View Full Version : Cosmological Argument
adamlonsdale
06-23-2008, 18:24
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
A casual chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.What do you think to the cosomological Argument? It trys to prove that god exists by saying something has to be caused by something bigger then it. And it gets bigger and bigger until you get to the universe, and it says that something has to cause that. But because there cannot be an infinate chain, there must be a first cause.
In light of the big bang theroy. William Lane Craig created the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.I'm studying this in Philosophy at the moment.
TheAngriestLeftyInTheWest
06-23-2008, 21:18
Just because there must be a cause, doesn't mean said cause is god.
bish bash bosh
Just because there must be a cause, doesn't mean said cause is god.
bish bash bosh
A rose by any other name...
----------------
Now playing: U2 - Red Hill Mining Town (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/u2/track/red+hill+mining+town)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)
PKDhande
06-23-2008, 21:20
Just because there must be a cause, doesn't mean said cause is god.
bish bash bosh
Amen to that! "My man got paaaayyyddd"
PKDhande
06-23-2008, 21:24
BTW, other ways of defeating the Cosmological argument:
- Why can there not be infinite regression? The argument begins a posteriori but then becomes a priori by applying observations from the world of things we know to beyond the world and the unknown.
- Just because the world has individual causes, it's not to say the world as a whole has a cause. e.g. as every human has a mother, it's not to say humankind has a mother.
- Why must there be only ONE cause?
- Why caused the first cause, God?
- Space isn't dependant on anything else for it's existence, making it 'necessary.'
Gotlieb Alexander
06-23-2008, 21:35
If everything was created by something bigger than it then what made God?
And I must say, if anything were to have unexplained appearance I'm more likely to believe it was a tiny particle than a great whopping sky-daddy
If everything was created by something bigger than it then what made God?
And I must say, if anything were to have unexplained appearance I'm more likely to believe it was a tiny particle than a great whopping sky-daddy
No one has ever said there WAS a great whopping sky-daddy, many religions believe God has no physical form...
Gotlieb Alexander
06-23-2008, 21:41
No one has ever said there WAS a great whopping sky-daddy, many religions believe God has no physical form...
Well he's there, and by the argument in the thread it must have greater power than everything after it
tinted_rose
06-24-2008, 16:36
- Why can there not be infinite regression?
Because we live in a finite universe. The proof of which being (from a non-predestination view) you cannot add to inifinity, because by definition you cannot add to it. If we were living in an infinite universe then today would not exist, as this would be adding to infinity.
So the world is finite, and there fore has a beginning, and therefore an end.
Personally I think there are better arguments - but also alot which are MUCH worse xD
PKDhande
06-24-2008, 16:38
Because we live in a finite universe.
What if today is part of infinite? We may not be able to comprehend infinity and this very moment is merely a part of it.
I posted this on another thread but it seemed relevant to use here as well.
Our very existence is illogical and therefore we cannot try to rationalise our existence with logic. For example if the Big Bang created life then what set the Big Bang into motion and then what created whatever it was that caused the Big Bang and so on... Perhaps it is more credible to believe in someone who claims to have supernatural ability and to be able to defy logic and the laws of science rather than believing a "logical" existence that cannot be fully explained.
A casual chain cannot be of infinite length.
Hmm, a list of prime numbers, casual enough for you? And thats one foundation down, which therefore means the cosmological argument is based on incorrect assumptions and is not provable through this method.
Our very existence is illogical and therefore we cannot try to rationalise our existence with logic.
How is it illogical?
For example if the Big Bang created life then what set the Big Bang into motion and then what created whatever it was that caused the Big Bang and so on... Perhaps it is more credible to believe in someone who claims to have supernatural ability and to be able to defy logic and the laws of science rather than believing a "logical" existence that cannot be fully explained.
What is "supernatural ability". It is an adjective we describe to an object. Why not make the big bang "supernatural" instead of viewing something in a way that allows it to escape the vigours of scientific testing or reasoning. I'll also point you to my previous post, asking why it is more credible to believe something without evidence just because we describe it as supernatural.
