The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[LittleNipper]

Baseless assertions about that which we know not.

So, you don't accept evolution and uniformitarianism because such are based on baseless assertions...

 

[buttercup]

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.

If God exists, then who made god?

Are you suggesting that existence arose from nonexistence?

Isn't that how you contend that god was made?

Do you honestly not know the answer to that question, or are you trolling? The First Cause does not have a cause. OBVIOUSLY. If The First Cause had a cause, then that cause would be God.

God is eternal. I thought that even atheists knew that, whether you believe it or not.

So by asking that question, you either have to be trolling or you're ignorant as to what God is by definition.

Hold on. The gods by definition being eternal is nothing more than unverifiable gainsay, by definition. We have no evidence for any gods, therefore, claims to various attributes assigned to the gods are mere speculation, by definition,

I was responding to Taz's question "who created god?" which shows that he doesn't understand what God is, by definition. Whether or not you believe God exists is an entirely different matter. That was the answer to his question, he can accept it or not. The problem is, that question comes up over and over, which is why I said he's either trolling or ignorant as to what God is by definition.

 

[G.T.]

Conspiracy minded thinking is a phenomena brought about by evolution ~ these type want to be the one with the neat little answer...want to be the one "in the know" to report it, and want to mock the proper skeptic for not buying the ill-supported, wild-eyed claim.

Religion is the same, rationalizing existence and death - wanting to feel in the know and performing a backward-fitting argument.

speshul

 

[buttercup]

Now you're saying that everything that begins to exist is the same thing as everything that has always existed

Correct, in your paradigm where everything had a cause. You are the one who has constrained yourself. Pay attention to your own nonsense....you go down the rabbit hole and forget what you said 5 minutes ago, as your arguments are meandering horseshit prescribed to reach a conclusion you already deemed true. As such, you make error after error and contradiction after contradiction.

You will do it again, and i will point it out again.

You're not making any sense, at all. Are you seriously claiming that created things are the same as things that were not created but always existed? (which would be blatantly illogical) Or are you claiming that there is no such thing as something eternal, that everything began to exist? Make yourself clear.

 

[Ringtone]

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?

Once again, you have not refuted the argument. Your post is nothing more than a litany of slogans that we've heard over and over again from new atheist nitwits. The fundamental attributes of divinity axiomatically follow from the KCA proof.

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.

 

[G.T.]

Baseless assertions about that which we know not.

So, you don't accept evolution and uniformitarianism because such are based on baseless assertions...

Yeah. Because observing evolution in a lab... under a microscope... having a vast fossil record supporting the widely accepted, peer-reviewed and elevated to Theory claim, highest elevation there is in Science...

is nothing close to what we would call a "base," for an assertion.

aye yaye yaye, the fundies. Its a full moon?

 

[buttercup]

Correct, in your paradigm where everything had a cause.

Ok, I see where your problem is. You are STILL misquoting (or misunderstanding) the argument. Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause. Get that through your head. The argument (which, btw, I have not even stated that I agree with) is that everything that begins to exist had a cause. Do you see the distinction? Or as I said in my last post, are you merely claiming that there is no such thing as something that has always existed?

 

[Hollie]

If God exists, then who made god?

Are you suggesting that existence arose from nonexistence?

Isn't that how you contend that god was made?

Do you honestly not know the answer to that question, or are you trolling? The First Cause does not have a cause. OBVIOUSLY. If The First Cause had a cause, then that cause would be God.

God is eternal. I thought that even atheists knew that, whether you believe it or not.

So by asking that question, you either have to be trolling or you're ignorant as to what God is by definition.

Hold on. The gods by definition being eternal is nothing more than unverifiable gainsay, by definition. We have no evidence for any gods, therefore, claims to various attributes assigned to the gods are mere speculation, by definition,

I was responding to Taz's question "who created god?" which shows that he doesn't understand what God is, by definition. Whether or not you believe God exists is an entirely different matter. That was the answer to his question, he can accept it or not. The problem is, that question comes up over and over, which is why I said he's either trolling or ignorant as to what God is by definition.

I guess I need some clarification. We are to understand from others in this thread that one or more of the gods made themselves Jesus so as to be born into the world. That suggests that one or more of the gods had a beginning.

 

[Ringtone]

If heshe is real, I'll spit in their face on everyone's behalf for condoning all the things condoned in Mosaic Law, and for being as superficial and self centered as ding on the internet and requiring "worship."

You'll be quaking and wailing like a little girl sitting in a puddle of soiled panties.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, you don't accept evolution and uniformitarianism because such are based on baseless assertions...

^^

Dont feed the embarrassing YEC troll....

 

[G.T.]

