Does the Cosmological Argument prove God's Existence?

  • Thread starter Neonerdy
  • Start date
201
0
Not proven.
Proven just as much as gravity. Ofcoarse you cant believe in gravity according to the bible. So naturally I see the problem.

My argument did not consist of referring to popularity.
However, the great majority of scientists today
That is an appeal to popularity.

Virtual particles or nuclear decay to start. You have yet to rebuttal those.

Yes, if there are good reasons to believe something, then the rational mind will either believe it or will object with a logical inconsistency in that something.
So you believe my invisible pink unicorn exists. Given he will take a little while to find you. Then your house is soooo trashed.

here are good reasons to believe in God, as I have outlined in my previous posts
Too which have all been refuted. Infact you haven't even provided a single bit of evidence so without that you cannot rationally believe anything even if there's a good argument to believe in it. Which you don't even have.

and so your invisible pink unicorn illustration is not an equivalent analogy.
He is going to trash your house. The only way to stop him from trashing your house is if you physically shoo him away. Which you cannot do unless you see him. The only way to see him is to believe he exists. That's a pretty good reason. I haven't potty trained my invisible pink unicorn neither. So he will leave unicorn poo all over your place and you wont be able to clean it up. He may also even get angry and start bitting you constantly once he finishes trashing you house. Nothing you can do unless you believe he exists.

That's a pretty good reason to believe he exists.

I have seen not a single shred of evidence in this post yet.
Which post have you been reading?
Please highlight where you actually provided evidence... such that we can scientifically test and prove God exists.

It really is sad when people are having a reasonable discussion and one of the proponents must resort to ad homenen attacks.
On the contrary I have not used an ad hominem attack. Which you misspelled. The goal of an ad hominem attack if to divert or avoid an argument or point. In place of a personal attack. I have responded to every single point in your post. So I couldn't possibly be accused of diverting attention or avoiding points. I can be accused of personal attacks. However your deficiency in logic has to be addressed as it pertains directly to the topic at hand. I would not get into an argument with a blind person whether or not something looks beautiful. It is illogical to do so.

So calling a spade a spade is necessary.

Lets look at what you said exactly what I was responding too.

The rational mind would believe in the existence of God, rather than not.
There is no point here to be addressed.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Since you made no point here. I could not address the substance of any argument or produce evidence against your claim. Since no claim exists. Thusly I could not subvert the point being made.

This again only proves further how you have no understanding of what logic is. You don't know what an ad hominem is. You don't understand basic logic. I've pointed out at least 5 outright fallacies of yours. Which you cannot address. Which is why you've skipped over so much of my post.

So lets get back to what you originally said.

The rational mind would believe in the existence of God, rather than not.
Given you have no logical basis for the existence of God. The arguments you do present are all fallacies. This is the complete opposite of what rationality is. Which only proves you have no grasp of logic.

A person can change their clothes, it doesn't make them any less perfect or imperfect.

Also, it is logically impossible for God to change as he is not in time. Changes can only occur in time.
Thanks for making the self-refutation argument. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to change. This disproves God's omnipotence and omniscience together. Omnipotence demands he be capable of change. You on the otherhand now also affirm you wish to put me and 85% of the world population to death. How very moral of you. Hitler wouldn't even dare cause that much death. You are clearly more homicidal and evil then Hitler.

How has God changed in any of the verses you quoted? God was just back then, and He is still just today.
Fine. So thusly you murder non-believers. You are commanded by God afterall. You support this. I'm very glad I do not know you in real life. Infact I think due to your delusional level verified by the DSM and your homicidal tendencies you should be locked up in jail for the safety of humanity.

If God knows in advance what decision you will make, that does not mean that you then lose your free will to make that decision.
If god exists and has omniscience. I cannot "lose" my free will. I would NEVER ever had it. Which is full contradiction with facts in evidence. The obvious faulty problem is that God exists and has omniscience. Disproving omniscience at least.

