Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Cosmological Argument

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:44:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The universe is defined as, "The whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated; the totality of everything that exists"

It really doesn't take much thought to see why the cosmological argument is nonsensical.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:19:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:44:20 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is defined as, "The whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated; the totality of everything that exists"

It really doesn't take much thought to see why the cosmological argument is nonsensical.

That is a "dated" definition.
Existence is properly defined as everything that exists.
The Universe is properly defined through science as everything that is physical within this plane.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Universe
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Besides you should be educated enough to know the difference.
You are just arguing symantics.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:32:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Look, you think that numbers are uncaused.

How arrogant you are. You know nothing of what you speak of, and you insult everyone with your bullsh!t.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:34:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

okay, so if God can be "uncaused" (the stupidest word I have ever read), then why can't the universe be uncaused?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:50:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

Premise 2 is flawed I think. For something to be caused, implies casuality i.e. time. Seeing as we now know time to be a fundamental part of the fabric of the universe, it doesn't seem logical to argue that it exists independent of the universe. From this, time could not exist prior to the universe, making the universe effectively uncaused after all.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:02:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

Hello Gileandos. I have enjoyed reading your debates, especially the one where you argue that the gospels are legit. You seem to be a good debater who can make a strong case in favor of the cosmological argument.

I have a question for you. Here is a possible discussion:
Q: If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and nothing can exist forever, then what about God? How can he be a causeless cause? Isn't that contradictory?
A: God did not begin to exist.
Q: Then he exists forever? Wait... you just said that nothing exists forever.
A: God is outside of time, so he does not exist forever or have a beginning.
Q: Then how do you know that God is the only thing outside of time that can cause our particular universe to exist? What if this first cause was in fact a non-person?

Here is an example:

Apologician tries to justify the need for a personal cause shortly thereafter, arguing that the timelessness of a pre-universe state necessitates a personal agent because only personal causes can be timeless and create temporal effects. This is an unsupported assertion and I have no need or desire to grant it.

Just because we cannot access events which happened prior to the big bang, outside our time frame, does not mean that that no events happened and nothing changed [3]. There very well could have been time involved, just not our time in our time-frame. Even if we accept that timelessness necessitates a personal cause, Apologician hasn't demonstrated timelessness.

However, there's no need to accept that. Apologician gives no supporting arguments to his assertion that timelessness requires a personal agent, asserting that if the cause was impersonal it would not have happened, but not supporting that view.

Perhaps Apologician addresses this in his phrase "Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time." I find this grammaticality and semantically incoherent and believe it must be the result of an error while typing. If Apologician would like to correct this, I will be happy to reply in Round 2. Until then, the argument for a personal cause based on timelessness can be dismissed.
http://www.debate.org...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 11:17:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:19:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:44:20 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is defined as, "The whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated; the totality of everything that exists"

It really doesn't take much thought to see why the cosmological argument is nonsensical.

That is a "dated" definition.
Existence is properly defined as everything that exists.
The Universe is properly defined through science as everything that is physical within this plane.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Universe
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Besides you should be educated enough to know the difference.
You are just arguing symantics.

If we define the universe as everything only in the physical plane then the cosmological argument effectively becomes worthless. Because if the universe is not defined as all of everything that exists, it is only the physical plane which is part of what exists, then to assume that there was nothing before the creation of the universe is a fallacy. Essentially, the cause for the physical universe no longer needs to be necessary or timeless, it just needs to be something in existence outside the physical universe.

A more pressing question is, how did everything that exists begin? Has everything that exists existed for infinity?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 11:26:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 11:28:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:34:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

okay, so if God can be "uncaused" (the stupidest word I have ever read), then why can't the universe be uncaused?

Because, because, because, because.... erm... because of the wonderful wizard of oz!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:21:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:34:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

okay, so if God can be "uncaused" (the stupidest word I have ever read), then why can't the universe be uncaused?

Good question.
The Axiom goes that everything physical has a cause.
The Meta-physical is recognized as something beyond physical.

We can test the nature of an object with a simple concept.

If the great heat death of the universe happens does the number four still exist?
Most who are practiced at abstract thinking will assent it does.
Can you go to war with the number four?
Can you hurt it? Can you diminish it in anyway?

Hopefully you get the idea.

To understand causeless, we can cause other physical things to come into existence via cause and effect.

We cannot cause numbers to come into existence.
These for all practical purposes they are causeless.

A metaphysical sentience like a Mind would have these same properties as well.

Whether you agree with me or not, we can at least clearly concieve of such a being that meets all of the claims of Christian God.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:22:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:31:36 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Gil, I stand by my definition.

