The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 01:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I want to know where the larger Reality came from, and how it came to be. A god/being with specific properties can't be the answer to that question.

This statement requires justification.

No it doesn't. You just don't understand it.
A god with specific properties is not ALL of reality.
Reality was always larger than a god with specific properties.
If you have to define your god, it can't be the creator of the Reality it *must* participate in partially.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 05:46 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Many atheists I have interacted with have claimed that the cosmological arguments for God have all been debunked for years. The goal of this thread is to explain exactly why this claim is false. Let's begin with some of the basic cosmological arguments that many apologists use.

Argument from Contingency

Why? Can't you think of anything more interesting and meaningful to do? There are so many more intersting things to do with your brain.

NB: Arguments are not evidence. Imagine going to trial and failing to produce any evidence.

Quote:1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.

2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.

3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

Or your brain is evolved to seek reasons. This is an evolutionary advantage when avoiding lions, tigers and bears but leads to sloppy thinking when practicing philosophy.

Quote:4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

This premise is unsupported. You have failed to demonstrate that the necessary element need be a being rather than some blind natural force.

Quote:5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.

6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.

8. The universe is contingent.

You have failed to demonstrate this. Kindly show that the universe could have not existed or could cease to exist.

Quote:9. Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

Your necessary being only appears necessary because you are using causation outside of space-time. By attempting to employ causation outside of the context of space-time you have not only demonstrated that your purportedly necessary being is unnecessary but also impossible.

Congratulations on killing god.

Quote:Argument from Possibility and Necessity

Aquinas? Again? Done to death half a millenium ago.

Quote:1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

I am a man. I do not speak of it as god. Clearly this statement is wrong.

Semantics aside, Aquinas fails to demonstrate a being, much less a Divine Being, much less his particularly vicious "deity".

Aquinas was decent at theology. No, that isn't a compliment. He was rubbish at cosmology. Hardly his fault seeing as the field wouldn't be invented for another 400 years. The current Lanbda-CDM cosmological model indicates that the structure of the universe is the result of miniscule quantum fluctuations imprinted on the very early universe during the first few femtoseconds of the inflationary epoch. These fluctuations are without cause but dictate all subsequent events. Say goodbye to your Necessary Being.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Paleophyte's post
06-02-2017, 05:53 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 05:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  This statement requires justification.

No it doesn't. You just don't understand it.
A god with specific properties is not ALL of reality.
Reality was always larger than a god with specific properties.
If you have to define your god, it can't be the creator of the Reality it *must* participate in partially.

Oh so claims require no justification? Ok. God exists. In all seriousness, no one is saying God created reality. The necessary being which we can call God exists within reality.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 06:08 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 06:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 05:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 05:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it doesn't. You just don't understand it.
A god with specific properties is not ALL of reality.
Reality was always larger than a god with specific properties.
If you have to define your god, it can't be the creator of the Reality it *must* participate in partially.

Oh so claims require no justification? Ok. God exists. In all seriousness, no one is saying God created reality. The necessary being which we can call God exists within reality.

It's not a claim. It's a definitional tautology. A part is not the whole.

Then your concept of god is worthless and inadequate.
And you're totally wrong.
Virtually every theist claims God *is existence*, including your friend from last week. But of course you know nothing about any theological system, (despite claiming to be a theist).

As I said, critical thinking is not your strong suit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 06:18 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
I'm so tired of having (and/or having to read) this entire conversation every month... sometimes weekly...

*sigh*

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
06-02-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Oh, I missed a fun one.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Many atheists I have interacted with have claimed that the cosmological arguments for God have all been debunked for years.

True. The various cosmological arguments haven't been relevant in centuries - even when they were initially formulated, they were fallacious.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Argument from Contingency

...8. The universe is contingent.

Bare assertion.

Debunked.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Argument from Possibility and Necessity

...5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

Bare assertion ("the universe required a cause"), based on fallacious equivocation between objects coming into existence within the universe and the universe itself coming into existence.

Objects which exist within the universe demonstrably require causes to exist. The universe cannot be demonstrated to be subject to this same requirement.

Therefore, the argument is bare assertion.

Debunked.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  If nothing exists, then nothing has any potency to cause anything else to exist. This isn't to say the lack of spacetime, but the lack of anything. If nothing exists, then nothing can arise.

Bare assertion.

