Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

[ladsin]

I'm making this myTake just to see how well I do. I've dabbled with the idea of starting a series of posts in which I deconstruct, or give my arguments against common apologetical claims. I also debated on whether or not I should write a myTake about why this subject is so interesting to me, and why I spend so much time on it. I decided to go with this, and we'll see how it goes. Maybe I'll do the other later tonight or tomorrow.

So, what is the Cosmological Argument?

There is no One cosmological argument, but they are all tied together in that they tend to be arguments in which a god (or something of equitable value) is/ was necessary for the formation of our cosmos. One of the most frequent sayings we hear with this argument is, "ex nihilo nihil fit" from nothing, nothing comes. This argument is not new, it has been around at least since the late 300s BCE in which we see Aristotle and Plato arguing about a prime mover, first cause, etc. Some notable apologists who currently use this argument, or a form of it, are William Lane Craig and Robert Koons. Below I'll list both of their arguments and then give my response to both at once as I think they fall in the same way.

William Lane Craig

Craig uses a form of the Kalam Cosmological argument. The syllogism he uses is as follows,

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2.) The universe began to exist;Therefore:
3.) The universe has a cause.

Robert Koons

Uses a slightly different and more rigorous argument which is an argument for contingency (slightly different, but same general idea. His argument is basically:

1) Every wholly contingent fact has a cause. (facts that are partly or wholly necessary need not)

2) Applying aggregation axiom, anything of a kind k = such a thing as arrgigate of all kinds.

3) Aggreagates can't exist unless all parts exist (which means necessary aggregate must have Necessary parts, contingent aggregate must have contingent parts. The result is necessary and contingnet facts which means contingent aggregate as a whole).

4) Absolutely necessary facts cannot be caused, therefore, wholly contingent facts (those whith only contingent parts) can be caused.

5) Causal principle can be thought of as empirically supported (effects not limited to a particular region of space/time in the case of physical laws for example, :. we have reason to suspect that all contingent facts have causes).

(Quantum theory is not a case to the contrary)

7) Causes make effect probable rather than necessary.

Normally a wholly contingent situation has a cause.

8.) Experience warrants default of the causal principle in the absence of evidence to the contrary any wholly contingent situation has a cause.

The burden of proof shifts to atheist to prove why we should think of the universe as an exception just because it springs up beyond time.

10) If causes don't necessitate their effects, if cause and effect is probablistic, and after all that's what the atheist says with QM, than we must extend the probablity of the causal principle until showen some reason why we should not.

My Response:

I'm not a logician, so I won't bother with trying to get in depth finding out the errors (if any) exist within their syllogistic form. My primary objection to both arguments is that they make an unwarranted assumption. They look at our cosmos and take the principle of causation (cause and effect) and they extrapolate that therefor our cosmos must also have a cause. Causation is a necessarily temporal phenomena and as such would not have any effect on the "start" of our universe. We do not currently know exactly how our universe came into existence, and that is indeed upsetting; however, we are not then justified in making up any answer we want, and that is all that this appears to be to me. It appears to simply be wishful thinking, there's no actual attempt to demonstrate these claims.

That's the gist of my counter-argument. Summed up, there's no good reason to think that the law of causality would have any bearing on the formation of our cosmos.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.germka1Pu6OMUiN5J9lFvQEsDh&pid=Api

If you liked it, have any constructive criticisms, think I'm wrong, or just want to call me an ass, do so below and I'll try to check it out!

http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/Koons2.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

[RolandCuthbert]

I am trying to understand where you are coming from. I thought you were an atheist. But I have been running into this attempt by certain atheists to wordsmith their way to "winning the debate". This whole religion vs science thing is just for lack of a better term. . ."crap".

Religion isn't even used to answer the same questions as science. I don't go to my pastor when I want to find out how many Earth days it takes for Jupiter to go around the sun. I don't query him for the lastest advances in quantum theory.

I go to him when when I have questions about my faith. When I feel depressed or angry about something in my life.

I don't understand some atheists who wish to dismiss the importance of that or try to make it seem as though somehow religion threatens science or logic.

[ladsin]

I'm not sure if you meant that here, or on a different question... I'll address it either way though. Give me your thoughts on the MyTake when you get the chance. I'm wondering how I did, if this will be a successful venture or not. Right now it's looking like not XD

I'm an atheist. That means that I do not accept the theist proposition, "some god exists."
I do not claim that no gods exist, because I could not demonstrate that.

[ladsin]

Let's keep our conversation on your post that way we don't piss that other fellow off XD

[RolandCuthbert]

Again. . . maybe I was not clear, but even to attempt to explain God by using some logic or principle makes no sense to me. Either you "believe" in religion or you "believe" in something else. "Beliefs" are like that. You don't need concrete evidence.

As for you being an atheist, I can respect your beliefs. All I ask is for my beliefs to be respected also.

So you do not claim that God does not exist. But that the existence of God has not been proven.

It is like claiming a third answer to a yes or no question.