Just because God is a simple word, doesn't mean God is simple. If there really is a ultimate being capable of designing the universe, controlling all matter and listening to the prayers of billions of people simultaneously, he must be more complex than the universe. So by saying the existance of the universe is to complex to be logical, than the same argument disproves God.
Hmm, a list of prime numbers, casual enough for you? And thats one foundation down, which therefore means the cosmological argument is based on incorrect assumptions and is not provable through this method.
How is it illogical?
For example if the Big Bang created life then what set the Big Bang into motion and then what created whatever it was that caused the Big Bang and so on... Perhaps it is more credible to believe in someone who claims to have supernatural ability and to be able to defy logic and the laws of science rather than believing a "logical" existence that cannot be fully explained.
What is "supernatural ability". It is an adjective we describe to an object. Why not make the big bang "supernatural" instead of viewing something in a way that allows it to escape the vigours of scientific testing or reasoning. I'll also point you to my previous post, asking why it is more credible to believe something without evidence just because we describe it as supernatural.
Just because God is a simple word, doesn't mean God is simple. If there really is a ultimate being capable of designing the universe, controlling all matter and listening to the prayers of billions of people simultaneously, he must be more complex than the universe. So by saying the existance of the universe is to complex to be logical, than the same argument disproves God.
The Big Bang theory is not supernatural nor does it claim to be supernatural. It is one of many attempts to explain our existance using scientific reasoning. I suggested that it was perhaps more credible to believe something that is "supernatural" because it makes no claim to being logical when it cannot be confirmed with logic it has no effect on its credibility.
I did not mention that God was more complex than the universe. I can understand your thinking in assuming this, although please allow me to say that it was an assumption nonetheless. I also did not say the existence of the Universe is too complex to be logical. I said that it was not logical this is due to the way that it came about (the fact that the universe had no root cause because again if something created the universe what created that and so on..). This by your logic would mean that I am saying if the universe's existance is illogical then God's existance is illogical - that is in fact what I am saying and this is one of the things that makes him supernatural and as I mentioned earlier God does not lose his credibility because He does not conform to the rules of logic. God created logic and has the power to break it. God is subject to nothing, no matter how important that thing may seem. Logic, scientific reasoning or whatever one would like to call it cannot explain everything. From a logic standpoint time is linear - it has a beggining so what caused this beggining? Surely by logic, nothing was before the beggining unless time is cyclical then with no end and no beggining but with us stuck in an endless loop but even then, what formed this loop? Ultimately, from a logical point of view, everything that exists had a cause to exist. When it can only be assumed and half-explained with a whole heap of "I don't knows" it may be time to look deeper than mere logic/scientific reasoning.
But the problem again is, that the entire definition of God and supernatural is that it ignores the rules of logic and science, so people have in effect "invented" an attribute to explain this problem away. In any other case if I made an attribute and applied it to a scientific theory to explain it, it would be condemed as nonsense. I do not see why the God hypothesis does not, merely because it is religious argument, escape the same viogurs of other scientific theories/tests, simply because someone says "oh, and the rules of logic don't apply to God because that's the way he is". Do you see where I'm coming from?
Hmm, a list of prime numbers, casual enough for you?
I'm pretty sure they meant causal chain.
But the problem again is, that the entire definition of God and supernatural is that it ignores the rules of logic and science, so people have in effect "invented" an attribute to explain this problem away. In any other case if I made an attribute and applied it to a scientific theory to explain it, it would be condemed as nonsense. I do not see why the God hypothesis does not, merely because it is religious argument, escape the same viogurs of other scientific theories/tests, simply because someone says "oh, and the rules of logic don't apply to God because that's the way he is". Do you see where I'm coming from?
I do see your point. Am I right in saying that you feel that everything to do with science is subject to testing by scientific means, so therefore you feel that everything else including God should be subject to testing by scientific means and when God is tested by scientific means His existance is found to be implausible? If this is the case then I understand what you are saying. Science claims to be logical, therefore if any scientific discovery were illogical, understandibly it would be declared nonsense. God however does not claim to be logical, therefore if an attempt to scientifically analyse God is made and He is found to be illogical does this in any way discredit God?