Whether the universe had matter before the big bang is a non-issue, because that matter would need a cause. In fact, the whole universe in itself would still need a cause.
Prove it. You are making the assertion. Feel absolutely free to use any level of physics to actually prove this. Afterall we are at PHYSICSforums :)

Big Bang and matter cannot be a first cause, because if it were then we should see matter randomly appearing out of nothing today.
We have been through this already. Virtual particles is matter which takes up space for a period of time. Virtual particles are also first-cause as nothing causes virtual particles to come into being and go out of being. Also of note. Please prove your statement. Even then... this is also not an issue because other "big bangs" can be occuring so far away from us that the light hasn't traveled to us yet to observe that big bang. Even if the light appeared in the sky. We do not monitor all the sky and it would be such a small dot that we may calculate it to be something else. As the red-shift effect may not necessarily have a corresponding effect.

But we don't. Metaphysically we know that things that exist need a cause.
Prove this please.

The word omnipotence has been used historically by Christians as a word to describe God being able to do everything that is logically consistent.
Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits i.e. unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God.

Apologists aka propagandists may not take this definition any longer. However it discontinues being omnipotence if they propose a single limitation. You need to accept this and either accept the omnipotence paradox as disproof of your god. Or you no longer believe in an omnipotent god. Furthermore the bible doesn't support your apologetics.

Regardless, God does not label himself with the term 'omnipotent', he just describes that he can do all things that are logically consistent.
Here you prove you aren't as knowledgable about the Bible as you should be.
Revelation 19:6

the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Luke 18:27

The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

The arguments used in Dawkin's book are simply misinformed and laughable.
I invite you to take some of his arguments and refute them and show how they are misinformed and laughable. Or PM me.

Then again I've shown how you use fallacy after fallacy and are misinformed on basically everything else. That does make you laughable.
 
5
0
Virtual particles or nuclear decay to start. You have yet to rebuttal those.
I have already addressed virtual particles in my first post in this thread. Please re-read it if you need a refresher.

So you believe my invisible pink unicorn exists. Given he will take a little while to find you. Then your house is soooo trashed.
However, there are no good reasons to believe in the invisible pink unicorn, unlike the existence of God. So naturally, I won't believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

Too which have all been refuted. Infact you haven't even provided a single bit of evidence so without that you cannot rationally believe anything even if there's a good argument to believe in it. Which you don't even have.
Except you haven't. Regarding the Kalem Cosmological argument, you denied the first premise because of the uncaused elements within Quantum Mechanics. However, I also refuted that virtual particles are truly uncaused. I also gave evidence to why the second premise is true because of the impossiblities of having an actual infinite amount of events. Therefore, the conclusion that there is a cause to the universe necessarily follows.

Thanks for making the self-refutation argument. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to change. This disproves God's omnipotence and omniscience together. Omnipotence demands he be capable of change.
Why is that?

Fine. So thusly you murder non-believers. You are commanded by God afterall.
I think you are getting Christianity and Islam mixed up. No where in the Bible does it say to murder an unbeliever.

If god exists and has omniscience. I cannot "lose" my free will. I would NEVER ever had it. Which is full contradiction with facts in evidence. The obvious faulty problem is that God exists and has omniscience. Disproving omniscience at least.
You are still yet to show why God's omniscience means you lose your free will. Knowing something does not mean controlling something.

Virtual particles is matter which takes up space for a period of time. Virtual particles are also first-cause as nothing causes virtual particles to come into being and go out of being.
The virtual particles do have a cause, as I have stated previously, and that is the quantum vacuum. In fact, the virtual particles borrow the energy from the quantum vacuum for their temporal existence. In order for something to be a first cause, it simply cannot rely on another source at all, it must be totally independant. Virtual particles are not.


But we don't. Metaphysically we know that things that exist need a cause.
Prove this please.
This is self-evident from experience. Imagine you are walking through the forest and suddenly you come across a computer sitting there. Now any reasonable person would conclude that someone or something put the computer there, instead of it just popping in being out of nothing uncaused.

Revelation 19:6

the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Actually, a better rendering of that word is "Almighty". That verse does not imply at all that God can do the logically absurd things.