The requirement for causality can only be shown to hold - more than that, is only coherent within spacetime. Without spacetime, there is no requirement for a cause. In fact, the entire idea of causes is nonsensical, since there is no time in which the cause could precede its effect.

As no requirement for causation can be demonstrated, there is no reason to believe that the universe needed one. In fact, almost the opposite is true, because the idea is incoherent at its base.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Many atheists have used this to say that the unvierse "just is". This places the universe as the necessary being. However, as mentioned before, the unvierse doesn't have potency to cause all things.

And the only justification you have for claiming this is "because I say it doesn't".

Sorry, Naielis, but you are quite flatly wrong. The cosmological arguments have not been relevant for literally centuries.

They are debunked.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
06-02-2017, 07:35 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 06:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Oh, I missed a fun one.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Many atheists I have interacted with have claimed that the cosmological arguments for God have all been debunked for years.

True. The various cosmological arguments haven't been relevant in centuries - even when they were initially formulated, they were fallacious.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Argument from Contingency

...8. The universe is contingent.

Bare assertion.

Debunked.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Argument from Possibility and Necessity

...5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

Bare assertion ("the universe required a cause"), based on fallacious equivocation between objects coming into existence within the universe and the universe itself coming into existence.

Objects which exist within the universe demonstrably require causes to exist. The universe cannot be demonstrated to be subject to this same requirement.

Therefore, the argument is bare assertion.

Debunked.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  If nothing exists, then nothing has any potency to cause anything else to exist. This isn't to say the lack of spacetime, but the lack of anything. If nothing exists, then nothing can arise.

Bare assertion.

The requirement for causality can only be shown to hold - more than that, is only coherent within spacetime. Without spacetime, there is no requirement for a cause. In fact, the entire idea of causes is nonsensical, since there is no time in which the cause could precede its effect.

As no requirement for causation can be demonstrated, there is no reason to believe that the universe needed one. In fact, almost the opposite is true, because the idea is incoherent at its base.

(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Many atheists have used this to say that the unvierse "just is". This places the universe as the necessary being. However, as mentioned before, the unvierse doesn't have potency to cause all things.

And the only justification you have for claiming this is "because I say it doesn't".

Sorry, Naielis, but you are quite flatly wrong. The cosmological arguments have not been relevant for literally centuries.

They are debunked.

Ok I've addressed this so many times and I addressed it in the original argument. Please read what I said before commenting on it.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 07:38 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 07:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 06:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Oh, I missed a fun one.


True. The various cosmological arguments haven't been relevant in centuries - even when they were initially formulated, they were fallacious.


Bare assertion.

Debunked.


Bare assertion ("the universe required a cause"), based on fallacious equivocation between objects coming into existence within the universe and the universe itself coming into existence.

Objects which exist within the universe demonstrably require causes to exist. The universe cannot be demonstrated to be subject to this same requirement.

Therefore, the argument is bare assertion.

Debunked.


Bare assertion.

The requirement for causality can only be shown to hold - more than that, is only coherent within spacetime. Without spacetime, there is no requirement for a cause. In fact, the entire idea of causes is nonsensical, since there is no time in which the cause could precede its effect.

As no requirement for causation can be demonstrated, there is no reason to believe that the universe needed one. In fact, almost the opposite is true, because the idea is incoherent at its base.


And the only justification you have for claiming this is "because I say it doesn't".

Sorry, Naielis, but you are quite flatly wrong. The cosmological arguments have not been relevant for literally centuries.

They are debunked.

Ok I've addressed this so many times and I addressed it in the original argument. Please read what I said before commenting on it.

He clearly did read it. It is you who appears to have a reading comprehension problem.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-02-2017, 07:56 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 07:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok I've addressed this so many times and I addressed it in the original argument. Please read what I said before commenting on it.

He clearly did read it. It is you who appears to have a reading comprehension problem.

He clearly didn't read it. In my original post, I clearly explain why the universe can't be the necessary being and is instead contingent. If he had read my post, he would have argued against my points. Instead I get accused, yet again, of asserting that the universe is contingent.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 09:06 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 09:10 PM by Chas.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  He clearly did read it. It is you who appears to have a reading comprehension problem.

He clearly didn't read it. In my original post, I clearly explain why the universe can't be the necessary being and is instead contingent. If he had read my post, he would have argued against my points. Instead I get accused, yet again, of asserting that the universe is contingent.

Try responding to what he actually wrote and get your arrogance to stand aside as it seems to block your comprehension. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: