A rephrasing of the cosmological argument.

[Link]

All individual effects need a cause. p1
A set of effects is an effect. p2

Therefore set of infinite effects for induction reasons (and not apply parts as whole thing) is still an effect.c1 (p1 p2)

A set effects always has a start to cause it. p3

Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards p5

Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible (p5 contradicts c1 + p3) c2
Therefore only finite sets are possible c3 (rephrasing of c2)

Therefore the universe it a finite set (application of possible worlds to this world - c2) c4

Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe (c4 + p3) c5

It's clear to me, but I can help anyone with any of these premises.

Infinite set of effects is like a square triangle. If a square, not a triangle. If a triangle, not a square.

You can see inductively it would need a cause but also span wise in theory it would not have a cause, thus a paradox like square triangles.

It's impossible and hence the universe has a start and that needs a start causer.

When people reach this conclusion.

(1) That cause is eternal (never began)
(2) Had enough power to create the universe

The notion that the universe was in a state of non-movement, and all a sudden began to move after eternally not, doesn't stand to reason for me. If it's eternally not moving, it's not going to ever start.

So (a) magical being(s) created it.

This is a start to the right direction. It doesn't prove capital "God", but it's a step.

 

[ChristineM]

All individual effects need a cause. p1
A set of effects is an effect. p2

Therefore set of infinite effects for induction reasons (and not apply parts as whole thing) is still an effect.c1 (p1 p2)

A set effects always has a start to cause it. p3

Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards p5

Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible (p5 contradicts c1 + p3) c2
Therefore only finite sets are possible c3 (rephrasing of c2)

Therefore the universe it a finite set (application of possible worlds to this world - c2) c4

Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe (c4 + p3) c5

It's clear to me, but I can help anyone with any of these premises.

Infinite set of effects is like a square triangle. If a square, not a triangle. If a triangle, not a square.

You can see inductively it would need a cause but also span wise in theory it would not have a cause, thus a paradox like square triangles.

It's impossible and hence the universe has a start and that needs a start causer.

When people reach this conclusion.

(1) That cause is eternal (never began)
(2) Had enough power to create the universe

The notion that the universe was in a state of non-movement, and all a sudden began to move after eternally not, doesn't stand to reason for me. If it's eternally not moving, it's not going to ever start.

So (a) magical being(s) created it.

This is a start to the right direction. It doesn't prove capital "God", but it's a step.

Quite a bit of assumption in that. If you provided evidence instead you would actually have an argument

 

[Link]

Quite a bit of assumption in that. If you provided evidence instead you would actually have an argument

Sure, your right. Which premise do you dispute. The induction for c1 I've shown many times.

effect = -

- (base case) needs a cause
---- is an effect
-------- same
------------ same
---------------------> (induction)

It's not applying parts to whole, it's induction and clear.

Somethings have sometimes just need to be seen like a straight line is shortest distance between two points can have math proofs, but no need. It's proven right away the mind sees this truth right away.

I argue the paradox is clear and can be seen just as a line can be seen to be straight and if straight, it is obviously shorted distance between two points.

It would be without start by definition yet a start cause needed by definition, thus like square triangles, impossible.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, your right. Which premise do you dispute. The induction for c1 I've shown many times.

effect = -

- (base case) needs a cause
---- is an effect
-------- same
------------ same
---------------------> (induction)

It's not applying parts to whole, it's induction and clear.

Somethings have sometimes just need to be seen like a straight line is shortest distance between two points can have math proofs, but no need. It's proven right away the mind sees this truth right away.

I argue the paradox is clear and can be seen just as a line can be seen to be straight and if straight, it is obviously shorted distance between two points.

It would be without start by definition yet a start cause needed by definition, thus like square triangles, impossible.

A set effects always has a start to cause it.

Nothing is known prior to 10e-43 of a second after the big bang,. It appears that the fundimental laws of nature (including causality) did not exist before this time.

Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible

Unknown, you simply cannot just guess what happened before the bb and state it as fact

Therefore the universe it a finite set

Again unknown, it seems our universe had a beginning but it is measured to be flat to 5 decimal places. The implication of a flat universe is that it is (or is potentially) infinite

Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe (

Unknown so you are guessing

 

[Link]

If every effect doesn't need a cause, then yes the argument fails. Anyone can conjecture about pre-universe universe, but there's no reason to assume effects and cause don't apply to it and it changes into a universe with cause and effect with no cause.

