A Presentation of the Cosmological Argument(s)

[Beth-Zur]

Pleasantly surprised to have just come upon this in my email. A Presentation of the Cosmological Argument(s) | Hellenistic Christendom Thought there might be some interest. Shalom! Beth
.

 

[Elioenai26]

Pleasantly surprised to have just come upon this in my email. A Presentation of the Cosmological Argument(s) | Hellenistic Christendom Thought there might be some interest. Shalom! Beth
.

Interesting Beth-Zur! And welcome to the forum!

The Cosmological arguments are Indeed arguments that are the source of stimulating discussion. I hope this thread proves fruitful!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Pleasantly surprised to have just come upon this in my email.
.

What email? And from where? Be careful.

 

[Ken-1122]

Pleasantly surprised to have just come upon this in my email. A Presentation of the Cosmological Argument(s) | Hellenistic Christendom Thought there might be some interest. Shalom! Beth
.

Even though I haven’t read the website listed, all of the Cosmological arguments I’ve heard were very weak and in effective in proving God. The ones I’ve heard were like;

Everything that exists requires a cause
The universe exists thus has a cause
God is that cause

The problem with that logic is, if you say ”everything that exists requires a cause” unless your God doesn’t exist, he is gonna require a cause as well.
If you say only material things require a cause and the cause can’t be material and God is spiritual not material, what’s to stop someone from saying spiritual things require a cause as well and that cause can’t be spiritual but material thus god’s cause is material; like humans; thus God was created by humans.
If you say God has always existed thus has no cause, then your claim that everything that exists must have a cause becomes mute.

K

 

[Elioenai26]

Even though I haven’t read the website listed, all of the Cosmological arguments I’ve heard were very weak and in effective in proving God. The ones I’ve heard were like;

Everything that exists requires a cause
The universe exists thus has a cause
God is that cause

The problem with that logic is, if you say ”everything that exists requires a cause” unless your God doesn’t exist, he is gonna require a cause as well.
If you say only material things require a cause and the cause can’t be material and God is spiritual not material, what’s to stop someone from saying spiritual things require a cause as well and that cause can’t be spiritual but material thus god’s cause is material; like humans; thus God was created by humans.
If you say God has always existed thus has no cause, then your claim that everything that exists must have a cause becomes mute.

K

No one uses that argument so I do not know where you got it from.

Premise one usually reads:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is not controversial. The scientific method is founded upon that principle because it is always verified in our experience and never falsified.

 

[ranunculus]

No one uses that argument so I do not know where you got it from.

Premise one usually reads:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is not controversial. The scientific method is founded upon that principle because it is always verified in our experience and never falsified.

If we can divide the universe into 2 sets, the first set containing all the things that begin to exist, and the second set containing all the things that don't begin to exist. What exactly does the second set contain?

 

[Aeroflotte]

Cosmological Arguments are invalid on the basis that they're arguments. Arguments are based upon clashes in human thought, which is developed in the human mind, which is reliant upon human senses, which are only able to detect that which is in the physical world. Arguments are only valid within the mundane world.

 

[Elioenai26]

Cosmological Arguments are invalid on the basis that they're arguments.

 

[Aeroflotte]

Yes?

 

[Ken-1122]

No one uses that argument so I do not know where you got it from.

Premise one usually reads:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is not controversial. The scientific method is founded upon that principle because it is always verified in our experience and never falsified.

Same thing! If you say, everything material began to exist, I can say the same thing for your God. If your God does not require a beginning, neither does the Universe.
Also I never heard of a working scientific theory that claims everything began to exists have you?
Also aren't you christian? If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they say your God doesn't exist, why would you all of a sudden assume they would know what they are talking about when they say everything began to exist? (assuming they actually said such a thing)

K

 

[Elioenai26]

Same thing! If you say, everything material began to exist, I can say the same thing for your God. If your God does not require a beginning, neither does the Universe.
Also I never heard of a working scientific theory that claims everything began to exists have you?
Also aren't you christian? If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they say your God doesn't exist, why would you all of a sudden assume they would know what they are talking about when they say everything began to exist? (assuming they actually said such a thing)

K

God is not material.

The universe has a beginning obviously. Cosmology confirms it and so does the impossibility of an actually infinite number of past events. Big Bang cosmology, research it. I do not think scientists are silly at all. I am a scientist, many of my fellow brothers and sisters are as well. If the evidence calls for a beginning of the universe, then we must accept that.

 

[Beth-Zur]

Interesting Beth-Zur! And welcome to the forum!

The Cosmological arguments are Indeed arguments that are the source of stimulating discussion. I hope this thread proves fruitful!

Thank you for the warm welcome, Elioenai. It appears to be a nice outline and an interesting site. Frankly, I haven't spent much time reading about Cosmological Arguments, aside from Craig's 'Kalam', so any "fruit" on this thread will likely not come from me, lol. But, I thought that other Cosmological "Arguenauts" might find it of value.

Peace!! Beth

 

[Elioenai26]

Thank you for the warm welcome, Elioenai. It appears to be a nice outline and an interesting site. Frankly, I haven't spent much time reading about Cosmological Arguments, aside from Craig's 'Kalam', so any "fruit" on this thread will likely not come from me, lol. But, I thought that other Cosmological "Arguenauts" might find it of value.

