A rephrasing of the cosmological argument.

[firedragon]

I don't know what the difference is but ok.... what makes you think from an atheistic point of view there was no thing?

The only point that it completely collapses is with the understanding that at some point there was no thing, and later there was something. If you take isolated sentences you won't get what someone is saying.

Read the OP. It's an argument from where the universe begins. If you don't believe there was a beginning as some do, then that's an a priori position. If you engage with the argument of the OP, its about a beginning.

That means at one point there was nothing, and at another point there was "a thing".

Maybe you should at least make some argument to how that happened.

 

[John53]

The only point that it completely collapses is with the understanding that at some point there was no thing, and later there was something. If you take isolated sentences you won't get what someone is saying.

I know that's what you said. I want to know why you think that from an atheistic point of view at some point there was no thing. I am not aware of anyone claiming that.

Read the OP. It's an argument from where the universe begins. If you don't believe there was a beginning as some do, then that's an a priori position. If you engage with the argument of the OP, its about a beginning.

That means at one point there was nothing, and at another point there was "a thing".

I've not aware of anyone claiming there was no thing which is why I asked why do you think it's an atheistic view.

Maybe you should at least make some argument to how that happened.

I have no argument. I don't understand big bang and once a magical God is needed the argument becomes illogical to me.

 

[Mahdi]

And the argument about what then caused that first thing is nothing more than a language paradox and anyone arguing around that particular 'what was before (the most before)' concept is revolving around an impossible paradox.

Because the mind, and the language that the thinking in our minds uses to 'calculate' the logic is necessarily incomplete (Gödel). We cannot ever formulate a complete axiomatic system and this extends to every other endeavour we as human minds take on.

Much like Cantor's continuum hypothesis which is the proof of incalculable numbers (to us), that are theoretically plentifully abundant; and yet we have no access to them with our minds or the tools we can ever develop mathematically. There is no access to these numbers that exist theoretically, but that we cannot ever reach with any of our methods no matter how clever.

Language has the same inherent limitations because ultimately language is a construct of the human mind that itself has the verifiable purpose of 'calculation'.
[The human brain is effectively an analogue computer that operates on signalling and a computational substrate that operates on the principle of 1. Presence or absence of a signal and 2. The quantity of that signal.]


To ask what is 'outside' the universe, or 'before' the universe or its Creator are not computable concepts.

There is 'outside' and 'inside' only through the frames of reference available 'in' the universe. We have no concept of an 'outside' of it or 'before' it. Our mind exists within and not without. Space in which we determine 'inside | outside' and time in which we determine 'before | after', are an inherent part our universe, and applying them to the 'before' and 'outside' of it does not make any logical sense because we cannot meaningfully conceptualise it.

 

[firedragon]

I know that's what you said. I want to know why you think that from an atheistic point of view at some point there was no thing. I am not aware of anyone claiming that.



I've not aware of anyone claiming there was no thing which is why I asked why do you think it's an atheistic view.



I have no argument. I don't understand big bang and once a magical God is needed the argument becomes illogical to me.

You are stramanning me. I will tell you why.

What do you think the OP is saying? Was there a beginning of the universe or not?

 

[John53]

You are stramanning me. I will tell you why.

What do you think the OP is saying? Was there a beginning of the universe or not?

I have no idea what stramanning is. I don't care what the OP is saying. I was asking you to clarify your claim. As usual instead of answering a simple polite question you turn it into whatever this is.

 

[firedragon]

I have no idea what stramanning is. I don't care what the OP is saying.

Alright John. If you don't care what the OP says, it's not relevant to me because what I said to Link was in context of the OP.

So, I will end this exchange with this post.

 

[John53]

Alright John. If you don't care what the OP says, it's not relevant to me because what I said to Link was in context of the OP.

So, I will end this exchange with this post.

Whatever

 

[firedragon]

Whatever

OK

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are stramanning me. I will tell you why.

What do you think the OP is saying? Was there a beginning of the universe or not?

There was a beginning to our universe, as we know it. But there may be, in fact the math implies it quite strongly from my understanding, that there is a bigger Cosmos that our universe is just a small part of. We can't say anything about that. Whether it had a beginning or not. It is simply unknown.

Also the OP's argument ultimately relies on the logical fallacy of Special Pleading. He claims God is different just because. That sort of "logic" does not fly in a logical argument. And that is what he tried to use. It fails.

 

[Mahdi]

And here one sees the entire 'atheist' position surrender...

Quote: ... "that there is a bigger,,, We can't say anything about that. Whether it had a beginning or not. It is simply unknown...'

They are satisfied with the position of: not to be able to ask about the 'beginning or not' of something here .

But then go right on in the same apparent mindset, to ask about the 'beginning cause' concept when the Cosmological Argument proves a logical argument all the way up to the beginning point by a very first cause.