To say it was eternal and changed into a cause and effect material universe by itself with no cause, doesn't stand to reason.

Even if we can't be certain cause and effect always applied to it, God is infinitely more likely then that universe existing in a state with no cause and effect application of rules to it and then having cause and effect rules applied to it all of a sudden with no cause.

 

[ChristineM]

If every effect doesn't need a cause, then yes the argument fails. Anyone can conjecture about pre-universe universe, but there's no reason to assume effects and cause don't apply to it and it changes into a universe with cause and effect with no cause.

To say it was eternal and changed into a cause and effect material universe by itself with no cause, doesn't stand to reason.

Even if we can't be certain cause and effect always applied to it, God is infinitely more likely then that universe existing in a state with no cause and effect application of rules to it and then having cause and effect rules applied to it all of a sudden with no cause.

There is every reason to believe we don't know how the universe began, which is why there are so many cosmological hypothesis.

One hypothesis states that there are 10^10^16 universes that we can understand as in the natural laws are similar enough to be recognised. And at least twice that many which we could not recognise as universes. It stands to reason as much as that hypothesis.

Of all the cosmological/scientific hypothesis concerning how the bb happened (i know of 32 such hypothesise), they are all either mathematically feasible or extrapolated from known phenomena in our own universe. Not one says god did it, all do not require a god.

 

[Link]

So conjecture about pre-universe not having a cause no matter how irrational it is, and say universe existed without cause and effect, and label it "science", and boom, you got a defense against cosmological argument.

Really?

 

[ChristineM]

So conjecture about pre-universe not having a cause no matter how irrational it is, and say universe existed without cause and effect, and label it "science", and boom, you got a defense against cosmological argument.

Really?

Hypothesis, based on current phenomena or mathematics, you have a problem with the word hypothesis? It seems to me to be far more likely than guessing "d'oh, I don't know so god must have done it, not anyone's god mind you... It can only be the god i believe in"

Really

 

[Link]

Hypothesis, based on current phenomena or mathematics, you have a problem with the word hypothesis? It seems to me to be far more likely than guessing "d'oh, I don't know so god must have done it, not anyone's god mind you... It can only be the god i believe in"

There is no real reason to assume cause and effect would not apply to the universe at time zero or before "plank time". None what so ever.

To say a universe where anything can happen without cause eternally existed, and it changed itself to a cause and effect and with time universe, is beyond silly, it's an insult to human intelligence, but label it science or call it a hypothesis and people sell their minds to it.

 

[John53]

There is no real reason to assume cause and effect would not apply to the universe at time zero or before "plank time". None what so ever.

To say a universe where anything can happen without cause eternally existed, and it changed itself to a cause and effect and with time universe, is beyond silly, it's an insult to human intelligence, but label it science or call it a hypothesis and people sell their minds to it.

How is it more silly than imaging some super being thought it into existence?

 

[Link]

How is it more silly than imaging some super being thought it into existence?

God doesn't have cause and effect applied to him after causing the universe nor does he come something limited, but is eternal and remains what he is. Also, the logical rules of cause and effect are not broken, God creates the universe and is the cause. He is not an effect so not need of a cause. To talk about effects without cause is silly. Therefore God is not silly, but the right hypothesis.

 

[ChristineM]

There is no real reason to assume cause and effect would not apply to the universe at time zero or before "plank time". None what so ever.

To say a universe where anything can happen without cause eternally existed, and it changed itself to a cause and effect and with time universe, is beyond silly, it's an insult to human intelligence, but label it science or call it a hypothesis and people sell their minds to it.

There is also no real reason to assume cause and effect would apply. The natural laws of this universe did not exist so why assume they existed?

So is making bull poop up to suit your argument silly. As i said, each hypothesis is extrapolated from known phenomena or is mathematically sound. If they were not feasible they would not be hypothesise. To ignore them in order to promote what is essentially a bronze age guess is an insult to human intelligence built on ignorance.

