Does the Cosmological Argument prove God's Existence?

[Neonerdy]

This is my first post here, so I appologise in advance if this is the wrong forum.
Anyway, I was interested to see if this was a generally held opinion. My philosophy course didn't really go into much detail (alas, only Higher level (in Scotland)) I think that the cosmological argument goes as far as to prove a cause, but I don't know if this can be expanded into a proof for God. I think this would require a leap of faith, but any input would be much appreciated, considdering the quality of argument and writing I have seen.

 

[hypnagogue]

Would you mind reviewing the cosmological argument for us in your own words, and giving your own perspective on the argument in a bit more detail? This would be the best way to go in order to get everyone on the same page, mitigate any potential confusions, etc. Thanks.

 

[Royce]

This is my first post here, so I apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum.
Anyway, I was interested to see if this was a generally held opinion. My philosophy course didn't really go into much detail (alas, only Higher level (in Scotland)) I think that the cosmological argument goes as far as to prove a cause, but I don't know if this can be expanded into a proof for God. I think this would require a leap of faith, but any input would be much appreciated, considering the quality of argument and writing I have seen.

Welcome Neonerdy.

In my opinion the Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of God because it assumes that the cosmos must have a cause and/or a beginning. As there is no proof for neither a cause nor a beginning then it cannot be a proof of God.

If the Cosmos is eternal it has no beginning or end. This may or may not include our present observable physical universe.

The First Cause which the Cosmological argument is based on leads instead to an infinite regression of causes and effects, or if the universe is eternal, there is no first cause.

 

[munky99999]

Would you mind reviewing the cosmological argument for us in your own words, and giving your own perspective on the argument in a bit more detail? This would be the best way to go in order to get everyone on the same page, mitigate any potential confusions, etc. Thanks.

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
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.

This is flawed ofcoarse. The very first premise is incorrect.
Not everything have a cause for its existence. Might I suggest studing up on virtual particles. They come into existence and out of existence. ALOT. and there is absolutely no cause.

Next. If you were to actually accept this proof. Take (5) God exists. and then (1) everything that exists has a cause of its existence. THEREFORE something caused God existence. Which then begs the question. If God has a cause. whatever that which caused this. Has or Had a cause. and so on and so on.

Im sorry if i broke any rules so far. But let me bring up my favourite one that's related.

Its the ontological. originally done up by Saint Aquinas. Essentially its.

1-God is perfect(by definition)
2-If he doesn't exist. he wouldn't be perfect.
3-Thusly since he's perfect he must exist.

and guess what? 600 years or so when it was done up. the Saint was told that this argument is fallacious.

How is it? Just because you can define something to exist. doesn't make it exist.

The good old Invisible Pink Unicorn is perfect(by definition)
There are 40 billion trillion of the IPU(by definition)
and since he's by definition the IPU exists.

what is also interesting is the name of the Unicorn is illogical. If the unicorn were invisible, he's not pink. HES INVISIBLE.

 

[DrDeath]

according to the christian religion god is all powerfull.
so "if god is all powerfull can he create a stone he cannot lift" if he can create it then he's not all powerfull cos he can't lift it, if he can't create it then he's not all powerfull cos there's something he can't do.

therefore god is not only not all powerfull he is also a logical paradox and therefore the christian faith is based on a god who is logically pardoxical and therefore flawed.

hence just for that he doesn't deserve to exist, which is doubtfull if he does anyway.

 

[selfAdjoint]

according to the christian religion god is all powerfull.
so "if god is all powerfull can he create a stone he cannot lift" if he can create it then he's not all powerfull cos he can't lift it, if he can't create it then he's not all powerfull cos there's something he can't do.

therefore god is not only not all powerfull he is also a logical paradox and therefore the christian faith is based on a god who is logically pardoxical and therefore flawed.

hence just for that he doesn't deserve to exist, which is doubtfull if he does anyway.

What this argument shows is not the there is or isn't a god or that "he" has any properties or doesn't, but the human thinking about infinite beings is incoherent. The stone argument leads to contradictory conclusions, which is not a property of its subject, but a property of the argument.

