Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Cosmological Argument

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance
2. the universe is a contingently existing thing
3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance
4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being
5. therefore, God exists

What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 1:59:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance
Something has an explanation if it is explained. That which is not known, yet does exist, is not explained, and so there is no explanation for that unknown existing thing.

But still, if you claim like that provide evidence too.
2. the universe is a contingently existing thing
It is uncertainly existing? Um... Or under certain conditions? Still um...

Please provide evidence. But yeah... you can't provide evidence for something you cannot know.
3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance
So far the "big bang".

4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being
And evidence is where? All I see is you claiming this and that. Where's the evidence?
What do you base these claims on?

5. therefore, God exists
Fallacious logic. Not really logic is it? Logic is logic, this is just pure delusional nonsense.

What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.
As I've seen said elsewhere by someone - "Obvious troll is obvious." Or something like that.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 2:02:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:59:15 AM, nummi wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance
Something has an explanation if it is explained. That which is not known, yet does exist, is not explained, and so there is no explanation for that unknown existing thing.

But still, if you claim like that provide evidence too.
2. the universe is a contingently existing thing
It is uncertainly existing? Um... Or under certain conditions? Still um...

Please provide evidence. But yeah... you can't provide evidence for something you cannot know.
3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance
So far the "big bang".

4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being
And evidence is where? All I see is you claiming this and that. Where's the evidence?
What do you base these claims on?

5. therefore, God exists
Fallacious logic. Not really logic is it? Logic is logic, this is just pure delusional nonsense.

What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.
As I've seen said elsewhere by someone - "Obvious troll is obvious." Or something like that.

I was hoping for a proper response, not someone still saying "F-CK YOU MOM, I'M NOT GOING TO CHURCH!"
jopo
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:26:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance
2. the universe is a contingently existing thing
3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance
4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being
5. therefore, God exists

What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.:

Ultimately I do believe in the existence of God, that's just my personal belief. However, I don't like the first cause of this argument because it is overly inductive which, while I find inductive reasoning good for formulating observations and research questions, I don't find it carries enough weight of proof with it. For example, say every day of my life that I went to class I had a teacher start of class by taking attendance; from this I could draw the idea that my classes had always started with attendance (1) - yet this is limited by my experience. Thus I could assume that my class tomorrow would start with a teacher taking attendance, fairly reasonable - but not sure. However, it is hard to extrapolate from this into a hard fact - it would be foolish if I, based only on this knowledge, informed you that every class you took for the rest of your life would start with attendance. When you consider the whole of not only our world and the universe and how truly limited human experience with it is, I find it hard to solidly deduce that we as a species can come to any hard fast rules about the universe, such as every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existence, since we haven't explored them all. Do I think that this is a reasonable assumption? Yes. And this is an instance where I turn to the idea of Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions (as I understand it) - the scientific community has paradigms it is founded upon from which we structure our work; however, these paradigms are ultimately flawed. At some point reality will clash with these as experimentation reveals their limits and new paradigms will be structured. While these paradigms are understandably flawed (it would be presumptive to state we completely grasp the functions of the universe), scientists do need a ground work to build up from, there need to be some assumptions that we extrapolate from. This relates back to our topic in that the idea you suppose is one that, to my knowledge we have not disproved (every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existence - though I might rephrase it slightly, again since I don't thing we have explored the exact origin of every contingently existing thing) thus it serves as almost a paradigm; while we cannot guarantee it is true, we can operate from it and extract ideas. Ultimately, to me I wouldn't say that the logic you present is 100% proof of the existence of God; however, I do think it serves as a spring board from which we can explore ideas, conduct thought experiments, etc.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 11:25:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance

Even necessary things have an explanation for their existence (the fact that they are necessary grounds and explains their existence). As Leibniz said:

"Everything that exists will have an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause."

So, even necessary things have explanations. However, there is no reason to think brute facts are impossible either.

2. the universe is a contingently existing thing

If it is contingent, that means it could have not existed, or is dependent. Why believe these things?

3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance

Perhaps, or, maybe it is a brute fact:

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being

This assumes the previous premises are true.

5. therefore, God exists

This is a non-sequitur. Why would this necessary thing have to be God?


What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.