If you find the Cosmological argument convincing, you are moronic, and I'm not going to waste my time debating this with willfully ignorant(possibly a poe) fool such as yourself.

It is a terrible argument.

Did you know that an ad hominem is a fallacy?

You did not say why it was a terrible argument. You just attacked me.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:23:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:32:53 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Look, you think that numbers are uncaused.

How arrogant you are. You know nothing of what you speak of, and you insult everyone with your bullsh!t.

Have you ever seen a number value be caused?

You could prove I know nothing of what I speak with a single example.

BTW, why do you prefer insults over a valid argument?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:37:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At the time, I felt like insulting you. I don't take you for being a very honest fellow, and I'd probably debate you seriously if I felt there was even a chance of it being worthwhile.

The Cosmological Argument is a terrible argument, there seem to be two topics created on the subject a week, and even if we use your redefined definition of universe, it is still a presumptuous argument.

It's a sh!tty argument, it has been beaten to death, and no one cares.

Most of that was directed at the OP I guess, but no hate intended.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 12:57:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:50:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

Premise 2 is flawed I think. For something to be caused, implies casuality i.e. time. Seeing as we now know time to be a fundamental part of the fabric of the universe, it doesn't seem logical to argue that it exists independent of the universe. From this, time could not exist prior to the universe, making the universe effectively uncaused after all.

Interesting point:

Since we do not have a complete theory of everything and no clear picture of time, any theory we use is a practical one.

Scientific theory does not necessitate that non-physical time started at the Big Bang, but that physical time (time as it relates to us) was generated at this point.

We can understand this through numerical values. They interact within physical time but are unaffected by physical time itself. It is a one way affect.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 1:13:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 12:21:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:34:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

okay, so if God can be "uncaused" (the stupidest word I have ever read), then why can't the universe be uncaused?

Good question.
The Axiom goes that everything physical has a cause.
The Meta-physical is recognized as something beyond physical.

We can test the nature of an object with a simple concept.

If the great heat death of the universe happens does the number four still exist?
Most who are practiced at abstract thinking will assent it does.
Can you go to war with the number four?
Can you hurt it? Can you diminish it in anyway?

Hopefully you get the idea.

To understand causeless, we can cause other physical things to come into existence via cause and effect.

We cannot cause numbers to come into existence.
These for all practical purposes they are causeless.

A metaphysical sentience like a Mind would have these same properties as well.

Whether you agree with me or not, we can at least clearly concieve of such a being that meets all of the claims of Christian God.

I would like to challenge the idea that everything physical has a cause. What if some physical things exist outside of time? Then it could be causeless.

And how are you defining the physical? And who says that all things that are non-physical are intelligent?

Numbers are ideas that exist because of the logical systems that we have created. They are real because they are logical, and logic is universal, and so they exist in very possible world.

To say that God exists just by his very nature, like numbers, is a huge assumption. Indeed that is something you have yet to prove. And if a being can exist logically by his very nature, then why not objects or physical laws?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 2:52:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 11:17:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:19:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:44:20 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is defined as, "The whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated; the totality of everything that exists"

It really doesn't take much thought to see why the cosmological argument is nonsensical.

That is a "dated" definition.
Existence is properly defined as everything that exists.
The Universe is properly defined through science as everything that is physical within this plane.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Universe
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Besides you should be educated enough to know the difference.
You are just arguing symantics.

If we define the universe as everything only in the physical plane then the cosmological argument effectively becomes worthless.

I do not understand why you would state this.
KCA is clearly only dealing with the physical and not the entirety of existence as God is outside the physical universe and metaphysical objects are outside the physical universe.

"The simplest form of mathematical empiricism claims that mathematical objects are just ordinary physical objects, i.e. that squares and the like physically exist. Plato rejected this view, among other reasons, because geometrical figures in mathematics have a perfection that no physical instantiation can capture. Modern mathematicians have developed many strange and complex mathematical structures with no counterparts in observable reality, further undermining this view."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A study under metaphysicists will net a more clear understanding of the philosophy we are discussing.

Because if the universe is not defined as all of everything that exists, it is only the physical plane which is part of what exists, then to assume that there was nothing before the creation of the universe is a fallacy.

The assumption is clearly that there was nothing physical prior to the generation of the physical universe.
God and numerical values are claimed to exist prior to the physical universe.
This is not fallacious but a lack of common ground on philosophical definitions.


A more pressing question is, how did everything that exists begin? Has everything that exists existed for infinity?