 

[DrDeath]

which would show that the belief system is incoherrent yes, which would therefore show a flaw in the belief system itself.

i was not attempting to prove or disprove god as it is a question which i do not have the time, inclination or ability to answer, i was merely pointing out just one of many subtle flaws in the whole belief system, and it is these very flaws in the belief system which throw doubt on the beliefs and therefore make us question them.

 

[munky99999]

ok as we are rational and logical beings. this is how things are. such that the scientific method is based upon.

You have a problem:
Why do we exist?
You hypothesize(guess):
God created us.
You experiment or find evidence to prove or disprove your hypothesis:
Opps all the christians stopped at the last step. There is no evidence to believe in a god.

So why should we believe in this hypothesis? No reason to.

Now I've heard a few arguements. "You innocent until proven guilty!"
essentially saying that the God hypothesis is correct until someone proves there is no God.

But this simply is flawed. as you cannot prove a negative. Which in debate I've seen this.

Bald man stands up and says. I have hair. and I have hair as long until you disprove my hair's existence. Christian speaker stands up. I can clearly see you have no hair. The bald man says. I am sorry but you can't see my hair. its invisible to anyone who doesn't believe in my hair. That my hair is in another dimension. The muslim speaker walks over to the man. Attempts to grab his hair. Grabs nothing. and that's his evidence that its not there. but since its in another dimension it cannot be felt. The Jewish speaker stands up and says the smartest thing yet. We clearly can't prove a negative. You prove that you have hair. The atheist bald man says. at last. I have no evidence for my hair. So now i concede that I have no hair.
He then continues.
Now I can't see/feel...etc your "God" you prove "God's" existence. and it went NOWHERE from there on. As none of them could give any real evidence.

The stone argument leads to contradictory conclusions, which is not a property of its subject, but a property of the argument.

Oh really? I beg to differ. you see the argument is completely straightforward and valid. You say not a property of its subject. I don't see that. Your saying that God's property(omnipotence) cannot create a stone? or lift a stone?

 

[clouded.perception]

Your argument on God's omnipotence is interesting. Here's another one:

- God is perfect, and always has been
- Perfect things cannot change and still be perfect (they either improve, in which case they weren't perfect, or become corrupt, in which case they aren't perfect)
- God has changed over time (in Christian religion)
- If God has changed over time, he is now different. He has changed.
- Therefore, God cannot start out perfect, and now still be perfect.

Or, if that sounds illogical:
- God is perfect
- Perfection is static, that is it needs nothing to improve it. Needs are temporary faults.
- If somebody needs nothing to improve, they have no desires.
- Somebody with no desires is completely passive, they do nothing.
- A perfect being would have no inclination to create the universe.

 

[clouded.perception]

I'll prove conclusively to you that God doesn't exist when you prove conclusively to me that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist.

 

[clouded.perception]

I know I've been posting a lot, but I have to do this before I forget it.
A logical train of thought for an omniscient God:

- God knows all
- God created us and gave us free will (Christian)
- Because God knows everything, he can predict anything
- If our actions can be predicted, we do not have (from God's perspective) free will. We behave in what is, to him, predictable ways, so he can influence our actions to the result he wants. Thus we behave how he wants us to, and are not responsible for our own sins.
- Thus the reason I don't believe in him is his fault, not mine. I would be a machine behaving in (to him) and obvious manner.

So -- either God is not all-knowing, or you can take my atheism up with him, my Christian friends.

 

[RyanH]

The Real Cosmological Arguments

Ok, I am a Christian theist responding to the various claims made in this thread.

Firstly, the simple cosmological argument that munky99999 supplied is not held by any credible theistic Philosophers today. The reason is because as munky99999 suggested, it can lead to self-contradictions. The two main cosmological arguments are: The Kalem Cosmological argument and the Argument from Contingency. With these two arguments, God does not need a cause.

The Kalem Cosmological argument is as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

With the first two premises being true, the conclusion necessarily follows.

Now I will respond to a couple of the arguments against this argument that have been raised in this thread.

"In my opinion the Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of God because it assumes that the cosmos must have a cause and/or a beginning. As there is no proof for neither a cause nor a beginning then it cannot be a proof of God."