[ladsin]

Nope, I don't know if I've tried this with you yet, but let's try it just in case. I'll have a mock conversation so you can see my thoughts on this.
In this scenario you have a jar of marbles and ask, "Hey, Ladsin. Do you believe I have an even amount of marbles in here?" Me: "No, I don't see any reason to believe that." You: "Oh so then you must believe that there is an odd number of marbles in here huh?" Me: "No, I'm not convinced of that either."
Theists are making a claim, atheists simply do not accept that. Some make extra claims on top of that, ie No gods exist, but I think it's silly for them to do so as they unnecessarily take on a burden of proof.

[RolandCuthbert]

You simply constructed a hypothetical that supports your claim.

A direct question about your beliefs concerning God is just yes or no. You believe or you don't believe.

You create a third answer. . . I have no beliefs.

No one has a scientific test either way, to confirm God's existence or non-existence. Atheists pretend this question is even answerable using the scientific method. It isn't a testable hypothesis.

[ladsin]

What? Um no, I just told you what atheists do. They just don't agree with you. The purpose of the analogy was to show that we address one prong of an argument at a time. It is true that either a god exists, or it does not exist, but we don't address both of those issues at the same time. We can only address one prong at a time. You either accept the claim "some god exists" or you do not. I don't. If you want to convince me you're more than welcome to try. I agree that science can't address this issue, I'm just not aware of any other reliable pathway to truth.

[RolandCuthbert]

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that I care that atheists agree with me or not. The world is a big place. Disagreement is probable.

The issue is an attempt to “win” the debate. The debate is fake. Atheists claim that in order to be logical and observant of science, one cannot “believe” in God. This claim is absolutely false. It is actually illogical to pose the question to science in the first place.

As for “reliable” pathways, tell me. . . what is the “reliable” pathway to understanding what created the universe?

[ladsin]

I don't know that atheists do that, if anything Theists appear to be trying to do so far more. The argument above is one such example. The fellow went and got at least one doctorate for the express purpose of Christian apologetics. Also I'm aware of no atheists that say it is impossible to be both atheist and a good scientist or else they must throw out all the scientists of old.

Don't know, I don't think any have been demonstrated yet, although the scientific method appears to be giving us valuable insights into the issue. Lawrence Krauss' book a universe from nothing describes some of the hypotheses we are looking into, and the state of affairs within the physics community.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert Just be a good man (and I think you are) You don't really need more philosophy.

[RolandCuthbert]

You quote Dr. Lawrence Krauss but seem unaware that he identifies as a militant atheist. You have not seen Dr. Richard Dawkins mock religious beliefs in his speeches and discussions?

As for scientific insights, again. . . what scientific insights can you share about the creation of the universe?

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol I hope you think I am good person. Believe it or not Jacques, I think you are a good person.

But I also think it should be possible for us to live on this planet, without mocking each other's beliefs.

[ladsin]

I referenced a book by Dr. Krauss, yes. That doesn't mean I agree with him on everything though. I also can see where their anger comes in. For example Krauss did a speech in a Muslim country and was infuriated when they segregated the seating, women and men. Religion is a cause of much suffering in the world today. The religious (many) also consistently try influence our policies in regards to what we teach children in the science class, which is of course why scientists get angry.

[RolandCuthbert]

And this is what I run into with atheists all the time. They are not atheists because of science. Or because of the scientific method, they are atheists because they see people committing evil acts in the name of God. And as I have told several atheists here, I am sorry, so very sorry that people commit evil acts and then attach God's name. But those people are not practicing the Word.

I am a technologist by trade. I love science. I don't understand why certain religious people are afraid of it. But I think many of those people rely upon ignorance to seize and hold onto power. The more ignorant people are, the easier they are to trick and control. Science jeopardizes the control these people have wielded for centuries. Hence, the need to drive people away from it.

I understand that this country is embracing anti-intellectualism and I know it is a threat to our very existence. I could join you in that fight, if you guys would let me.

[ladsin]

Wait what? I'm an atheist because I don't think theists have met their burden of proof, not because I think religions cause a lot of evil. I was once a teaching pastor for the youth at my church, I was in an apprenticeship with one of my more senior pastors, and was preparing for seminary when I "lost my faith."
You're more than welcome to join and fight for the separation of church and state, you're more than welcome to voice your concerns about the harm that is done in the name of religion. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean we don't agree on other things.

[RolandCuthbert]

Then why mention the "evil" things that religious people do? This turns into a philosophical debate and not one based upon scientific evidence or lack thereof. It should never enter the discussion yet it always does.

And how can one join the fight against anti-intellectualism when that person's beliefs are mocked for not being "intellectual"?

People have all types of beliefs. Why do we have to accept some beliefs about creation are superior to others, when there is no scientific evidence to support any belief?

[ladsin]

Evil because you talked about Krauss, I mentioned why he's angry about religions.

Not all atheist groups are the same. Intellectualism isn't even the topic at most, it's about how to stop religious encroachment on civil liberties.

