not be eternal? But god can? Explain that. Why couldnt god have other universes before ours? You’re making no sense.

If there is a god he always had spacetime. And if there is no god then there still was always spacetime.

There may be things we don’t know. You may be asking me questions that we don’t know the answer to yet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The definition of faith is putting complete trust in something or someone.

And this is why everyone makes fun of ding the 10 cent charlatan.

 

[sealybobo]

The definition of faith is putting complete trust in something or someone.

And this is why everyone makes fun of ding the 10 cent charlatan.

I didn’t know other people also thought ding was fos. Glad to learn I’m not alone.