The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[ding]

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.

There are more cosmological arguments for anything than there are ringtones on my iphone.

OK, name them. Go.

Ringtones, or cosmological arguments?

That was so funny I won't even ask you to name both.

 

[ding]

You vot based on your religion. You have organized politically through your religion. You have forced us to be militant. And what about free speech? Do you want to outlaw our words? Your religion seems weak if it can’t be challenged

Is that what you guys are doing? Challenging us?

Here, let me give you a guide to use so you can tell when you are actually challenging us.

View attachment 279496

What are the cosmological arguments for the existence of god? I already debunked those with my first post.

Multiverses. Simple. We just don’t know what god was going before the Big Bang.

And god isn’t necessary. If he is eternal then so too can be the cosmos.

Not our universe. It’s only 13 b years old.

We don’t know. That’s the right answer. Not there must be a god. No there must not

I almost forgot, here's part two. Please feel to debunk this too.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


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.

 

[LittleNipper]

Here is an analogue to the stupid argument made in the book of job:

You make a device with explosives that is designed to put on a pretty light show (or, so you say, wink wink). You carry this device into your neighbor's garage, leave it, then set it off. It explodes, killing your neighbor.

You get charged with negligent homicide, or. manslaughter, or maybe even murder. Your defense?

"That device was very complicated, and so lent itself to malfunction. I cannot have been expected to.know what it would do Therefore, blame the device, not its maker. "

What rational person whose mind is not addled by religious bullshit (or strong drugs) accepts such an idiotic defense? Nobody.

You must have read the wrong book. It would also be nice if (though only an atheist) you could express yourself without sinking to the level of a caveman (linguistically speaking) you expect everyone to accept you evolved beyond...

 

[Ringtone]

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?

Because I recognize the theme in your posts. I am too! I believe Vilenkin has it right; he just doesn't appreciate what he's got because, sadly, he can't get past his naturalism/materialism. He can't scientifically assert that he's alluding to the contents of God's mind, of course. But he doesn't even seem to see the implications of his cosmogony. In an article he once opined that "the BVG doesn't give the theologian an advantage over the scientist" (paraphrase from memory), which is a rather strange way to express the matter, as if theism and science were mutually exclusive. In any event, he imagines that an absolute beginning of the cosmological configuration is paradoxical, albeit, from the metaphysics of pantheism?! Vilenkin is a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but he needs to stay in his lane. Philosophy and especially theology ain't it.

 

[diver52]

Baseless assertions about that which we know not.

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

Ok. What is uniformitarianism?

 

[ding]

I think the militant atheists are done shitting in this thread for tonight.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You must have read the wrong book.

Wow, thats compelling. I guess that, between you and the 100s of other christian sects that all have disagreements with each other, all but one of you also read the wrong book. Let me guess which one is the only one who read the right book...you? Of course.

Job is bad literature, verbose and meandering, that is basically a huge box with a tiny, stupid little argument inside.

 

[ding]

You must have read the wrong book.

Wow, thats compelling. I guess that, between you and the 100s of other christian sects that all have disagreements with each other, all but one of you also read the wrong book. Let me guess which one is the only one who read the right book...you? Of course.

Job is bad literature, verbose and meandering, that is basically a huge box with a tiny, stupid little argument inside.

Diversity is the natural order. What you see as a weakness is in reality a strength.

Clearly you do not understand how nature works.

 

[G.T.]

You must have read the wrong book.

Wow, thats compelling. I guess that, between you and the 100s of other christian sects that all have disagreements with each other, all but one of you also read the wrong book. Let me guess which one is the only one who read the right book...you? Of course.

Job is bad literature, verbose and meandering, that is basically a huge box with a tiny, stupid little argument inside.

No more talk of boxes!

 

[xband]

You must have read the wrong book.

Wow, thats compelling. I guess that, between you and the 100s of other christian sects that all have disagreements with each other, all but one of you also read the wrong book. Let me guess which one is the only one who read the right book...you? Of course.

Job is bad literature, verbose and meandering, that is basically a huge box with a tiny, stupid little argument inside.

Give Shoulder's Cat a chance not to mention Pavlov's Dog.

 

[diver52]

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?

I'm curious. Where do you get the idea everything begins to exist? In physics we have the big bang theory in which a singularity exploded which became the universe. That is not a creation, it is a transformation. There is nothing which indicates the singularity began to exist. In fact, the lack of time in this makes the very concept of "begin" meaningless.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Baseless assertions about that which we know not.

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

Ok. What is uniformitarianism?

No....spare yourself....

 

[G.T.]

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?

I'm curious. Where do you get the idea everything begins to exist? In physics we have the big bang theory in which a singularity exploded which became the universe. That is not a creation, it is a transformation. There is nothing which indicates the singularity began to exist. In fact, the lack of time in this makes the very concept of "begin" meaningless.

ohhh gosh...you just wound the ding wind up toy back up!

 

[diver52]

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!

Hey! Some of my best friends have testosterone! Hell, I have testosterone!

 

[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!

Hey! Some of my best friends have testosterone! Hell, I have testosterone!

Some of the more psychotic sects of feminism have coined a phrase "toxic masculinity," which, when not abused or over-used, clearly applies to alotta guys when they invoke that "Grrrr!!" sorta shit.

 

[diver52]

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."

Don’t blame god for ding and jerry Falwell

Ding believes he is a future god in waiting. He will never die, live for the rest of eternity with his grandparents and never get sick sad or mad.

It’s really ridiculous isn’t it?

I dont blame god, Im being internally critical of the belief.

Id have to believe in God to blame him/her/it, for something, and Ive never been presented with a good enough justification to believe in such a thing.

I know. But if you did meet god you wouldn’t spit in his face. I would think your reaction would be shock that he really does exist. Because religions were all clearly made up.

We have to understand that humans debated gods existence long before Moses lied and said he saw god. If god exists that doesn’t mean he ever visited Moses, Mohammad, Mary or Joseph Smith

If I met the Christian God that I dont believe exists, Id explain to it the error of its ways.

If I met some other entity we might call a "God," and it wasnt THAT god, then I'd have no ill will towards it. I'd probably enjoy picking its brain, so to speak.

I would suggest that you sit yourself down and humbly read the book of JOB.

I did. It was very interesting. It is a fairly solid demonstration that God is not omniscient.

 

[Ringtone]

Guessing that you never read Spinoza?

Spinoza was a system builder who bent logic to suit his fantasies.

 

[buttercup]

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."

Don’t blame god for ding and jerry Falwell

Ding believes he is a future god in waiting. He will never die, live for the rest of eternity with his grandparents and never get sick sad or mad.

It’s really ridiculous isn’t it?

Me? No way. I'm just some guy on a computer. Nothing special about me.

Where do you go when you die?

No one knows their fate. So how can I know?

[ off topic ]

You've said that before, and as I mentioned to you before, that is not actually biblical. Please look into "assurance of salvation." I was thinking of maybe starting a new thread on this, if I have time. For believers, I think it's an interesting and important topic.

[ / off topic ]

 

[diver52]

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!

Hey! Some of my best friends have testosterone! Hell, I have testosterone!

Some of the more psychotic sects of feminism have coined a phrase "toxic masculinity," which, when not abused or over-used, clearly applies to alotta guys when they invoke that "Grrrr!!" sorta shit.

There is no such thing as "toxic masculinity". There are just assholes. That is not gender specific.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Guessing that you never read Spinoza?

Spinoza was a system builder who bent logic to suit his fantasies.

So that's why you admire him, eh?