Saying I don't know is much better than saying, I know it's god...

[RolandCuthbert]

And what does that statment say? Not all religious people or even Christians are the same. Mother Teresa and Joel Osteen have two totally different approaches to being a Christian. Some folks think it means to grab as much power and wealth as possible. Others think they need to dedicate their lives to helping the poor and unfortunate.

As for saying I don't know, again. . . it is just wordsmithing.

You believe you have a purpose. Your intellectual path to discovering that purpose should not be critiqued in the domain of science. Science has no jurisdiction and should not be used to make those judgements.

And how does dismissing people based upon their religious beliefs not encroaching upon their civil liberties?

[annie616pop]

I think your thoughts about various subjects are interesting to read. I went to a Jesuit prep and took 4 years of theology, philosophy, logic, rhetoric along with the math and sciences. I was never great at posing the classical arguments and then engaging them with others but I loved listening to people discuss them. The discussions always gave me something to think about while walking home from school. So keep up the good work!

[ladsin]

Thanks 👍

[MrMysteryMan]

I believe we are too "young" as beings (human that is) to really know or understand how it all began. Like even the so called "Big Bang" theory would go against the above themes. If a big bang did happen, what was the catalyst of it? Really, like there was just a singularity and then BOOM, all this energy (and what would seem a never-ending amount) suddenly releases to form what we have as "the universe". Also, in our extreme vast knowledge of what's out there (sarcasm if you didn't figure it out), who's to say our universe is the only existence? We all know that time is just a measurement of different sorts to suit our understandings or to help in calculations we can do to a point. But there are vast amounts of information we haven't even began to touch on. Time is so abstract that it is never linear. Sort of like electricity is never linear. The universe is also never linear, so it would be kind of simple to think there is only 1 universe. Or just one linear, singular way for it to have been created.

[ladsin]

Both of the arguments above are addressing the big bang

[MrMysteryMan]

Sure, but they are even going beyond the big bang belief if they feel whatever happens it happens from something. So they can't even support their own theories.

[IncognitoArchie]

I don't necessarily think it's an argument created due to wishful thinking. For millennia, humankind has attributed the physical universe to some sort of Creator (s), so the existence of such a supernatural being is certainly not some new idea, as you know. The cosmological argument explores the plausibility of this ancient idea of there being a Creator, and it seems to make a decent argument for that idea.

I guess the questions arise from this: Is science the only way to uncover truth? Were ancient humanity's existential ideas incorrect due to their scientific illiteracy, or could they perhaps have been on to something? I would argue that science is not the only way to come to truth. For instance, you can never come to know someone's personality or past by looking at them under a microscope. Also, I don't think we can simply discount the claims of the past just because they didn't understand quantum physics.

I noticed you take issue with the idea that the universe was caused (since, you say, causation is temporal). I found this discussion on Dr. Craig's site:

www.reasonablefaith.org/.../

Perhaps you've already read it, but I think it explains pretty well why the Kalam Cosmological Argument makes that first premise.

I'd love to hear what you think! And I have to thank and compliment you for encouraging civil discussion on this topic. So rare to see these days! Please let me know if you agree / disagree / think I'm an ass as well!

[ladsin]

Cool, do you think I should keep goimg through the other arguments or just pick something else to do?
Most certainly it is an old idea, almost 2500 years that we know of, which is why I pointed out that Aristotle and Plato argued this point in antiquity. I said it I think it to be wishful thinking because every time the argument is defeated they (apologists) simply rebrand the argument, maybe adding a caveat here, or hedging an argument there, and put the same thing forward, as I've said for ~2500 years. I get frustrated with Craig because I've seen several arguments in which he's been corrected on this. Yes, our local representation of the universe came into existence at some point. However, what preceded that (of that question makes any sense) is completely unknown. I don't much care what his intuition says, because we know nothing about nothing. We especially don't know if "nothing" in the philosophical sense ever has or could exist. Again, a conundrum of language.

[ladsin]

I'm not quite certain how the question of science comes up here, but the answer would be at least as far as I know not necessarily.

Science is the single most reliable pathway to truth, or an accurate understanding of reality, but that doesn't mean it's the only one. I'm just aware of no other reliable methodology.

[IncognitoArchie]

Thanks for your response. And do whatever you'd like my friend! I think it'd be grand if you went on to discuss other arguments.

Ah, you'll have to forgive my misunderstanding. I believe that I lack sufficient knowledge to argue for the truth of premise 1 of the cosmological argument, so I will grant you that we cannot know for certain if everything existing had a cause. But what you've said raises some more questions in my mind; since you question the plausibility of the existence of the philosophical nothing, do you instead hold the belief that the physical universe existed even before the Big Bang (perhaps a quantum vacuum)? Or do you believe in some other state of existence before the Big Bang that is neither physical nor the philosophical sense of nothing? The former I believe has uncertainties of its own (perhaps I'm wrong), and the latter seems to me to be quite a stretch.

Also, I'd love to see some cases where the cosmological argument was defeated, as you say. Thanks!