So Royce you are denying the second premise. However, the great majority of scientists today know the universe had a beginning because they hold to the Big Bang Theory.

But suppose the universe never had a beginning, then that then means there must be an infinite amount of events that have occurred up to this day. However, one cannot reach an actual infinite series of things by successive addition. The argument is as follows:

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

The second premise is obvious. To prove the first premise:

Now if an event occurred today, the event prior to it had to occur. But before that event could occur, the one prior to it had to occur, and so on. So one gets driven back and back into the infinite past, making it impossible for any event to occur, which is absurd. There must be a first cause.

"This is flawed ofcoarse. The very first premise is incorrect.
Not everything have a cause for its existence. Might I suggest studing up on virtual particles. They come into existence and out of existence. ALOT. and there is absolutely no cause."

Virtual particles are not an exception to the first premise. The central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which virtual particles depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving virtual particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

according to the christian religion god is all powerfull.
so "if god is all powerfull can he create a stone he cannot lift" if he can create it then he's not all powerfull cos he can't lift it, if he can't create it then he's not all powerfull cos there's something he can't do.

That is simply a fallacious argument. Creating a rock that he can't lift is logically inconsistent. Being omnipotent does not mean the ability to do the logically absurd.

On the other hand, I could say: God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he can lift it. But then you'll say, "But that's logically inconsistent." Yes, God can do the logically inconsistent.

You see, that argument you presented is simply illogical and no intellectual Philosopher uses that argument anymore.

Now I've heard a few arguements. "You innocent until proven guilty!"
essentially saying that the God hypothesis is correct until someone proves there is no God.

But this simply is flawed. as you cannot prove a negative.

You can prove a negation by pointing out the logical inconsistencies in a position. For example, I can absolutely say that there are no married bachelors. I can also prove a negative if I have absolute knowledge about a subject. For example, I can absolutely say there are no muslims in the U.S Senate.

Nobody has absolute knowledge about the universe, so they cannot disprove God that way. The only other way is to show a logical inconsistency in God.

So then if a person has not found a logical inconsistency in God, then they can only reasonably be an agnostic or theist.

Opps all the christians stopped at the last step. There is no evidence to believe in a god.

So why should we believe in this hypothesis? No reason to.

However, as I've shown in this post, there are good reasons to believe in the existence of God. The rational mind would believe in the existence of God, rather than not.

- God is perfect, and always has been
- Perfect things cannot change and still be perfect (they either improve, in which case they weren't perfect, or become corrupt, in which case they aren't perfect)
- God has changed over time (in Christian religion)
- If God has changed over time, he is now different. He has changed.
- Therefore, God cannot start out perfect, and now still be perfect.

The second premise you must prove. The third premise is simply false. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Heb. 13:8)

"
- God knows all
- God created us and gave us free will (Christian)
- Because God knows everything, he can predict anything
- If our actions can be predicted, we do not have (from God's perspective) free will. We behave in what is, to him, predictable ways, so he can influence our actions to the result he wants. Thus we behave how he wants us to, and are not responsible for our own sins.
- Thus the reason I don't believe in him is his fault, not mine. I would be a machine behaving in (to him) and obvious manner."

The fourth premise is false. Why would God's middle knowledge mean that we lose our free will? Having knowledge about something does not mean controlling that something.

 

[Meatbot]

So Royce you are denying the second premise. However, the great majority of scientists today know the universe had a beginning because they hold to the Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang doesn't say there was nothing before it, only that matter was condensed into a point. It could have been a rebound from another universe or could have originated inside a larger multiverse.

But suppose the universe never had a beginning, then that then means there must be an infinite amount of events that have occurred up to this day.

No, it doesn't. You are assuming time stretches back infinitely as well. What if events do not occur in time? What if time doesn't exist? What if events follow a time loop and everything repeats?

There must be a first cause.

Why can't that uncaused first cause simply be the universe?

Being omnipotent does not mean the ability to do the logically absurd.

Oh, but yes it does. If you are omnipotent you can do anything. The logically absurd is a subset of anything...and since you can't do the logically absurd, you can't be omnipotent and the bible is wrong.