Not really. You need to show that this necessarily existing thing is a sentient being for one.
Zogen
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 3:35:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance
2. the universe is a contingently existing thing
3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance
4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being
5. therefore, God exists


1) Why can the universe itself not be an exception
3) There are several, scientific and religious
4) This is a bit assumptive
5) Flawed and non-inclusive argument, conclusion does not follow
Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand (Karl Marx).
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 4:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 11:25:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance

Even necessary things have an explanation for their existence (the fact that they are necessary grounds and explains their existence). As Leibniz said:

"Everything that exists will have an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause."

So, even necessary things have explanations. However, there is no reason to think brute facts are impossible either.

2. the universe is a contingently existing thing

If it is contingent, that means it could have not existed, or is dependent. Why believe these things?


But the universe could have existed in a different form, correct?

I'd guess you'd say that the universe exists necessarily in some form right?

3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance

Perhaps, or, maybe it is a brute fact:

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being

This assumes the previous premises are true.

5. therefore, God exists

This is a non-sequitur. Why would this necessary thing have to be God?


What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.

Not really. You need to show that this necessarily existing thing is a sentient being for one.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 4:11:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 11:25:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance

Even necessary things have an explanation for their existence (the fact that they are necessary grounds and explains their existence). As Leibniz said:

"Everything that exists will have an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause."

So, even necessary things have explanations. However, there is no reason to think brute facts are impossible either.

2. the universe is a contingently existing thing

If it is contingent, that means it could have not existed, or is dependent. Why believe these things?


Also, isn't it conceivable for the universe to not have existed? Or does this beg the question?

3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance

Perhaps, or, maybe it is a brute fact:

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being

This assumes the previous premises are true.

5. therefore, God exists

This is a non-sequitur. Why would this necessary thing have to be God?


What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.

Not really. You need to show that this necessarily existing thing is a sentient being for one.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 5:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 4:09:55 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/27/2013 11:25:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance

Even necessary things have an explanation for their existence (the fact that they are necessary grounds and explains their existence). As Leibniz said:

"Everything that exists will have an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause."

So, even necessary things have explanations. However, there is no reason to think brute facts are impossible either.

2. the universe is a contingently existing thing

If it is contingent, that means it could have not existed, or is dependent. Why believe these things?


But the universe could have existed in a different form, correct?


I'd guess you'd say that the universe exists necessarily in some form right?

That is a possibility. Even if the universe could have been different, that wouldn't negate that it was necessary in some form.


3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance

Perhaps, or, maybe it is a brute fact:

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being

This assumes the previous premises are true.

5. therefore, God exists

This is a non-sequitur. Why would this necessary thing have to be God?


What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.

Not really. You need to show that this necessarily existing thing is a sentient being for one.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 5:56:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 4:11:35 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/27/2013 11:25:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance

Even necessary things have an explanation for their existence (the fact that they are necessary grounds and explains their existence). As Leibniz said:

"Everything that exists will have an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause."

So, even necessary things have explanations. However, there is no reason to think brute facts are impossible either.

2. the universe is a contingently existing thing

If it is contingent, that means it could have not existed, or is dependent. Why believe these things?


Also, isn't it conceivable for the universe to not have existed? Or does this beg the question?

Well, it is conceivable for God not to exist as well. Why a necessary God? Why not nothing?


3. the universe has an explanation of it's existance

Perhaps, or, maybe it is a brute fact:

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. the most likely explanation of the origin of physical reality is a necessarily existant being

This assumes the previous premises are true.

5. therefore, God exists

This is a non-sequitur. Why would this necessary thing have to be God?


What do people think of these and other arguments from first cause? I think they are the most convincing arguments for God, myself, because they naturally reveal certain crucial aspects of God, which other inferences do not reveal.

Not really. You need to show that this necessarily existing thing is a sentient being for one.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:04:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Either way, I believe space and time are not fundemental now anyway. So, if you define the universe as spacetime as we know it and its contents; I would have to say the universe is not necessary on scientific grounds.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:19:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:22:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. every contingently existing thing has an explanation of its existance

"1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

1.1 Incredulity. This premise is derived by induction from everyday experience with ordinary objects that we sense. Based upon our everyday experience we might also conclude that there is no upper limit to the speed at which objects can travel or that space itself cannot be curved. Those claims were proved wrong by Einstein's theories, and Einstein has been proved correct."

http://www.debate.org...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12