[IncognitoArchie]

Ah, I had forgotten about the link you shared above. I will check out the doxa page!

[ladsin]

No worries, those last two links are just where I got their arguments from.

A good book on the physicist understanding of nothing was written by Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing: Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing. He talks about, in particular, how our understanding of nothing is wrong. If we remove everything that we know to be something, particles, atoms, every THING there is still something there. That state is in fact quite volatile. If that was the state of being prior to our big bang then it would be incredibly likely for "something" to come into existence out of it. Krauss was attacked by philosophers as not adressing their real concern of "absolute nothing" to which he responds something like, "I don't care what your concern is. My job is to get things done. To advance our field of understanding and your idea of "absolute nothing" does not appear to ever exist." I don't know what is more probable, a potential eternal multiverse? A temporal causality loop? etc

[sp33d]

4) Absolutely necessary facts cannot be caused, therefore, wholly contingent facts (those whith only contingent parts) can be caused.

What is the meaning of 'absolute necessity' and how does it specify the condition of necessity?
On what do these, supposedly contingent, facts depend on?

10) If causes don't necessitate their effects, if cause and effect is probablistic, and after all that's what the atheist says with QM, than we must extend the probablity of the causal principle until showen some reason why we should not.

That's a fancy a way of appealing to ignorance. Call for extension of probability of causal principle (what ever it even means) because... why shouldn't we?

7) Causes make effect probable rather than necessary.
No no, effect is not probabilistic by principle of causality. Effect is not only of probability 1, but it's guaranteed (a certain event, if you dabble in probability theoretic terminology). You may begin to measure probability of some more specific effect tailored to your expectations.

The arguments you pointed out are largely jargon to me and I can't find any clear description for some key notions I pointed out

Another way to appeal to ignorance would be, assuming the big bang theory is incorrect or imprecise, to explain the existence of God due to lack of explanation for 'the beginning'.

.. oh the theologists love their demagoguery :(

[sp33d]

On the extension bit. When we say we extend the probability measure, we mean we define it on a larger space than it was defined on before, which also gives us a bunch of new different events. What I don't understand and can't find out about is how a probability measure is defined on the 'space of causal principle' and to what more general space is it extended to.

[ladsin]

Anything you think I could've done better?
Contingent things are things which both could and could not exist. The argument is that our universe (what I call our cosmos) is contingent (it could also have not existed). There's a statement that all contingent things have a cause. If my pen falls it was caused by my hand releasing, back ad infinitum. He goes on to origins, if our universe (cosmos) is contingent, then there must have been some necessarily existent thing that caused it. It's a rebrand of Aquinas' old uncaused cause. He just dressed it up more with fancy philosophy lingo.
At least that's my understanding.

[sp33d]

When you initiate a sort of logical discussion it would be great if all the key notions are unanomously understood. As I pointed out, I know what a necessary condition is, but I have never come across an 'absolutely necessary condition' before (in serious literature).
I, for one, abide by classical logic, but among theologists there are many dabbling in intuitionism. It's very important to make it clear which logic you assume (for the purposes of this discussion).
For instance, a contradiction for me is not necessarely a contradiction for an intuitionist.

I understand you are only quoting what some people have said, but pay attention to much of the jargon. The primary purpose of the use of jargon (against people who aren't up to date with the meanings) is to confuse them.
Extension of probability is a mathematical notion (extension of measure and measure space, more generally). The argument involving extension of so and so is simply nonsense without further explanation.

[sp33d]

You said yourself in your own take
'My primary objection to both arguments is that they make an unwarranted assumption.'
Indeed, as you have witnessed, it's an appeal to ignorance.

You're meant to sing along like a nice choirboy, don't ask too many question :)

[ladsin]

Cool, so in the future I should maybe go off and give their definitions of terms as well. Good idea.

[curiousnorway]

It's true nobody knows what the truth is. But why I do believe in a cause is because I think that everything comes from nothing isn't more logically than everything comes from something. I think there's good arguments from both sides. So atheists do have very good arguments in my opinion and since I'm aware that I don't know everything in the world I do therefor considering me an agnostic too; an agnostic theist and not a Gnostic theist.

If I'm looking around and thinking over things written in science books I see how advanced things are. Almost everything seems like it's working in a system and that the nature law have rules. The planets in the solar system is going around in banes and every years have the same amount of days. It's not very chaotic. In addition we've the food chain and the elements to sustain life on earth. Sun, water, oxygen etc. If one element were taken away, then that system wouldn't work. It not that random and therefor it coming from an intelligent source don't need to be illogically.

I wish I could come with a better answer. But it's two reasons I can't and I would just be honest around it. First of all English aren't my first language, so I can't it well enough to understand it as well as my first language and there's many terms I'm unfamiliar with. The second is that we see it from two different perspectives and either ways convincing each others aren't as simple anyway. Even in simpler discussions where it's pro-life and pro-choice, the sides won't convince each others as easily anyway because there's arguments with good point from both sides and there's no definitive or clear answers (at least not that we know about). It's almost like the eye of the beholder since we're subjective specie.

[ladsin]

I am living proof that a person can be convinced of a differing position, so are you based on your previous beliefs.
Did you understand my point about intuition?

[curiousnorway]

I would like you to explain the intuition thing.

[ladsin]

An intuition is a quick insight that does not have proof or evidence. I will give an example to see if it will help. Say that you came to America and I passed you on the street. Perhaps I would call out, "Hey, are you from Norway?" You would respond, "Yes, I am. How did you know?" I don't know how I figured it out, so I say "I just had an intuition."
The problem with this is that our intuition is also often wrong.

In this case your intuition is that a universe could not come into existence without a god. This intuition has no evidence, and thus we have no reason to believe it to be right or wrong.

[curiousnorway]

Thanks for reply! Now I learned a new word.

[AlphaGhost]

I want you to look in to this,
Why every religion in the world agreed on one supreme being/Creater?
Why the mankind on d/f continents ends up with the same concept of Clothes and basic similarity in their culture?

For you mytake dude,
I mentioned before that, we don't even know more than 6 % of the our "definition of known universe" and you are making assumptions like that
That's why I don't like atheists, they provide the shit as the evidence. I mean we are not technological advanced enough to hold arguments.
Universe is not created by any bigbang shit cuz their is that uniformity in the creation but still unique enough.
If we look at the matter at the subatomic level, there is this "everything perfectly synchronized kind of thing" that will never be explainable by science.

I am not against you or hate you for holding an argument but I will do, if you are not capable enough to listen to anyone else but still you are better than,
.0 Iq beings here cuz you think and have ability to change and please go on this path and GoD will amaze you and you will find peace.

[ladsin]

1.) Not all religions have only one god. There are many polytheistic religions, henotheistic religions, pantheistic religions, and even some religions like the Dao in which a god is superfluous.
2.) We need clothes to survive. We don't do too well in the elements without them. We have similar cultures because we all face similar issues. Why do we die? Why is the ground shaking? Where did this storm come from that destroyed my crops?
3.) This isn't evidence, this is me disagreeing with evidence being proffered by the theists. I disagree with it for the reasons I stated in the MyTake

[AlphaGhost]

Lol, I mentioned one supreme, senior or the elder one above other minors concept (Zeus, Ra, Odin, shiva) type thing.
2) There can be thousand possible solutions to survive with out clothes and one them include the "shelter" but its kind of crazy to watch society reverse the definition of civilized worlds.
If we don't wear clothes and wear bear rags then we are fashionable but if an African can't afford one, then He is not civilized and is practically idiot.

[ladsin]

1.) You were including a henotheistic concept in there? Weird, I didn't get that, just a clarification on the Odin one though, Odin is not supreme, in fact he'll die come ragnarok. Not only that, but our planet was created from the carcass of Ymir.
2.) I don't really understand your point here. Humanity started off in hunter/ gatherer societies. It would be impossible to keep shelter while you're tracking game for miles on end.
3.) Fashion truly is a humorous thing. I don't really ascribe to it. Ie the whole tattered jeans phenomena for example. A person will spend $200 on jeans just so that they look worn in.

[AlphaGhost]

Lol about that Hunter/Gatherer concept is undergoing huge change cuz it turned out,
"Migration out of Africa theory" is false so stay tuned basis are about to change and I firmly believe that,
its Asia and probably the Middle-East cuz of presence of at-least "three cradles of Human civilization there"
Mesopotamia, Egyptian (near it) and Indus Valley civilization (the most advanced ancient civilization).

[ladsin]

There's not a question about whether or not humans were initially hunter gatherers. What you're referencing is a question about when our predecessors left Africa. Some groups likely left Africa early on, and some later. There wasn't one mass exodus.

[AlphaGhost]

Yep but I think it will update the concept of Hunters in eu and agriculture rise from the Asia.

[Belgie]

The only counter I can think of is that the universal beginning (big bang) might (just might) be an invalid assumption. There was some work done recently which spun off the idea that the inflationary period never ended, it's just not visible at the local level, that came to the conclusion that the big bang was a quantum expansion without singularity, in which case space time did not start at point but that it's impossible to know what happened before it.

I will see if I can find it but basically it argued that local inflation could prevent gravitational collapse to singularity in certain conditions.

[ladsin]

Sorry, what's that an argument against? I missed a piece of your thought process on this.

[sp33d]

@Belgie
Well, God made us think the big bang is an imprecise assumption (provided we first prove it :D )
The theologists always find a way, don't you worry about that.

[Belgie]

Not so much an argument against, just saying that your reasoning relies on causal effects not being necessary at the beginning of space/time, and there may not have been a beginning as we understand it.

You'd still be in a godless universe, just this particular line of reasoning would be based on an incorrect assumption.