Just because you don't (or don't want to) understand does not make a valid hypothesis any less valid

 

[ChristineM]

God doesn't have cause and effect applied to him after causing the universe nor does he come something limited, but is eternal and remains what he is. Also, the logical rules of cause and effect are not broken, God creates the universe and is the cause. He is not an effect so not need of a cause. To talk about effects without cause is silly. Therefore God is not silly, but the right hypothesis.

This is completely illogical guesswork.

 

[Link]

There is also no real reason to assume cause and effect would apply. The natural laws of this universe did not exist so why assume they existed?

No one is saying they existed. But a material eternal universe would not have no cause and effect, and all of a sudden, bam it applies cause and effect rules to it and becomes within time after being eternal. It makes no sense.

 

[paradox]

All individual effects need a cause. p1
A set of effects is an effect. p2

Therefore set of infinite effects for induction reasons (and not apply parts as whole thing) is still an effect.c1 (p1 p2)

A set effects always has a start to cause it. p3

Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards p5

Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible (p5 contradicts c1 + p3) c2
Therefore only finite sets are possible c3 (rephrasing of c2)

Therefore the universe it a finite set (application of possible worlds to this world - c2) c4

Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe (c4 + p3) c5

It's clear to me, but I can help anyone with any of these premises.

Infinite set of effects is like a square triangle. If a square, not a triangle. If a triangle, not a square.

You can see inductively it would need a cause but also span wise in theory it would not have a cause, thus a paradox like square triangles.

It's impossible and hence the universe has a start and that needs a start causer.

When people reach this conclusion.

(1) That cause is eternal (never began)
(2) Had enough power to create the universe

The notion that the universe was in a state of non-movement, and all a sudden began to move after eternally not, doesn't stand to reason for me. If it's eternally not moving, it's not going to ever start.

So (a) magical being(s) created it.

This is a start to the right direction. It doesn't prove capital "God", but it's a step.

Nice work indeed!

Did you watch following video already?
I find it related and might help refine or shorten your argument:

 

[ChristineM]

No one is saying they existed. But a material eternal universe would not have no cause and effect, and all of a sudden, bam it applies cause and effect rules to it and becomes within time after being eternal. It makes no sense.

Assume a multiverse, each universe having slightly different natural laws, the laws coalesce in the first moments of the universe, forming based on the particular composition and conditions of that universe. Some of those universes you would not recognise as universes because the natural laws are so different from our own. No cause or no effect, effect before cause, all effect, all cause.

Just because the conditions in our universe produced what we know to be the laws of thermodynamics, does not mean all universes create such laws.

And yes, bam, these laws coalesce as the universe expands and cools.

 

[paradox]

Nothing is known prior to 10e-43 of a second after the big bang,. It appears that the fundimental laws of nature (including causality) did not exist before this time.

You do know that BB is a theory rather than proof?

The biggest problem with BB is "infinitely dense mass", if you watch my video you'll see that "infinity does not provide legitimate basis for rational thought"

 

[ChristineM]

You do know that BB is a theory rather than proof?

The biggest problem with BB is "infinitely dense mass", if you watch my video you'll see that "infinity does not provide legitimate basis for rational thought"

You do know what a scientific theory actually is??? Or perhaps not.

Science doesn't deal in proof but in evidence, measurement and observation

I watched your video, its full of nonsense. Its first mistake is ignoring the science assuming metaphysics which cannot be evidenced, yet alone proved. Then it makes its second mistake by misunderstanding the concept of infinity.

 

[John53]

God doesn't have cause and effect applied to him after causing the universe nor does he come something limited, but is eternal and remains what he is. Also, the logical rules of cause and effect are not broken, God creates the universe and is the cause. He is not an effect so not need of a cause. To talk about effects without cause is silly. Therefore God is not silly, but the right hypothesis.

Sounds like special pleading to me.

 

[Mahdi]

Peace,

Reading the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' by William Lane Craig around 2003 in a space of about 6 hours tops was what gave me certainty of The God's existence. I already believed in Him, but the KCA was the clincher on top of other things I knew such as the rudimentary form of the 'nineteen' based encoding of The Koran.

The most important feature for me with 'nineteen' was 'The Bismillah Miracle', starting with the fact that the first verse of The Quran has 19 letters.

The simplest argument I can state for myself is...

I know I exist.
I know I am created and did not cause myself.
So I have a cause and thus The Creator.