Everything that is defined as eternal and causeless like God and mathematics/numerical values etc, has always existed.
Nothing physical has shown to have these qualities.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:21:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 12:02:20 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

Hello Gileandos. I have enjoyed reading your debates, especially the one where you argue that the gospels are legit. You seem to be a good debater who can make a strong case in favor of the cosmological argument.

Thank you.


I have a question for you. Here is a possible discussion:
Q: If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and nothing can exist forever, then what about God? How can he be a causeless cause? Isn't that contradictory?
A: God did not begin to exist.
I would expand the answer with a correction to the question. Everything physical has a cause. Currently science postulates that energy is everlasting (defined as having a starting point but no end point). Though it tends to become a less usable form it does not get destroyed.

Q: Then he exists forever? Wait... you just said that nothing exists forever.
Nothing physical is uncaused, though science postulates energy is everlasting.

A: God is outside of time, so he does not exist forever or have a beginning.
God is outside physical time as it is relative to us. God is a metaphysical being and like any metaphysical object is outside of physical time (defined as time relative to us.) He was causeless as all metaphysical objects have no cause.

Q: Then how do you know that God is the only thing outside of time that can cause our particular universe to exist? What if this first cause was in fact a non-person?
The Teleological argument in its complete form deals with this.
As pure chance cannot generate anything by itself, we see that a metaphysical object would need to create the universe.
The numerical value of four for example creates nothing. The only metaphysical object we can prove that creates is a Mind. We see that as our minds create.

That allows for proof that only one type of metaphysical objects indeed creates. That leaves the question if that Mind used chance or designed the universe.


Here is an example:

Apologician tries to justify the need for a personal cause shortly thereafter, arguing that the timelessness of a pre-universe state necessitates a personal agent because only personal causes can be timeless and create temporal effects. This is an unsupported assertion and I have no need or desire to grant it.

I am not certian of your entire line of reasoning above, but I have already stated above what the line of reasoning is after KCA.


Just because we cannot access events which happened prior to the big bang, outside our time frame, does not mean that that no events happened and nothing changed [3]. There very well could have been time involved, just not our time in our time-frame. Even if we accept that timelessness necessitates a personal cause, Apologician hasn't demonstrated timelessness.

Again, this would not be the terminology or approach used by theists.
I have stated above the proper approach.

However, there's no need to accept that. Apologician gives no supporting arguments to his assertion that timelessness requires a personal agent, asserting that if the cause was impersonal it would not have happened, but not supporting that view.

I gave the supporting arguments for non-physical metaphysical cause above. We know of only one metaphysical object that creates and does not need the physical universe to exist. That is properly a Mind. We ourselves have a mind as proof of a non-physical object creating.


Perhaps Apologician addresses this in his phrase "Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time." I find this grammaticality and semantically incoherent and believe it must be the result of an error while typing. If Apologician would like to correct this, I will be happy to reply in Round 2. Until then, the argument for a personal cause based on timelessness can be dismissed.

I do not understand what is incoherent about the quotation.
Transcend = above/outside
So the cause is above/outside of both matter and time.

This is necessarily the case as both matter and time were created by this cause.
It is logically incoherent to suggest that space and time created itself or a being or object contained within space and time generated space and time after it was generated within space and time.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:24:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 11:26:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.

All metaphysical objects have the property of being uncaused.
Nothing else metaphysical besides a Mind has the ability to create.
Hence, we can see through empircal evidence that only a Mind could have created the Universe.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:29:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 12:37:26 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At the time, I felt like insulting you. I don't take you for being a very honest fellow, and I'd probably debate you seriously if I felt there was even a chance of it being worthwhile.

I shake my head at this response. You wig out at random and then "skunk the jury" of readers by attacking my personal integrity with hearsay.


The Cosmological Argument is a terrible argument, there seem to be two topics created on the subject a week, and even if we use your redefined definition of universe, it is still a presumptuous argument.

Actually it is a syllogism based upon proven axioms. Only a presuppositional belief of naturalism would refute the axiom.


It's a sh!tty argument, it has been beaten to death, and no one cares.

Then do not read the forum post. I skip many that do not interest me. I do not get on and make hearsay accusations about the atheists character on the forum when I do not like the subject.


Most of that was directed at the OP I guess, but no hate intended.

Ok.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:32:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.


Lol?

Some abstract objects such as numbers or certain truths of logic are uncaused.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:33:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 3:29:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Actually it is a syllogism based upon proven axioms. Only a presuppositional belief of naturalism would refute the axiom.

I call bullsh!t.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:39:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 3:32:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.