On the other hand, I could say: God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he can lift it. But then you'll say, "But that's logically inconsistent." Yes, God can do the logically inconsistent.

God CANNOT make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. He can lift any rock. So he's not omnipotent.

So then if a person has not found a logical inconsistency in God, then they can only reasonably be an agnostic or theist.

But since God IS logically inconsistent, we can be sure he does not exist as described in the bible. He is described as being omnipotent and omniscient. Those two qualities cannot coexist, therefore the bible is wrong and the god it describes cannot exist.

 

[munky99999]

Wow I can't believe I'm even still setup for notification let alone the thread still existing. The fellows on the forum don't take kindly to religion. Religion and you know facts, intelligence, knowledge don't mix obviously.

Anyway the last time anyone even posted in this thread was March 2006. Over 2 years old. There's some serious decomposition going on here. Really bad necrophilia happening here. Let alone the fact that this is your first post. It doesn't seem good.

Firstly, the simple cosmological argument that munky99999 supplied is not held by any credible theistic Philosophers today.

Lovely how you qualify that by credible and theistic. Like as if this is a definable characteristic.

The Kalem Cosmological argument

Kalam* aka Muslim Religious Science.

With these two arguments, God does not need a cause.

Oh I agree. Many things do not need a cause. The universe doesn't need a cause. Nuclear decay has no cause. Quantum Mechanics is very very without a cause.

The Kalem Cosmological argument is as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

#1 is actually false.
#2 is challenged.
Thusly #3 does not logically follow.

With the first two premises being true, the conclusion necessarily follows.

Good thing they are not.

So Royce you are denying the second premise. However, the great majority of scientists today know the universe had a beginning because they hold to the Big Bang Theory.

Circular logic brought on by Appeal to Popularity. Quite fallacious of you.

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

You certainly like your William Lane Craig. Anyway..

#2 is not valid.

The second premise is obvious.

Yes but not actually true unless you use 400bc math and knowledge.

To prove the first premise:

Now if an event occurred today, the event prior to it had to occur. But before that event could occur, the one prior to it had to occur, and so on. So one gets driven back and back into the infinite past, making it impossible for any event to occur, which is absurd. There must be a first cause.

You certainly do like to copy and paste. Let's hope you at least give some credit at the end of your post to those who originally said all this. Also as we have already established. First cause is not a valid premise. So thusly you loose.

Virtual particles are not an exception to the first premise. The central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which virtual particles depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing.

vacuum is not nothing? Oh right... I forgot we were speaking about you're reality where God exists.

A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Actually yes they do. If you had any clue what you were talking about and weren't just copying and pasting you would discover that many things in quantum mechanics have no cause.

That is simply a fallacious argument. Creating a rock that he can't lift is logically inconsistent.

That's the point.

Being omnipotent does not mean the ability to do the logically absurd.

Yes it does. All powerful. The power to do EVERYTHING. Including the logically absurd. Oh what's this square circle god painted for me. Oh right it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, I could say: God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he can lift it. But then you'll say, "But that's logically inconsistent." Yes, God can do the logically inconsistent.

Actually no. It's not logically inconsistent. It is failure to satisfy the premise of creating a rock which is too heavy for God to lift.

You see, that argument you presented is simply illogical and no intellectual Philosopher uses that argument anymore.

Actually yes they do. There are other methods of saying it in more complex ways. However the essence of the argument stands still. The catholic church has infact changed God to NOT omnipotent so they don't have to deal with square circles. Which is fine if they wish to believe in a powerful alien and not an omnipotent god.

You can prove a negation by pointing out the logical inconsistencies in a position.

No. You cannot prove a negative. In fact you can go further and explain the burden of proof to you where the idea of innocent until proven guilty actually explains that the burden is on the theists to prove God exists. A steady failure by theists obviously or God would be taught as science.

For example, I can absolutely say that there are no married bachelors.