[ladsin]

Oh, perhaps I worded it incorrectly. My argument was not that in fact the laws of causation did not apply at beginning of our cosmos, but rather that they have not demonstrated that to be the case. They're taking a law from within our understanding of how the cosmos works and extrapolating that to something outside. That I don't think is justifiable. I think it'd be called a category error, although I'm not sure.

[genericname85]

William Lane Craigs syllogism is actually not a good argument for the existence of god.

cause god is used as a means to explain "everything". but since:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2.) The universe began to exist;Therefore:
3.) The universe has a cause;
4.) if God exists, God has a cause
making god inadequate as universal explanation since god necessitates further explanation. the logical chain doesn't end at neither "universe" nor "god".

Robert Koons twist on the cause and effect idea "allows" a god to exist but it doesn't necessitate it. so it can't be employed as an argument in favor of god since it's a counter argument at the same time.

[genericname85]

what i'm saying is that both syllogisms render the concept of god completely useless to explain anything.

[ladsin]

They'll just say that god is the uncaused cause. Because he exists outside the universe and is thus timeless and omnipotent then he could never have come into existence, instead it must be eternal.

[genericname85]

well no that would contradict both those syllogisms, cause according to them such a thing can not exist.

[genericname85]

cause existence is bound to the perimeters of the universe. existance is not a thing outside of the universe.

[ladsin]

Well, not necessarily ie the multiverse theory.
You're right though that it brings up a lot of questions about existence.

[ladsin]

My issue is that they're just appealing to a bigger mystery to solve one mystery.

[genericname85]

the multiverse theory doesn't acknowledge existence outside of the universe. however with your second statement you're exactly right. god isn't an explanation for everything it just creates more questions that are not even there if we don't believe in god xD

i mean even IF existence was possible outside of a universe and say there was a god. who says that in that example our universe is not some kind of a a shoe carton in a mean kids drawer that he sometimes opens up and speaks intoto like "trust me i'm the only kid out here, trust only me and don't believe in others".

[ladsin]

Ah, you're using universe as the totality of existence, like it was originally meant?

[genericname85]

well multiverse theory doesn't imply there's more than one universe at one point in time. it implies that "the universe" is like a pulse. like singularity spreading out into infinite plurality and back to singularity that starts over again and again and again so by the logic of infinite time and infinite randomnes, the probability that the universe as it is now and every other imaginable outcome of our actions exists at some point on an infinite time continuum. not at one single point in time all at the same time.

[ladsin]

Well there are a few different ones. The cyclic mutli/universe makes sense to me.

[genericname85]

yeah it does to me too however it still leaves that question of "what is outside of it" xD our brain is just not able to compute "nothingness" ^^ but that's inherent to being existent so why even bother so much with it?

[ladsin]

I was talking with one fellow below about this, check out the bottom of @ManwithaConran
Where I talk about Krauss' understanding of nothing

[genericname85]

well what we concieve as "nothing" is wrong, you are right about that. cause as soon as we try to even think about "nothing", we fill it with "something" and thereby destry it.

kind of trying to explain silence with words. as soon as you utter words, you break the silence. same with nothingness.

[genericname85]

it's not our fault though, as we can't experience true nothingness so it's not a concept that our brains can process.

[ladsin]

Yeah our brains didn't evolve to contemplate these sorts of things lol

[genericname85]

even just purely the fact that our brains are "something" xD even the fact that you are "something" makes it entirely impossible to ever process "nothing" as even your singular entity fills the nothingness with something.

we know the concept but we'll never understand.

[TheHolyDarkness]

Ah yes. The Cosmological Argument for God. I remembered I thought it was the ultimate "ah ha, so God does exist!" Argument.

Then I learned about the Double Slit experiment and it's implications on Idealism versus Naturalism.

...

Dude. None of this matters. We're not even really here.

[ladsin]

What's the double split expirement?

[TheHolyDarkness]

YouTube the following: Quantum Mechanics Debunks Materialism.

Watch the first video that pops up and it's assorted videos.

See how far the rabbit hole goes.

[ladsin]

I'm watching another video, is it about quantum weirdness, like quarks popping in and out of existence?

[0112358]

The idea of a universe popping into existence makes my brain melt.
If some extra-universe entity created it that would make that problem go away... by kicking it back a level to 'where'd that entity come from?"

turtles all the way down I imagine.

[ladsin]

My answer is that we simply don't know yet, but that presupposing the laws of the universe would apply outside the universe is silly.

[jacquesvol]

" they tend to be arguments in which a god (or something of equitable value) is/ was necessary for the formation of our cosmos. "
And what was necesary for the creation of gods?
https://i.imgur.com/Zz3XChe.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Yl1Pk7W.jpg

[ladsin]

Haha.
Did you read all the way through? Any pointers to make it better if I decide to go on with them?

[jacquesvol]

There's no reason the Universe wouldn't be some kind of perpetuum mobile.

[jacquesvol]

For me the existence or non existence of gods is a question without importance: some people are happier with that belief, some are unhappy because of it. I just don't care about its existence. I care more about the people unhappy because of their belief.

