A rephrasing of the cosmological argument.

[paradox]

I watched your video, its full of nonsense. Its first mistake is ignoring the science assuming metaphysics which cannot be evidenced, yet alone proved.

fine, if you say so, btw. there is also part one which deals with same problem in scientific way.

 

[ChristineM]

fine, if you say so, btw. there is also part one which deals with same problem in scientific way.

The Kalam cosmogical argument has been refuted and debunked to death yet people keep on trying to rehash it and keep on failing. It's a weak argument based on assumption and contradiction.

I really don't know why it keeps coming back.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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

There's also no reason to assume that effects and cause DO apply... which means it's simply unknown.

It is infinitely more likely 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 than some magical god being.

 

[paradox]

The Kalam cosmogical argument has been refuted and debunked to death yet people keep on trying to rehash it and keep on failing. It's a weak argument based on assumption and contradiction.

I really don't know why it keeps coming back.

You're right there are arguments against it, but there are no arguments against infinity problem, on which BB depends.
The only reason I put this video is because of @Link 's premise:

Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible (p5 contradicts c1 + p3) c2

 

[ChristineM]

You're right there are arguments against it, but there are no arguments against infinity problem, on which BB depends.
The only reason I put this video is because of @Link 's premise:

No, the bb does not depend on infinity, some hypothesis on how the bb occured do depend on infinity. And as far as i know infinity is not a problem in either mathematics or cosmology.

 

[paradox]

And as far as i know infinity is not a problem in either mathematics or cosmology.

Can infinity be proved real such that it can exists in reality??

 

[firedragon]

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

Because one is a logical argument, and the other is a faith. The theistic argument is a logical argument. You don't have to follow it, but at least must know it.

 

[Link]

The cosmological argument (this version) is usually refuted by "parts of whole applied to whole", but this is wrong, it's induction and even if with that, there is a right way to apply parts to a whole and a wrong way. This if it was, would be a right way, but it can be proven without that, simply by induction.

This "eternal universe with no cause turns into a timed universe with rules to it's parts and because a series of cause and effects and limited by that, but before had no cause and effect rule to it" is crazy talk and insult to intelligence. It's hard to entertain.

It's like saying before the universe, math didn't apply it, it could be 1+1 = 8, and that would be rational to believe.

Even if the case maybe math rules only apply in our universe (sake of argument), and in some universes 1 + 2 =6, and cause and effect is only true of our universe, but is not true in all possible worlds, and that a universe before that existed in a timeless state, this billions of time less likely, and there is no reason to assume it.

It's more logical to assume the same rules applying to universe would have to apply to it before plank time.

Therefore at the very least, this should a highly "likely" argument for God. It doesn't proven him for certain, but it's way more likely then a universe where irrational things happen like "from nothing, nothing follows" not being true there.

There is also the issue if it was eternal, it would span before start and go beyond "end", and be infinite, how did shrink to plank time seconds? Come on think about it.

 

[Link]

Because one is a logical argument, and the other is a faith. The theistic argument is a logical argument. You don't have to follow it, but at least must know it.

Salam

I just began to think about the time wise. Eternal universe spanning with no start and no end and timeless, all of a sudden goes from infinite span to shrink plank time second. Honey I shrunk the kids, I mean universe? Who did that, the atheist says nothing, universe just did to itself. How is that even possible?

 

[ppp]

Can infinity be proved real such that it can exists in reality??

Black holes are infinitely dense.

 

[Polymath257]

I would dispute p1, p2, and p3. None of those seem likely given what we know.

 

[ppp]

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)

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. The only thing that you could derive from p1 & p2 is that a set of effects need a cause. You could simply start from

p1 is hypothetically true.
p2 is vague and meaningless. Consider a bird hatching, a star ejecting mass, and a neutrino flying thru space. You can group that set of effects is one effect, but that claim would be completely arbitrary/

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

First, you skipped p4.
Second that is false. An effect that starts right now and continues on unbounded would exist with a start, but be (as you put it) infinite in span.


No need to go further until you fix those issues. Also, your language is too loose. Tighten it up.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Actually, there is *every* reason to suspect that cause and effect doesn't apply to it. For example, every cause we have ever seen is within the universe. Every cause we have ever seen produces its effect at a later time, so time is relevant to cause and effect. But time is also part of the universe.

And, of course, this ignores the fact that we know of *many* effects that are not caused: most quantum level events are of this sort.

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

Please define precisely what you mean by the word 'cause' and the word 'effect'. Precisely why must every effect have a cause?

Why would a set of effects be an effect as well? How large of sets do you allow?

Is the cause of every effect an effect?

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.

How do you compute that probability?

 

[Polymath257]

Can infinity be proved real such that it can exists in reality??

Not yet. But you cannot prove that the number 2 is real and exists in reality.

It is certainly possible that the volume of space is infinite. Given what we know, it is even likely.

 

[JDMS]

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.

So... it doesn't make sense that the universe exists without a cause or creator, but it DOES make sense that an all-powerful and all-intelligent God exists without a cause or creator...?

 

[Link]

So... it doesn't make sense that the universe exists without a cause or creator, but it DOES make sense that an all-powerful and all-intelligent God exists without a cause or creator...?

Yes. And it's obvious why.

 

[Polymath257]

Because one is a logical argument, and the other is a faith. The theistic argument is a logical argument. You don't have to follow it, but at least must know it.

No, it is an illogical argument. More specifically, it is circular. To get the conclusion, you need to assume the existence of the thing you are trying to prove.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

I just began to think about the time wise. Eternal universe spanning with no start and no end and timeless, all of a sudden goes from infinite span to shrink plank time second. Honey I shrunk the kids, I mean universe? Who did that, the atheist says nothing, universe just did to itself. How is that even possible?

The problem is, I am not a scientist.

The argument from an atheistic point of view is that it happened naturally. From one thing, to another. The only point that it completely collapses is with the understanding that at some point there was no thing, and later there was something. That is the only area that the atheistic argument fails by default. Unless it's a fine tuning argument that follows in order to discuss "from one thing to another".

Loll Did I even word that right? Sometimes I am too quick to type.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. And it's obvious why.

More detail? Why does it make more sense this way than that?

in both cases, you are assuming *something* has always existed and does not have a creator. In one case, it is the universe and in the other it is God. But at least we know the universe exists. We do not know that about God (that being what we are supposed to be proving).

 

[firedragon]

No, it is an illogical argument. More specifically, it is circular. To get the conclusion, you need to assume the existence of the thing you are trying to prove.

Nope. You have not followed the logic.