That is because it's an illogical self-contradicted term. God however has played hide and seek over the years. Originally he lived in the clouds. Which is why heaven is cloudy. We built airplanes and couldn't find heaven nor god. But God moved his home to outerspace. We got the appropriate technology and God moved to another reality. Which by definition proves in of itself that God does not exist. As you have to be within the constraints of reality to exist. However since this other reality might exist... just as I might be petting my invisible pink unicorn. Who might exist. Bertrand Russel's teapot may exist also. God is thusly in a sense plausibly in existence. God cannot have ever interacted with our reality. Meaning the malarkey in the bible is false. Some undefined God may exist however. If you believe such a being exists. We would love to hear some evidence for it.

I can also prove a negative if I have absolute knowledge about a subject. For example, I can absolutely say there are no muslims in the U.S Senate.

Might I suggest reading The God delusion by Richard Dawkins? He explains why you are wrong quite well.

Nobody has absolute knowledge about the universe, so they cannot disprove God that way. The only other way is to show a logical inconsistency in God.

Which I have and it disproves all the omni- attributes in the constraints of our reality. We have no evidence at all to suggest another reality exists. However it is possible. Which can have different laws and logical. Which could allow God to exist. So God can even exist after that. The unfortunate problem is that God doesn't have the power to have any effect on our reality/universe and the burden of proof is on you; as a believer obviously.

So then if a person has not found a logical inconsistency in God, then they can only reasonably be an agnostic or theist.

We have MANY logical inconsistencies with the abrahamic god. We have many inconsistencies for the other gods. The inconsistencies are not even the issue. You are not deemed to either disprove something or believe it. My invisible pink unicorn just left me to go trash your house... Disprove my invisible pink unicorn exists. If you can't do that.. you must believe my invisible pink unicorn exists.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

However, as I've shown in this post, there are good reasons to believe in the existence of God.

I have seen not a single shred of evidence in this post yet. I have seen plagiarism and fallacies out the wing-wang.

The rational mind would believe in the existence of God, rather than not.

Are you even remotely capable of understanding logic and rational thought? You have no evidence at all to believe a God exists yet you do. This is a delusion. You have a mental disorder by definition according to the American DSM at least.

- God is perfect, and always has been
- Perfect things cannot change and still be perfect (they either improve, in which case they weren't perfect, or become corrupt, in which case they aren't perfect)
- God has changed over time (in Christian religion)
- If God has changed over time, he is now different. He has changed.
- Therefore, God cannot start out perfect, and now still be perfect.

The second premise you must prove.

It is logically consistent in of itself. Please elaborate on why you believe it is wrong.

The third premise is simply false.

Oh ya? So you support Leviticus 24:16 where it advocates putting me to death? God wills it. The community must put me to death.

Or how about Leviticus 20:9 which demands the death of disobedient children. Oh boy virtually all children will have to die in North America because of this one. So you support this?

Or how about Exodus 22:20 which demands the death of all non-christians/jews. Again you're being ordered to execute me and a great deal of people. 85% of the world needs to be put to death according to you. Hmm what a loving god.

The fourth premise is false.

There is no fourth premise. That was a logical following. It is logically consistent with the other 3 previous points. Which you seemingly do not challenge.

Why would God's middle knowledge mean that we lose our free will?

He knows exactly what you are going to do. It is by definition from his omniscience. You MUST follow exactly what he knows you are going to do. Or it would violate omniscience. In that God didn't know what you were going to do. Which isn't possible if God is omniscient.

Having knowledge about something does not mean controlling that something.

No god doesn't literally hold an xbox-controller playing the most advanced Sims game there is. However God could come meet with me right now and I'd say. You write down on this piece of paper this 100 digit number that I'm going to write afterwards completely randomly. You have to write what I'm going to write.

God writes down the 100 digit number. As per his omniscience he must know EXACTLY what I'm going to write. So no matter what I do. I cannot possibly write down anything other then that 100 digit number he has on the page. If I have absolutely no other option then that one. There is no free will. I am predestined to exactly what he wrote down before.