[ladsin]

Cool

[jacquesvol]

Two people I liked committed suicide because of their belief. (NO, no muslims! RC )

[Dargil]

I was a believer before I read this.
You are preaching to the choir.
old.ubyssey.ca/.../Choir-Preach2014-11-24-1.jpg

[ladsin]

I hope not, and even if I am, I've asked my flock to point out some criticisms so I can get better. Any ideas?

[ManwithaConran]

Depends which universe in the multiverse we reside in. The multiverse is a very sound theory though if it is accurate, then our god (s) in theory one of millions of Gods... who could theory all have a god of their own, who created all of them. Or there is no such thing as a god. personally I find it a bit academic. He (or she) isn't going to come down here and spill the beans and more than an elephant has a philosophical discussing with ants...

[ladsin]

The multiverse is interesting.

[ManwithaConran]

they really need to sort out this predictive text on here. Since when was "discussion" correctly spelled "discussing"

[ladsin]

Hmm?

[ManwithaConran]

There was a documentary about the theory of mutiverses and the existing evidence to support their existence (or instance. It was very interesting... can't remember the documentary title but I think it was one of the BBC HORIZONS ones, but here's an article worth reading...

www.google.co.uk/.../

[ladsin]

I'll check it out. I'm a fan of Lawrence Krauss and he showed that the mathematical models appear to be pointing to the probability of a multiverse. He doesn't like it, but said it doesn't matter what he likes.

I don't know what the multiverse would have to do with the god proposition though.

[ManwithaConran]

Krauss is credible but is let down by his propensity to come to a conclusion before the facts are proved, then get upset when the evidence proves he was wrong. he's not the only one though. Aristarchus Of Samos predicted the earth orbited the sun 1800 years before Copernicus but didn't shout about it. Given the punishments for heresy back then, I guess his Eureka moment was more a case of "Yeeeaahhhoh shit - better keep that quiet".

[ladsin]

The early romans knew a lot, and we had to recover a lot of their old knowledge (like the distance to the moon, that the earth was a sphere etc)
Can you think of an example about Krauss?

[ManwithaConran]

It is a common criticism levied at him, when his arguments are disproven or challenged he tends to go off-topic or start a philosophical discussion (which is ironic given he claims philosophy has no value):

blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../

I can't help thinking he looks like Clark Griswold. Irrelevant but interesting. Eh Russ...

[ladsin]

Oh, so this is an issue that I see, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but to me it seems as though people aren't listening to his argument. He's said multiple times that he's not talking about the philosopher's definition of "nothing." He says that he doesn't care about the philosopher's definition of nothing, because they tend to basically define it (particularly in the god discussion) as nothing, except for a god which could create the universe. He says that's not what he's adressing, and that what he's trying to popularize is that what we conceive of as "nothing" may actually be wrong. He points out that in fact the vast majority of our universe, 96% if recall correctly, is made up of dark matter. Dark matter is "nothing" there's no particles, no atoms, no matter. It is devoid of everything that we know to be something, yet it is unstable, out of this "nothing" things pop into existence all the time, like protons.
Does that make sense?

[goaded]

What bothers me about their argument is that it's attributing intent and/or intelligence (Godhood) to the prime mover/first cause, and that just shoves the problem back to what caused God to exist in the first place.

They should then have to prove that that god cares what people do in their bedrooms.

[ladsin]

This is just an argument to get to a deistic notion of god, but I agree that their subsequent attempts to ascribe consciousness and intentionality make it that much more improbable

[Waffles731]

The whole thing is an utter and complete mindful
Pick an origin theory. Either way you're left assuming something has always existed, unchanged, with no beginning or end.

Atheism/Naturalism: constant = matter + force
Alternately: The universe mathed itself into existence, because why the hell not.
Creation (Biblical): constant = God
Theist Evolution: constant = all of the above or God first then creating matter and force for the heck of it
Pantheism: constant = God + matter + force, all of which are one and the same
Panentheism : Uhhh...
Its why I try to respect peoples beliefs because I honestly think both are equally valid schools of thought

[ladsin]

Why do you think both are equally valid. Atheism is, "I don't know" and theists are, "I know, and it's god."
Atheism doesn't presuppose philosophical naturalism.

[RolandCuthbert]

So does science support atheism?

[ladsin]

@RolandCuthbert atheism isn't a belief system. Atheism has no tenets, no creeds, no positive beliefs of any kind. Is simply the rejection of someone else's assertion. Particularly on the basis that is hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated. Science and atheism are compatible, and I think utilizing the scientific method would inevitably lead you to the conclusion that theist claims have not been demonstrated.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, that's not atheism. That's the no belief system.

I have not met the atheist who does not "believe" in science.

As for science "demonstrating" that religion has not proven to be right, religion does not honor the scientific method. It does not the ability to.

[ladsin]

@RolandCuthbert you're right. Atheism isn't a belief system. It's not a worldview. Some atheists believe in souls, some believe aliens are coming to earth and abducting others, some believe that the earth is flat etc. The only binding thing between atheists is that they do not accept the theistic claim. Otherwise an atheist can believe anything.