As for why God is not subject to logic is not an easy question, but perhaps this analogy will shed some light on the issue. If you create a database you can create validation rules for the database so data that does not comply to the validation rules cannot enter it. However, you as the creator of the database would still be able to enter any data that you wanted into the database whether or not it complied to the validation rules simply by changing the validation rules. Therefore, although these rules would seem sovereign on empirical observation of the data in the database you as the creator would not be subject to the rules that you had created. You would be free to change them as you please.
Similarly, God has created certain rules on this earth that would seem sovereign to us on empirical observation. For example if I were to throw a ball into the air, it would surely fall back to earth due to gravity. This would understandably seem like undisputable reasoning. However, the crux of my arguement is that because God, the creator of this Earth, made these rules He has the ability and the entitlement to change, bend or manipulate these rules in any way or for any purpose whatsoever. I myself struggled to understand this concept until fairly recently, although understanding it would require a philosophical line of thought freeing yourself from rules that are thought to be sovereign.
Are you then saying that you cannot accept any truth apart from science and if it cannot be scientifically proven it is not true? Are you saying that science is the Ultimate, "the end all and be all"?
SyedMohsin
07-03-2008, 13:15
If something cannot be proven wrong by science does not mean its not there. However if science does prove something wrong then that definately means that thing isnt there.
PKDhande
07-03-2008, 15:42
Leon,
Your argument could also be used to prove the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny then.
Leon,
Your argument could also be used to prove the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny then.
heyy dont go dissin the bunny or santa :p
they do technically exsist!
Leon,
Your argument could also be used to prove the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny then.
How is that?
PKDhande
07-03-2008, 16:29
How is that?
Santa Claus could defy logic and reason.
I am sure that no one claims Santa or the Easter Bunny had any hand in creating the world, therefore they abide by the rules of this world - logic. Henceforth, I can be confident in saying that they do not exist.
PKDhande
07-03-2008, 17:47
I am sure that no one claims Santa or the Easter Bunny had any hand in creating the world, therefore they abide by the rules of this world - logic. Henceforth, I can be confident in saying that they do not exist.
OK, so I don't believe in the omniscient, omnibenvolent and omnipotent God of major religions; instead I now believe the evil Easter Bunny created the world. There's no evidence for this, and I can't prove it because the Easter Bunny goes beyond logic and reason.
Disprove me.
OK, so I don't believe in the omniscient, omnibenvolent and omnipotent God of major religions; instead I now believe the evil Easter Bunny created the world. There's no evidence for this, and I can't prove it because the Easter Bunny goes beyond logic and reason.
Disprove me.
I know God exists because He spoke to me today. Can you make the same claim of the Easter Bunny without lying?
I know God exists because He spoke to me today. Can you make the same claim of the Easter Bunny without lying?
now how many times does 'god' speak to you?
*goes hmmm a lot* :D
yeh i april the easter bunny spoke to whilst passing me an egg!!
now how many times does 'god' speak to you?
*goes hmmm a lot* :D
yeh i april the easter bunny spoke to whilst passing me an egg!!
lol you takin the mick!? :D. I can understand why it seems implausible.
lol you takin the mick!? :D. I can understand why it seems implausible.
yeh lmao! am taking the micky :p
explain it to me then...:D
yeh lmao! am taking the micky :p
explain it to me then...:D
When God speaks (to me personally anyway) it comes across a distinct "feeling" not quite the same as an emotion because an emotion has a stimulus e.g. you win the lottery therefore you feel happy. When God speaks there is no stimulus, there seems to be no logical reason for you to feel in a certain way, nonetheless you do. I have got "feelings" in some instances acted on it and it appeared that it was indeed true this has happened in more than one circumstance and in fact, to me it is pretty much the norm.