 

[mikelepore]

The fallacy of ambiguity usually pervades in this subject. The argument from design refers only to some kind creative agency, about which nothing more specific may be knowable and nothing more can be said. The ontological argument refers only to something which is perfect, whatever that is, and that remains unanswered by the syllogism, and therefore it is another thing about which nothing more can be said. These arguments have nothing to do with the way more than 95 percent of the fluent speakers of our language use the word "God". The word is used by almost everyone to refer to a highly specific being who wants people to go to a certain place of devotion, on certain days, wearing certain clothes, and recite certain words, eat certain foods, and obey certain other rules. To use the same word for a very nonspecific idea and for a very specific idea is a serious mistake in reasoning. That is about as bad a case of ambiguity as the assertion, "A pen is a place for keeping animals, and a pen is also a writing instrument, therefore animals are kept in a writing instrument." This kind of ambiguity is often exploited intentionally. If I were a theologian engaging in a debate with a skeptic, I would sometimes find it strategically beneficial to propose to my adversary at least one minimal statement with which he or she is likely to agree, and so I abruptly discard my lifelong claims of a highly specific concept, and I suddenly adopt the most general concept of a little-understood agency. We observe this daily.

 

[Violator]

To add a little to the ontological argument. The argument, which correctly stated says that 1) God is a perfect being. 2) A perfect being would have all desirable characteristics 3) Existence is a desirable characteristic 4)Anything which does exist is therefore more perfect than that which does not exist 5)Therefore God must exist, really only serves to redefine God. THis argument takes God from being omnipoten, omniscience, and omnipresent, and simply makes It into "the best thing in existence". Essentially the argument is saying anything that doesn't exist can't be God. Which seems somewhat self-evident.

On the matter of rocks God can't lift or square-circle creation. I say God can do those things. God can do anything. Thats the definition of omnipotent. I see no reason why God should be bound by the constraints of logic. After all, given the generally held beliefs on It, God created logic. And of course a being which is not constrained by logic is a being which can only be believed in based either on faith or mystical experience.

 

[cristo]

The Big Bang doesn't say there was nothing before it, only that matter was condensed into a point.

Actually, the Big Bang theory says that the universe was once much hotter and denser than it is today, and has expanded from such a state.

There shouldn't be a reason to resurrect a two year old thread, let alone a two year old thread on religion!

 

[Moridin]

That version of the ontological argument is circular. Here is a formal version.

X = God
Y = Perfect

1. X = Y, where Y = {a(0), a(1),...,existence,...,a(n)}
2. X \{existence} => X =/= Y.
3. X = Y (from 1).
4. X includes the element of existence (from 2 and 3 per modus tollens)

See where it goes wrong? That's right. The argument already presupposes that existence is an element in X.

 

[Violator]

Really the ontological argument is a statement of belief, and an explanation of belief. It contains no real "argument".

 

[munky99999]

The fallacy of ambiguity usually pervades in this subject.

Because the theists aren't actually capable of dealing with the most fundamental fact. You really cannot discuss God without first providing evidence for the premise of God actually existing.

The argument from design refers only to some kind creative agency, about which nothing more specific may be knowable and nothing more can be said.

Except the universe can be explained without God or any creative agency as you say. E=mc^2 NOT e +(god)=mc^2

The ontological argument refers only to something which is perfect, whatever that is, and that remains unanswered by the syllogism, and therefore it is another thing about which nothing more can be said.

The PERFECT island in the ocean. If it is perfect is must exist somewhere. So where?

These arguments have nothing to do with the way more than 95 percent of the fluent speakers of our language use the word "God". The word is used by almost everyone to refer to a highly specific being who wants people to go to a certain place of devotion, on certain days, wearing certain clothes, and recite certain words, eat certain foods, and obey certain other rules.

Except all these gods are highly highly contradictory to each other. So you really can't plop them together. So really each god is counteracted by a HUGE majority. No religion has ever held a very big majority in the world.

To use the same word for a very nonspecific idea and for a very specific idea is a serious mistake in reasoning.

It's true.

That is about as bad a case of ambiguity as the assertion, "A pen is a place for keeping animals, and a pen is also a writing instrument, therefore animals are kept in a writing instrument."

So you consider the use of the word God is simply a giant equivocation. It's a fairly self-proven fact. However since the pope pushes or at least pope jean paul pushed ecumenism. Which has made many people also push the idea that all religions are just talking about the same God. Which is very ironic because polytheism isn't the same as monotheism.