[RolandCuthbert]

Why do you believe we would piss people off?

And I submit that it is a belief. I think you just disproved your own assertion. Right, atheists believe. . . well yeah. . . they are humans.

[askaway2012new]

Kalam Cosmological argument is an argument made by a Muslim jurist, and philosopher, Abû Ḥamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), he explained it in details in his famous book (The Incoherence of the Philosophers).

Reading the origine source is, always, better than listening to Craig.

[ladsin]

It would still fall in the same way no?

[askaway2012new]

Yeah, Craig is a Christian, Al Ghazali was a muslim, both of them believe in the Creator, but with a different concept. What matters when someone makes an argument for the existence of God is the concept of that god. So Craig would contradict his beliefs (the concept of God) if he explains the argument of Al Ghazali in details.

Al Ghazali in his book refuted even some arguments that were made to prove the existence of God. The reason that made Ibn Rushd, Averroes, wrote his book (The Incoherence of The Incoherence) in 12th century.

[ladsin]

I may look into it!

[WiggleWasser]

Good opinion. I typically discount those arguments because there are a waste of time. Basically, if everything has a beginning, where was God's beginning. if William Lane Craig claims his God has existed forever, we can say the same about the universe.

William Lane Craig also has this ridiculous argument that his God exists outside of reality. Well, if something exists outside of reality then it doesn't exist IN reality.

[ladsin]

Yeah, they call god the uncaused cause, but it just seems like a lot of baseless assertions to me.

[anastar]

there was no time, god created the time, the universe , god created the concept of starting and ending.

[ladsin]

@anastar cool assertion, can you demonstrate it?

[anastar]

If I was to demonstrate it then everyone would believe and then there would be no more tests. This is the test to believe without seeing god even though we have some evidences for those who see them. Now , you might not agree I understand that

[WiggleWasser]

@anastar O----Kay then.

[ladsin]

@anastar that you can see something and not deem it worthy of worship? Of course I disagree with that. Also what kind of test-maker would make the passing grade whether or not you could believe something on insufficient evidence?

[anastar]

you have the evidence but only the true believers think about it and believe

[ladsin]

@anastar you just said it couldn't be demonstrated. You can't both say theirs sufficient evidence and there's not.

[anastar]

I'm not very good at English so maybe I've used the wrong words. There is the evidence for people who think but people can't see god for example. It's like a problem. Because if people were to see the god then all would believe it and there would be no test in faith , patience etc.

[ladsin]

@anastar You must be, and I still do not know how to clarify. Evidence is not just up to choice. If I want to provide evidence of gravity to you, I can drop a pen. We would both agree that the pen fell. That is evidence, it is not subject to personal beliefs.
Why would god demand faith? Normally only con men do that.

[anastar]

I'm not saying that god does what con men do. If people were to enter hell or paradise after god created them some people would say: Why are you making us enter into hell? (God knows what he has created so he knows that some people are good and some are bad but to be just to the people makes them live in earth so they could prove that. People make a promise to god and they know that when they will be born they will not remember the promise but will have some facts , messengers etc. I hope this would clarify but if it doesn't okay I don't know everything. :) Have a good day

[ladsin]

@anastar oh, so I'm destined to hell no matter what? Do you think that's moral?

[anastar]

No if you do good things you go in paradise. If you're a bad person you might change. Also some good people might change and become bad too. You have the will to choose between alternatives given to you. But god knows everything he predicts what you're going to do. He knows that since he created the humans. You can never understand how god thinks because he knows so much more than the creatures he created. Do a good thing to prove that you have will then do a bad thing if you want to but I don't advice that. A good thing is for example :just greeting a friend with a smile. That is a good thing. :) see? :) :) :D

[ladsin]

@anastar I do lots of good things, so according to your belief I am going to heaven just because I do good? Does not that make belief superfluous?

[Deathraider]

Great take. I mean I've faced these before and found the flaws in them.

[ladsin]

What should I have done better?

[Deathraider]

Ask if God has a cause. If so, then it could go infinitely back. If not, ask why they assume the Big Bang couldn't be an initial cause.

And here's something else. Ask why they assert their God is true.

[ladsin]

Cool, thanls

[Anonymous]

GOD is real you don't have a choice in the matter your feelings mean nothing

Job 37:18
hast thou with him spread out the sky which is strong and as a molten looking glass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4

[Anonymous]

ANYONE READING THIS YOUTUBE IT

Job 37:18
hast thou with him spread out the sky which is strong and as a molten looking glass

(ROCKET HITS DOME) YOUTUBE

[Sexy_Steve]

An eternal Creator makes far more sense then a universe coming from nothing. Atheists are not interested in truth, they just hate God because of their love for sin.

[goaded]

I do love a good sin, but I don't hate God any more than you hate fairies.

[ladsin]

How do you know it makes more sense? Are you privy to some information that I'm not?

[Sexy_Steve]

@goaded So you are admitting that sin exists? lol