There was a beginning to our universe, as we know it. But there may be, in fact the math implies it quite strongly from my understanding, that there is a bigger Cosmos that our universe is just a small part of. We can't say anything about that. Whether it had a beginning or not. It is simply unknown.

Also the OP's argument ultimately relies on the logical fallacy of Special Pleading. He claims God is different just because. That sort of "logic" does not fly in a logical argument. And that is what he tried to use. It fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here one sees the entire 'atheist' position surrender...

Quote: ... "that there is a bigger,,, We can't say anything about that. Whether it had a beginning or not. It is simply unknown...'

They are satisfied with the position of: not to be able to ask about the 'beginning or not' of something here .

But then go right on in the same apparent mindset, to ask about the 'beginning cause' concept when the Cosmological Argument proves a logical argument all the way up to the beginning point by a very first cause.

No, honesty is not surrender. The cosmological argument merely demonstrates the ignorance of the person trying to use it. The honest answer sometimes is "we don't know yet". "We don't know yet" is not a valid excuse to invoke a God. Also the same arguments that say that the universe had to have a creator can be used about God. It is a terrible failed argument. It does not prove God at all.

 

[rational experiences]

If a humans says we don't know yet. They expect to know.

The God argument used words that said why you will never know. To a humans best concept. Reasoning your own biological point position where the human is themselves to think as a biological human only.

To think. As a human is proven I can think. Or I'm unable to think.

Being unable to think by a theist in science says I want to know. States the human is an unacceptable thinker. Yet not life mind damaged won't think like you.

Is not the same as a damaged human mind who can't think.

So you position human word use to try to support what you want only.

As never not knowing is also accepted in consciousness also.

The type of term who am I as a human thinker relates either or agreement.

As I want is civilisation based only for science and not natural life. I want... then places the human in their owned exact non sensible position first.

Arguing is used by theists to depict what they want they will get.

Is the same as a rich man taking over life by his demand historic position. Demanding anything he desires. Isn't rationale.

If you ask basic questions. What is a sun exactly? No idea really.

A humans concept is said in position of human biological experience defended by a multi condition of other forces.

When did you learn scientist that you are wrong? Three times.

First he did destroy all life on earth.
Second Moses pyramid life attack.
Third Jesus pyramid life attack.

Experimenting each time with updated machine models as a human experimenting....
gives him science.

Science he says the powers of the cosmos history.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(1) That cause is eternal (never began)

In other words: it is infinite. The very thing you just concluded was impossible.

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

Even bending over backwards and ignoring the blatant self-contradiction above, this does not follow. At all.

This is a start to the right direction

Sure. If by "right direction", you mean down fallacy lane.

It doesn't prove capital "God", but it's a step.

It's not.

Rephrasing nonsense is still going to be nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Actually, there is very good reason to assume causality as we know it doesn't apply in that context.
For starters it requires temporal conditions to exist. And at T = 0, such conditions do not exist because the universe doesn't exist. And temporal conditions are an inherent part of the universe.

It's like asking "where did the universe start?". The answer is "nowhere" - and even that isn't actually correct.
The problem is that any place you can point to, is a point IN the universe. The universe didn't start IN the universe. See?

Our minds have difficulty comprehending nature in a context where neither space or time exists. So it feels counter-intuitive. That's the case for pretty much all of physics that deals with conditions that are not actively part of our perception. Relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. It all feels spooky and weird.
But it is what it is.

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

It doesn't stand to your intuition.

Whether or not in stands to reason, depends the actual physics theory/hypothesis that deals with the origins of the big bang, the evidence in support of it and how and if it can be tested.

Even if we can't be certain cause and effect always applied to it, God is infinitely more likely

How are unproven, unfalsifiable magical beings that have NO precedents whatsoever and which are literally indistinguishable from things that don't exist, "likely" in any way?

"Likely", how? Why? Because you already believe it?

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.

Your biggest mistake is assuming that the physics of the universe also apply when the universe doesn't even exist yet.

This makes no sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

How have you determined that the universe is an "effect"?

Why couldn't I just say "the universe is not an effect so no need for a cause"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I'm reminded of an old flemish saying:

"Al dragen varkens mooie ringen, het zijn en blijven lelijke dingen"

Which translates to:

"Pigs may wear beautiful rings, they are and stay ugly things"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 be a cesspool of logical fallacies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. And it's obvious why.

Obviously it is not obvious or people wouldn't be disagreeing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is not relevant to the OP.

Dude..........................................................

The OP is LITERALLY a rehash of kalam.
It says so right in the title.

So yes, pointing out the problems with kalam is very much relevant to the OP, since the OP includes the same problems. It uses different words, but expresses the exact same fallacious ideas.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Can a god be proven to exist?

Infinity has it's use in mathematics
It's a possibility in cosmology

As i said before, science does not deal in proof.