This kind of ambiguity is often exploited intentionally. If I were a theologian engaging in a debate with a skeptic, I would sometimes find it strategically beneficial to propose to my adversary at least one minimal statement with which he or she is likely to agree, and so I abruptly discard my lifelong claims of a highly specific concept, and I suddenly adopt the most general concept of a little-understood agency. We observe this daily.

I have 3 requirements before I debate the topic of God usually. 1. We need to establish which god we are talking about and what that god's attributes are. If they are abrahamic it's straight forward. 2. Do they wish to kill me. The bible for example commands their believers to execute and murder non-believers far far far more significantly then any of the 10 commandments, such as thou shalt not steal. 3. Provide evidence God exists. We cannot discuss something without the first premise of the object existing.

 

[RyanH]

The Big Bang doesn't say there was nothing before it, only that matter was condensed into a point. It could have been a rebound from another universe or could have originated inside a larger multiverse.

Yes, and even so, those positions still affirm the second premise, the universe had a beginning.

No, it doesn't. You are assuming time stretches back infinitely as well. What if events do not occur in time? What if time doesn't exist? What if events follow a time loop and everything repeats?

We know that time and matter are intrinsically linked. Plus events can only happen in time. Without time, there can be no change of anything.

Why can't that uncaused first cause simply be the universe?

The universe cannot be both be existing for a finite time and be the first cause. For in order to be the first cause, one needs to be uncaused, having no beginning.

Oh, but yes it does. If you are omnipotent you can do anything. The logically absurd is a subset of anything...and since you can't do the logically absurd, you can't be omnipotent and the bible is wrong.

Negative. Being omnipotent means you can do anything that is logically consistent. This omnipotent argument is simply fallacious and absurd.

But since God IS logically inconsistent, we can be sure he does not exist as described in the bible. He is described as being omnipotent and omniscient. Those two qualities cannot coexist, therefore the bible is wrong and the god it describes cannot exist.

You are yet to prove that those two cannot coexist.

Even if you could dismiss the God of the Bible, that does not dismiss that there is some god out there.

 

[Noone]

No it do not... for people do not share a common def of what the word god mean's to them.
For example what that word mean's to me is

All things are one with one another, which co-inside with all madder and all thought, in one collective enitie body that is all madder and is all thought.

So my proof would be me and you and everything within are physical world and are and my mental world...

But this doesn't state that the collective enitie body, has a conscience, it just state's what it is, in a way that i can prove it to my self and maybe other's that can see why all things are one with one another, and in which way's they are and are not, and why they co-inside with all madder and all thought, in one collective enitie body that is all madder and is all thought, and why it dose and why it dose not.
I won't get into the second part because its errelivent to the point I'm trying to make and that is Cosmology can only prove to itself or other's that see it from there point of view, because everyone don't see the word god as the same meaning.

So the answer must be Yes, because they have proven it to them self's that there god has existence, by using there understanding and there point of view of such, but then is allso must be No.

Only thought of one's own creation can create the answer that suit's that of which one seek's and desire's of such... Not of another's thought, can satisfy for what someone els seek's and desire's, for it would not quelch thy thirst, for such -.-

This kind of thing will allways lead to the comment, Now what? we answerd the question, now what do we need :D

 

[munky99999]

Yes, and even so, those positions still affirm the second premise, the universe had a beginning.

No. The universe itself can be in existence why the big bang is the beginning of matter's existence.

The big bang created the matter in the universe and not the universe itself. Which happen 13.73 billion years ago. NOT 6000 years ago like your bible states.

We know that time and matter are intrinsically linked.

Time is a measurement between events. Matter is needed to make time valid. It doesn't mean the universe itself is predicated on those.

Plus events can only happen in time. Without time, there can be no change of anything.

Yes but change also doesn't predicate the universe. The universe is an infinite expanse of everything in reality; Including space/nothingness itself. Before the big bang there may have been matter, there may have not been matter. It doesn't mean the universe itself didn't exist.

The universe cannot be both be existing for a finite time and be the first cause.

The universe has existed for longer then time exists. There was no first cause for the universe. The big bang and matter was a first cause. Just as we see MANY first causes in quantum mechanics.