Luke 18:27

The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
That verse is taken out of context. The verse is talking about salvation. Salvation is impossible with man, but with God it is possible.
 
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,056
72
Wow, this thread has gotten out of control, even for the Philosophy forum! I think you should both take a look at the rules for the forum-- discussions on religion are prohibited on PF.

I think you are getting Christianity and Islam mixed up. No where in the Bible does it say to murder an unbeliever.
RyanH said:
That verse is taken out of context. The verse is talking about salvation. Salvation is impossible with man, but with God it is possible.
The above quotes are clear comments related to religious belief!

We should also note that Cosmology is a science and, as such, we are only interested in a "theory" that can make some predictions that can then go on to be observationally verified. The existence of god is not one of these things, so Cosmology cannot be invoked to answer the question, nor should it.

Oh, and one final comment: there is nothing to say that a universe that has existed for a finite amount of time has to have any kind of outside input into its initial conditions.
 
201
0
I have already addressed virtual particles in my first post in this thread. Please re-read it if you need a refresher.
This proves you are here to proselytize and not have a debate.

However, there are no good reasons to believe in the invisible pink unicorn, unlike the existence of God. So naturally, I won't believe in the invisible pink unicorn.
Still have yet to see any "good reasons" to believe god exists. "Good reasons" aside you have no evidence.

Except you haven't. Regarding the Kalem Cosmological argument, you denied the first premise because of the uncaused elements within Quantum Mechanics.
Kalam* this suggests you aren't reading my posts.

However, I also refuted that virtual particles are truly uncaused.
So what causes virtual particle? You may be nominated for a nobel prize if you know this.

I also gave evidence to why the second premise is true because of the impossiblities of having an actual infinite amount of events.
Which was plagiarized and refuted also.

Therefore, the conclusion that there is a cause to the universe necessarily follows.
No.

Why is that?
Omnipotence is the ability to do ANYTHING! That includes change,

I think you are getting Christianity and Islam mixed up.
While yes Islam also demands the death of all non-muslims. The Bible also states this. I gave the bible passage which explains this.

Leviticus 24:16
24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

You are commanded by God according to the Bible to murder me.

You are still yet to show why God's omniscience means you lose your free will. Knowing something does not mean controlling something.
I have. If you are incapable of understanding this. What can I say?

The virtual particles do have a cause, as I have stated previously, and that is the quantum vacuum.
I will await your nobel-prize winning post that proves this.

In fact, the virtual particles borrow the energy from the quantum vacuum for their temporal existence. In order for something to be a first cause, it simply cannot rely on another source at all, it must be totally independant. Virtual particles are not.
Prove this please.

This is self-evident from experience. Imagine you are walking through the forest and suddenly you come across a computer sitting there. Now any reasonable person would conclude that someone or something put the computer there, instead of it just popping in being out of nothing uncaused.
Mmmm Watchmaker argument. How original of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy" [Broken]

Actually, a better rendering of that word is "Almighty". That verse does not imply at all that God can do the logically absurd things.
You are wrong.

That verse is taken out of context.
Prove it.

The verse is talking about salvation. Salvation is impossible with man, but with God it is possible.
What you just did there was take it out of context for your purpose.

Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, and Luke 1:37 all affirm omnipotence also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
201
0
Wow, this thread has gotten out of control, even for the Philosophy forum! I think you should both take a look at the rules for the forum-- discussions on religion are prohibited on PF.
Fair enough I will be on my way. I know Religion and you know facts, intelligence, knowledge dont mix obviously.

We should also note that Cosmology is a science and, as such, we are only interested in a "theory" that can make some predictions that can then go on to be observationally verified. The existence of god is not one of these things, so Cosmology cannot be invoked to answer the question, nor should it.
I have been trying to get Ryan to post evidence. Perhaps he does have some.
 

Related Threads for: Does the Cosmological Argument prove God's Existence?

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
60
Views
8K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
184
Views
25K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • Last Post
9
Replies
200
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Top