A rephrasing of the cosmological argument.

[John53]

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.

A logical argument wouldn't require special pleading in my opinion.

 

[Link]

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).

Even if we for sake of argument say "quantum level" things happen uncaused (I would argue there is a cause, we just don't know them yet), the universe is always in a state of going one state to another, that is effect. If we go infinite wise backwards, the paradox I applied would apply to it. It would be impossible by definition.

As for eternally existing and then shrinking to a plank time second, I don't believe that is rational to believe happened.

God is at least the most plausible conclusion in all this.

All other hypothesis are just wiggling themselves out of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. You have not followed the logic.

Kalam Argument:

1. We define God as the greatest thing.

2. We claim that such a being can be imagined.

3. We say that it would be even greater if it actually existed.

4. We conclude it exists.

The problem is that in order to say it would be greater, we need to assume it exists (otherwise no conclusion would be possible at all). hence, we assume the conclusion, which means it is a circular argument and thereby illogical.

 

[Link]

Kalam Argument:

1. We define God as the greatest thing.

2. We claim that such a being can be imagined.

3. We say that it would be even greater if it actually existed.

4. We conclude it exists.

The problem is that in order to say it would be greater, we need to assume it exists (otherwise no conclusion would be possible at all). hence, we assume the conclusion, which means it is a circular argument and thereby illogical.

The Kalam argument is the Cosmological argument.

You are thinking ontological argument. You are straw building that argument, easy to refute that way, but this is not about ontological.

 

[John53]

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.

What makes you feel the atheistic point of view is that at some point there was no thing?

 

[firedragon]

Kalam Argument:

This is not the Kalam argument.

Edit. And you have completely made up things about the Kalam argument.

 

[paradox]

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

Sorry but this sounds as if you're confusing two things: "2" existing as object and "2" existing as measurement of any object.
"2" as a measurement of something certainly exists.
What I meant is that nothing in the universe is so big that it would be infinitely big in measurement sense - no such thing exists.

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

My previous video shows that such thing is metaphysically impossible and that it is logical absurdity.

How would you refute problem of infinity ex. hilbert hotel from video?

Btw. I suggest you to in addition watch this video if you have time, it's very instructive:

 

[firedragon]

What makes you feel the atheistic point of view is that at some point there was no thing?

I didnt say that it's an agnostic point of view.

 

[firedragon]

A logical argument wouldn't require special pleading in my opinion.

Of course not. But there is no special pleading there. It's a logical argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Even if we for sake of argument say "quantum level" things happen uncaused (I would argue there is a cause, we just don't know them yet), the universe is always in a state of going one state to another, that is effect. If we go infinite wise backwards, the paradox I applied would apply to it. It would be impossible by definition.

Actually, you misused induction. Induction does NOT go from a property being shared by every element of an infinite set to the claim that the property is shared by the infinite set itself.

As for eternally existing and then shrinking to a plank time second, I don't believe that is rational to believe happened.

Fortunately, that isn't claimed anywhere.

God is at least the most plausible conclusion in all this.

All other hypothesis are just wiggling themselves out of it.

I see the God hypothesis as doing much more 'wiggling' because it has to prove so much more (that an uncaused cause is an intelligence, for example).

 

[Polymath257]

This is not the Kalam argument.

Edit. And you have completely made up things about the Kalam argument.

Oops, you are right. That is the ontological argument.

 

[Polymath257]

The Kalam argument is the Cosmological argument.

You are thinking ontological argument. You are straw building that argument, easy to refute that way, but this is not about ontological.

Sorry, you are right. My bad.

 

[JDMS]

Yes. And it's obvious why.

It's obvious? How so? I'm not sure I understand why you'd think that.

To me, it makes more sense that a bunch of atoms in their most basic forms exist and eventually develop into something more complex than something as complex and intelligent as God existing without a cause. Logically, my brain thinks, "ah, it's 0 to 1, makes sense", whereas a God is like "0 to 100,000,000.... we missed something". It's a far larger leap.

And even though those thoughts are based in flawed human logic, I'm merely debating your assumption that its "obvious why". It really doesn't seem obvious to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Kalam:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

Conclude that the universe had a cause.

The problem is that 1 is NOT what is in evidence. Instead, the best evidence is

1'. Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause within the universe.

From this, it follows that the universe does not have a cause.

I would also dispute 2: the phrase 'begins to exist' implies a process over time and that it NOT what happened with the existence of the universe. That is because time itself is part of the universe. Also, causality happens within time, so it makes no sense to talk about a cause outside of the universe.

 

[Link]

Actually, you misused induction.

It's inductive, but as I argued, even we say it's apply parts to whole, then by similar reasoning by induction, we can say this is a right way to apply parts to whole, and is not misapplication of it.

Fortunately, that isn't claimed anywhere.

If the universe always existed, it would be eternal. The discussion I was having with @ChristineM was she was saying that universe has no cause or effect as it's before time. If before time, it spans eternal. The universe we know, is plank time then plank time then plank time. How did it go from infinite eternal span to a plank time? Honey I shrunk the kids/universe?

I see the God hypothesis as doing much more 'wiggling' because it has to prove so much more (that an uncaused cause is an intelligence, for example).

To create the universe out of nothing it needs will

 

[firedragon]

Oops, you are right. That is the ontological argument.

That's fine.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry but this sounds as if you're confusing two things: "2" existing as object and "2" existing as measurement of any object.
"2" as a measurement of something certainly exists.
What I meant is that nothing in the universe is so big that it would be infinitely big in measurement sense - no such thing exists.

False. The heat capacity of melting ice is infinite while it is melting.

My previous video shows that such thing is metaphysically impossible and that it is logical absurdity.

How would you refute problem of infinity ex. hilbert hotel from video?

Which particular problem? There are *paradoxes*, but no contradictions.

Btw. I suggest you to in addition watch this video if you have time, it's very instructive:

Any particular part you want to discuss? It was cool to see Woodin in the video.

 

[paradox]

Black holes are infinitely dense.

Nice example, but we know too little about black holes to take this for granted.
Black Hole Cores May Not Be Infinitely Dense | Inside Science

 

[Link]

hat is because time itself is part of the universe. Also, causality happens within time, so it makes no sense to talk about a cause outside of the universe.

Every motion of time get's a cause except plank time 1. The first motion and plank time, because universe has time, get's no cause?

Think about what you guys are saying.

 

[John53]

I didnt say that it's an agnostic point of view.

I didn't say you did, I said atheistic and quoted where you said it.