For in order to be the first cause, one needs to be uncaused, having no beginning.

There is not just 1 first cause. Or in other words an event without a cause.

Negative. Being omnipotent means you can do anything that is logically consistent. This omnipotent argument is simply fallacious and absurd.

You clearly are deficient on what omnipotence means. You cannot define the word for your purpose. It's very dishonest. Instead if you're God cannot do the logically inconsistent like draw a square circle. He is NOT omnipotent. Instead you have a powerful wormhole alien who is limited.

You are yet to prove that those two cannot coexist.

You have yet to refute the Create-lift rock logical argument. Which proves that omnipotence is not possible. You have also not refuted the free-will vs predestination argument. Which proves omniscience cannot be possible. There are many other arguments which go further and disprove both also. However it is moot because the claim has already been disproven.

Even if you could dismiss the God of the Bible, that does not dismiss that there is some god out there.

Yes. Which if you've read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins you would understand this. The Christian god cannot exist. If there is any god out there... that god has never interacted with this universe. Therefore we have no reason to fear that god. Furthermore heaven-hell is false and untrue. So we cannot feat that. We are bound to be atheists until further evidence arrives.

 

[RyanH]

Oh I agree. Many things do not need a cause. The universe doesn't need a cause. Nuclear decay has no cause. Quantum Mechanics is very very without a cause.

Not proven.

Circular logic brought on by Appeal to Popularity. Quite fallacious of you.

My argument did not consist of referring to popularity. It was the impossiblities of having an actual infinite amount of things. I was just pointing out that the majority of scientists today do hold that the universe had a beginning.

#2 is not valid.

many things in quantum mechanics have no cause.

Such as?

You are not deemed to either disprove something or believe it. My invisible pink unicorn just left me to go trash your house... Disprove my invisible pink unicorn exists. If you can't do that.. you must believe my invisible pink unicorn exists.

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. There are good reasons to believe in God, as I have outlined in my previous posts, and so your invisible pink unicorn illustration is not an equivalent analogy.

I have seen not a single shred of evidence in this post yet.

Which post have you been reading?

Are you even remotely capable of understanding logic and rational thought? You have no evidence at all to believe a God exists yet you do. This is a delusion. You have a mental disorder by definition according to the American DSM at least.

It really is sad when people are having a reasonable discussion and one of the proponents must resort to ad homenen attacks.

It is logically consistent in of itself. Please elaborate on why you believe it is wrong.

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.

Oh ya? So you support ...

How has God changed in any of the verses you quoted? God was just back then, and He is still just today.

He knows exactly what you are going to do. It is by definition from his omniscience. You MUST follow exactly what he knows you are going to do. Or it would violate omniscience. In that God didn't know what you were going to do. Which isn't possible if God is omniscient.

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.

 

[RyanH]

Before the big bang there may have been matter, there may have not been matter. It doesn't mean the universe itself didn't exist.

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.

The big bang and matter was a first cause.

Big Bang and matter cannot be a first cause, because if it were then we should see matter randomly appearing out of nothing today. But we don't. Metaphysically we know that things that exist need a cause.

Just as we see MANY first causes in quantum mechanics.

I repeat, where?

You clearly are deficient on what omnipotence means. You cannot define the word for your purpose.

The word omnipotence has been used historically by Christians as a word to describe God being able to do everything that is logically consistent. Regardless, God does not label himself with the term 'omnipotent', he just describes that he can do all things that are logically consistent.

Yes. Which if you've read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins you would understand this. The Christian god cannot exist. If there is any god out there... that god has never interacted with this universe. Therefore we have no reason to fear that god. Furthermore heaven-hell is false and untrue. So we cannot feat that. We are bound to be atheists until further evidence arrives.

The arguments used in Dawkin's book are simply misinformed and laughable.

 

[munky99999]

Not proven.

Proven just as much as gravity. Ofcoarse you can't 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.

Such as?

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. In fact 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 won't 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 let's 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. In fact 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 occurring 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 knowledgeable 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.

 

[RyanH]

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. In fact 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]

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.

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.

 

[munky99999]

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"

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.

 

[munky99999]

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 don't 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.