If heshe is real, I'll spit in their face on everyone's behalf for condoning all the things condoned in Mosaic Law, and for being as superficial and self centered as ding on the internet and requiring "worship."

You'll be quaking and wailing like a little girl sitting in a puddle of soiled panties.

Aww look, testosterone!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You'll be quaking and wailing like a little girl sitting in a puddle of soiled panties.

Funny...that seems to be a pretty accurate description of your embarrassing little tantrum over the fact that nobody is buying your magical horseshit.

(Word salad)"magic is real!"(word salad)

Rinse, repeat. Poor little guy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause.

Yes it does. Now you are being a liar.

Name ONE possible thing, besides the magical sky daddy, that may have had "no cause" in your paradigm.

ONE.

Don't post again until you do. No more of this bait and switch horseshit. Stand and defend your nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Once again, you have not refuted the argument. Your post is nothing more than a litany of slogans that we've heard over and over again from new atheist nitwits. The fundamental attributes of divinity axiomatically follow from the KCA proof.

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.

You made no argument to refute. You make unsupported claims about unsupportable supernatural entities.

Go back and read your posts wherein you insist your unsupported claims are true with nothing more than the “.... because I say so”, slogan.

Now, back to the question: why should anyone accept nonsense claims to the supernatural with the “.... because I say so”, slogan?

 

[G.T.]

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?

Once again, you have not refuted the argument. Your post is nothing more than a litany of slogans that we've heard over and over again from new atheist nitwits. The fundamental attributes of divinity axiomatically follow from the KCA proof.

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.

You made no argument to refute. You make unsupported claims about unsupportable supernatural entities.

Go back and read your posts wherein you insist your unsupported claims are true with nothing more than the “.... because I say so”, slogan.

Now, back to the question: why should anyone accept nonsense claims to the supernatural with the “.... because I say so”, slogan?

All you have to do is ask, "do you put mushrooms on salad?"

Dont ever bother with anyone who does...and Im gunna go ahead and guess he's one of them!

 

[Third Party]

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.

Your're trying too hard. Let everybody think for themselves.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Your're trying too hard. Let everybody think for themselves.

Christianity is a proselytizing religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause.

Yes it does. Now you are being a liar.

Name ONE possible thing, besides the magical sky daddy, that may have had "no cause" in your paradigm.

ONE.

Don't post again until you do. No more of this bait and switch horseshit. Stand and defend your nonsense.

That's what i thought.

See what religion does to the brain? These guys have been lying to children and to each other with impunity, all to prop up a house of cards built on magical horseshit and "because i say so". Then , they run into thinking adults, and they wilt like lettuce in the sun.

 

[ding]

There it is!

Big deal. Think about all the suffering that happens daily. If he loved us he needs to stop being a deadbeat dad who bounced 2000 years ago.

Exactly!

Its not even in the top 30 worst fates I can think of...let alone would I mind as much knowing that Im all powerful and eternal. One a scale of one... to cry me a river...a guy that has the knowledge that he will live for eternity as the master of everything that will ever exist...calling NOT EVEN one of the worst HUMAN, MORTAL fates you can face a "sacrifice," is like a welfare queen spending her EBT Debit card on Lobster.

Give me a fuckin break.

You can tell him how unimpressed you are when you meet your maker.

If heshe is real, I'll spit in their face on everyone's behalf for condoning all the things condoned in Mosaic Law, and for being as superficial and self centered as ding on the internet and requiring "worship."

Good luck with that but I suspect when you meet the creator of existence who willed the material world into existence you’re not going to be so bold.

Its no different than being bold to a parent, each individual's creator... and if my mom were a rape ordering, baby killing, slavery condoning.."jealous," and demanding of "worship" narcissistic scumlord like the heathen that created Mosaic Law...Id have no fear in showing my wrath toward that sort of gross lack of character.

Im not a sock puppet with daddy worship issues.

Yeah, no. It's different.

Not sure where you got your views about worship from, but they fucked you up.

 

[ding]

adam and eve...

humanity is "fallen" for eating from the tree of knowledge as though they were supposed to "know" not to do that

give shakespesre a cracker!!!

That’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it doesn’t mean what you probably believe it does.

Yeah.

It presumes they were supposed to know right from wrong before eating from the tree that teaches right from wrong.

Amongst all of the dumb shit in your fairy tale that requires "speshull" interpretation, which is really just your insecure rationalizations for incoherent story telling...that one is among the category: "awesome!"

Especially if Ding on the internet believes it. Thats thorough enough justification that its as dumb as it sounds upon reflection....just like an all powerful being experiencing "sacrifice."

Let me give you a hint. Is the concept of good and evil a human construct?

You have nothing to offer me, lets be crystal clear.

I'm certain you truly believe that too.