When God speaks (to me personally anyway) it comes across a distinct "feeling" not quite the same as an emotion because an emotion has a stimulus e.g. you win the lottery therefore you feel happy. When God speaks there is no stimulus, there seems to be no logical reason for you to feel in a certain way, nonetheless you do. I have got "feelings" in some instances acted on it and it appeared that it was indeed true this has happened in more than one circumstance and in fact, to me it is pretty much the norm.
i get like that but i just call it being happy! but i guess if you think its god then it is! in a way god is your stimulus! it could be mine to but im more likely to think woooo am just randomly happy again :D
sorry if i make no sense whts so ever !! :D :p
adamlonsdale
07-03-2008, 19:28
So if you feel depressed for no reason, thats god?
i get like that but i just call it being happy! but i guess if you think its god then it is! in a way god is your stimulus! it could be mine to but im more likely to think woooo am just randomly happy again :D
sorry if i make no sense whts so ever !! :D :p
You're making sense, or at least I can make sense of what you're saying!:D Sometimes it can be more specific e.g. do x,y,z or more frequently don't do x,y,z and even if the thing that I feel that I should or shouldn't do isn't particularly good or particularly bad (i.e the instruction seems random) but when I listen to God. There is some sort of good after effect.
So if you feel depressed for no reason, thats god?
no probs the devil!!! *ooooooh!!* :D
PKDhande
07-03-2008, 19:34
I know God exists because He spoke to me today. Can you make the same claim of the Easter Bunny without lying?
1) I question whether anything objective had a connection with you.
2) How do you know it was God, not the Easter bunny?
Feeling depressed definately isn't God. Scientists might argue that it is some kind of a hormone imbalance, but I don't know about that. I think that if anyone is feeling depressed they should ask themselves what could be the cause of it.
Feeling depressed definately isn't God. Scientists might argue that it is some kind of a hormone imbalance, but I don't know about that. I think that if anyone is feeling depressed they should ask themselves what could be the cause of it.
good advice its a chemical imbalance in the brain but their are many other cause e.g. not going out or bereavement big life event etc
1) I question whether anything objective had a connection with you.
2) How do you know it was God, not the Easter bunny?
Could you please clarify point 1?
John 10 :4-5 "When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
PKDhande
07-03-2008, 20:08
Could you please clarify point 1?
I don't believe it's possible to have a connection with God (because he doesn't exist.) What people perceive as religious experiences can often be attributed to activity with the lobes in the brain, whereby people lose a sense of self and feel as though they're accompanied by another force. (I highly recommend you watch "God on the Brain" which is a documentary covering this in detail.) The brain is designed to HAVE religious experiences, almost as an evolutionary defence mechanism.
John 10 :4-5 "When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
This is valid if you accept the word of the Bible.
I don't believe it's possible to have a connection with God (because he doesn't exist.) What people perceive as religious experiences can often be attributed to activity with the lobes in the brain, whereby people lose a sense of self and feel as though they're accompanied by another force. (I highly recommend you watch "God on the Brain" which is a documentary covering this in detail.) The brain is designed to HAVE religious experiences, almost as an evolutionary defence mechanism.
This is valid if you accept the word of the Bible.
It seems a bit coincidental that a "God on the Brain" experience can lead me into the knowledge of things that I ordinarily should not know, which have in instances been simultaneously confirmed by someone else who happens to be having the exact same of "God on the Brain" experience at the exact same time.
soph41190
07-04-2008, 14:46
I wonder how quoting the bible can prove anything about what God said....
If I wrote a book of God's words, buried it then dug it up 20 years from now, no one would beleive me. So why does quoting a 'book' quote God exactly, hust because the fellas who wrote it says they did?
Just curious.
SyedMohsin
07-04-2008, 17:23
I wonder how quoting the bible can prove anything about what God said....
If I wrote a book of God's words, buried it then dug it up 20 years from now, no one would beleive me. So why does quoting a 'book' quote God exactly, hust because the fellas who wrote it says they did?
Just curious.
Not sure about the Bible but we believe that the Quran is the word of God, why? Simply because of what is written in it, how it is written and how could a man at that time write it.