Lol?

Some abstract objects such as numbers or certain truths of logic are uncaused.

then why can't the universe be?
signature
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:40:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 1:13:51 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/20/2011 12:21:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:34:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

okay, so if God can be "uncaused" (the stupidest word I have ever read), then why can't the universe be uncaused?

Good question.
The Axiom goes that everything physical has a cause.
The Meta-physical is recognized as something beyond physical.

We can test the nature of an object with a simple concept.

If the great heat death of the universe happens does the number four still exist?
Most who are practiced at abstract thinking will assent it does.
Can you go to war with the number four?
Can you hurt it? Can you diminish it in anyway?

Hopefully you get the idea.

To understand causeless, we can cause other physical things to come into existence via cause and effect.

We cannot cause numbers to come into existence.
These for all practical purposes they are causeless.

A metaphysical sentience like a Mind would have these same properties as well.

Whether you agree with me or not, we can at least clearly concieve of such a being that meets all of the claims of Christian God.

I would like to challenge the idea that everything physical has a cause. What if some physical things exist outside of time? Then it could be causeless.

Sure give an example. I have given an examples of metaphysical objects that are uncaused. We have zero examples of metaphysical objects that have a cause.
We have a zillion of physical examples of physical objects that ALL have a cause.

You would need to give an example of an uncaused physical object. Realize that an extraordinary claim that goes against everything known must have extraordinary evidence to support it. It could not be a one off possibility to deny the Axiom validly.


And how are you defining the physical? And who says that all things that are non-physical are intelligent?

Physical is properly matter contained within all spatial dimensions of the universe. Things that can be interacted with via physical means.

A metaphysical mind is an example of a non-physical intelligence.


Numbers are ideas that exist because of the logical systems that we have created. They are real because they are logical, and logic is universal, and so they exist in very possible world.

Plato and I would disagree. I believe I quoted this for you earlier but here it is again.
"The simplest form of mathematical empiricism claims that mathematical objects are just ordinary physical objects, i.e. that squares and the like physically exist. Plato rejected this view, among other reasons, because geometrical figures in mathematics have a perfection that no physical instantiation can capture. Modern mathematicians have developed many strange and complex mathematical structures with no counterparts in observable reality, further undermining this view."

Plato's Shadow world is fantastic and matches conceptual 4th dimensional space over 2,000 years ago. A true phenomenal thinker.


To say that God exists just by his very nature, like numbers, is a huge assumption. Indeed that is something you have yet to prove. And if a being can exist logically by his very nature, then why not objects or physical laws?

Not an assumption. We have our own Mind as a clear example of a non-physical object that exists just like numerical values.

The second part in the form of question does not flow, but I believe it to already have been answered.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:42:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 3:39:16 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/20/2011 3:32:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.


Lol?

Some abstract objects such as numbers or certain truths of logic are uncaused.

then why can't the universe be?

Because it's not a necessary entity. And, plus, cosmological arguments such as Aquinas's don't even depend on the universe being caused. Aquinas granted the that the universe could be uncaused and he still could use his argument from contingency.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:43:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 3:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/20/2011 11:26:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/19/2011 11:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:28:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Remember, this is not a debate about the teleological argument, it is about the cosmological argument.

What created God then?

God need not have a creator. He is uncaused.
He is outside of the physical.
He is metaphysical (Greek - Meta = Beyond).
Like numerical values that need not have a cause. They are uncaused.

It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.

All metaphysical objects have the property of being uncaused.

I see, so a number of things could have birthed the universe.

Nothing else metaphysical besides a Mind has the ability to create.

Minds are not metaphysical.

Hence, we can see through empircal evidence that only a Mind could have created the Universe.

Hmm...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:45:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 3:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/20/2011 3:39:16 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/20/2011 3:32:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.


Lol?

Some abstract objects such as numbers or certain truths of logic are uncaused.

then why can't the universe be?

Because it's not a necessary entity.

That's not a valid response. You can't arbitarily declare God to be uncaused and at the same time say that the universe can't be uncaused.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:46:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 3:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/20/2011 3:39:16 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/20/2011 3:32:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It is very convenient that God has the property of being uncaused, and that nothing else can be possible be speculated to have the property of being uncaused.


Lol?

Some abstract objects such as numbers or certain truths of logic are uncaused.

then why can't the universe be?

Because it's not a necessary entity. And, plus, cosmological arguments such as Aquinas's don't even depend on the universe being caused. Aquinas granted the that the universe could be uncaused and he still could use his argument from contingency.

what is a necessary entity?
signature