Peace!! Beth

 

[Beth-Zur]

What email? And from where? Be careful.

Hold on, I'll go check................ one sec........
Here it is. It's from....... YOU!!! on your "Droid" phone.

 

[Beth-Zur]

Even though I haven’t read the website listed, all of the Cosmological arguments I’ve heard were very weak and in effective in proving God. The ones I’ve heard were like;

Everything that exists requires a cause
The universe exists thus has a cause
God is that cause

The problem with that logic is, if you say ”everything that exists requires a cause” unless your God doesn’t exist, he is gonna require a cause as well.
If you say only material things require a cause and the cause can’t be material and God is spiritual not material, what’s to stop someone from saying spiritual things require a cause as well and that cause can’t be spiritual but material thus god’s cause is material; like humans; thus God was created by humans.
If you say God has always existed thus has no cause, then your claim that everything that exists must have a cause becomes mute.

K

So... you're laying down ink on a post where you haven't even glanced at the object of discussion.

Oops, almost! I heard that Victoria's Secret is having a sale on Freudian Slips this weekend.

Source?? This sounds a little off, to me.

When you say, "If you say...", I understand you to intend it generically, since I have not expressed a position on the topic. We read in Scripture, that "God is Spirit and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth John 4:24. He is not elemental. He has always been, He always will be. No beginning; no end. We can't understand this spiritual realm using our elemental understanding, instrumentation etc. It's incompatible to the task. Aren't there two sides to every membrane? The interior of cell is like it's own little universe. Well, there are varying degrees of permeability of the membrane depending on the cell, yes? (especially the blood-brain barrier) I think of the spiritual realm a bit like this. We live within this "cell", have very limited interaction with what's on the other side of the membrane, (though we do a lot of guessing) it's like "looking through a glass darkly, yet we are fully dependent on what's on the other side of the membrane to survive. (just my private analogy.)

 

[Ken-1122]

God is not material.

I know. I said God is spirit and spirit things can't come from spirits.

The universe has a beginning obviously. Cosmology confirms it and so does the impossibility of an actually infinite number of past events.

No, science only goes back as far as the "Big Bang". What ever happened before that nobody knows. Matter could have always existed as far as scientist knows.

Big Bang cosmology, research it. I do not think scientists are silly at all. I am a scientist, many of my fellow brothers and sisters are as well. If the evidence calls for a beginning of the universe, then we must accept that.

And if nobody knows, we should accept that rather than making stuff up.

Ken

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For once, I agree.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Hold on, I'll go check................ one sec........
Here it is. It's from....... YOU!!! on your "Droid" phone.

Just be careful, okay? Especially with surprise emails that ask you to follow odd links.

 

[Ken-1122]

[/color]

So... you're laying down ink on a post where you haven't even glanced at the object of discussion.

Oops, almost! I heard that Victoria's Secret is having a sale on Freudian Slips this weekend.

Source?? This sounds a little off, to me.

I glanced at it, I just didn’t have time to read 10 pages of an argument I’ve heard time and time again. It would have been better had the OP provided a synopsis of the argument rather than just providing a link, that way I could have commented on his actual words rather than somebody elses.

When you say, "If you say...", I understand you to intend it generically, since I have not expressed a position on the topic. We read in Scripture, that "God is Spirit and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth John 4:24. He is not elemental. He has always been, He always will be. No beginning; no end. We can't understand this spiritual realm using our elemental understanding, instrumentation etc. It's incompatible to the task. Aren't there two sides to every membrane? The interior of cell is like it's own little universe. Well, there are varying degrees of permeability of the membrane depending on the cell, yes? (especially the blood-brain barrier) I think of the spiritual realm a bit like this. We live within this "cell", have very limited interaction with what's on the other side of the membrane, (though we do a lot of guessing) it's like "looking through a glass darkly, yet we are fully dependent on what's on the other side of the membrane to survive. (just my private analogy.)

Cute analogy. The human imagination is capable of all sorts of interesting stories, ideas, and analogies. But let’s face it; there isn’t any empirical evidence that the spiritual world even exists! The cosmos is physical. If you are going to provide an explanation concerning the physical world, you need to provide an answer that can be empirically verified. To create a “spiritual world” a “congillian world” a “hextrillion world” etc. or whatever world the human imagination can conjure up; to provide answers to the many questions we don’t yet have an answer for, doesn’t do any good for anybody except for those who choose to believe in those particular worlds. I don’t believe in your spiritual world, so your analogy doesn’t do me any good.

K

 

[Aeroflotte]

For once, I agree.

The effectiveness of human rationality ends with the supernatural, on the basis that human rationality is based upon the known world which is natural and follows natural laws. Cosmological arguments argue that there is a supernatural cause, based upon arguments rooted in the natural world. Cosomological arguments not posing a supernatural being as the cause also suffer, because we don't know that our thought processes match what is beyond, and also if the cause were to follow natural laws, then there would be a further cause to cause the cause.

(Rational) Arguments are thus a waste of time and ultimately invalid.