Simply because of what is written in it, how it is written and how could a man at that time write it.
I would have to agree.
PKDhande
07-04-2008, 20:26
It seems a bit coincidental that a "God on the Brain" experience can lead me into the knowledge of things that I ordinarily should not know, which have in instances been simultaneously confirmed by someone else who happens to be having the exact same of "God on the Brain" experience at the exact same time.
I can't comment without further detail.
PKDhande
07-04-2008, 20:27
Not sure about the Bible but we believe that the Quran is the word of God, why? Simply because of what is written in it, how it is written and how could a man at that time write it.
What then makes the Qu'ran more believable than the books of Scientology? Sorry, that doesn't wash at all.
soph41190
07-04-2008, 21:42
Not sure about the Bible but we believe that the Quran is the word of God, why? Simply because of what is written in it, how it is written and how could a man at that time write it.
How could man put man on the moon...well howdy he did. The way we think has not changed, just how we think it. The Bible was certainly edited to within an inch of its life, and published when Rome saw it fit. Not because Jesus okaid it. The dead sea scrolls, no longer myth. No one can dismiss this anymore.
SyedMohsin
07-05-2008, 00:04
What then makes the Qu'ran more believable than the books of Scientology? Sorry, that doesn't wash at all.
Wash?? Maybe there too much grease on ya :P
A muslim would ask you to prove that his book goes against logic or contradicts with itself at any point. Im not sure about other religions but Islam boass itself on the fact that the quran has not been changed since the day of its creation and is in its purest form unlike any other religious text hence we would have no excuse if you scrutinize it and there was something wrong. Our whole religion would colllapse.
soph41190
07-05-2008, 09:11
Is it not being changed now? Just because no pen was put to it doesn't mean that no man is going about changing it. These terrorists, they believe their version of Islam is the TRUE version of Islam, just as you believe it is not. A true change is changing interpretations. Many people's interpretation of Islam, out of either ignorance, fear, or the current climate view Islam as a religion that preaches violence and death against Christians. If this is a genuine feeling by many, has Islam in this way not been re-written?
SyedMohsin
07-05-2008, 21:06
Is it not being changed now? Just because no pen was put to it doesn't mean that no man is going about changing it. These terrorists, they believe their version of Islam is the TRUE version of Islam, just as you believe it is not. A true change is changing interpretations. Many people's interpretation of Islam, out of either ignorance, fear, or the current climate view Islam as a religion that preaches violence and death against Christians. If this is a genuine feeling by many, has Islam in this way not been re-written?
If people who set about to follow Islam have changed that does not mean Islam itself has changed unless you can prove to me otherwise. There are quite a few muslims I know who drink alcohol but that does not mean Islam has changed itmeans the people following it have changed. No matter how any man interprets it at the end of the day it is his interpretation which can change on the material, but not the material change on the interpretation, atleast not in Islam.
How could man put man on the moon...well howdy he did. The way we think has not changed, just how we think it. The Bible was certainly edited to within an inch of its life, and published when Rome saw it fit. Not because Jesus okaid it. The dead sea scrolls, no longer myth. No one can dismiss this anymore.
Putting man on the moon is not the same as prophecying events that were to happen hundreds or in some cases thousands of years in the future. Again, there is no substantial evidence for the Bible being "edited" to suit someone's own ends. Anything not currently in the Bible is not supposed to be in the Bible and anything that was in the Bible still is in the Bible. This is the Christian belief. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”- Matthew 24:35
I can't comment without further detail.
A "feeling" was received from God that someone was struggling in life with x,y,z. Another person simultaneously received that exact same "feeling" at the same time that the person needed to be helped with x,y,z. The "x,y,z" was something far too random to have been coincidence. Also, from personal experience someone was ill with chronic migranes due to a head injury and as a result often had to wear sunglasses to prevent too much light getting into their eyes, which worsened the migrane. This person was prayed for and instantly the need for wearing the sunglasses went away - the migrane was gone.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.