The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 10:43 AM
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

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.

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.

I do not accept that the explanation must be a being. I also think that necessary and non-contingent are not synonyous unless you equivocate on the use of "necessary". Science seems to be leading us to see that causeless events happen which means that it is possible for an event that is not contingent on any prior events could itself have happened or not happened. No "neceessary" event is needed, let alone a "being".

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.

Since points 5 through 7 are all predicated on point 4 and I don't accept point 4 they are also rejected.

Quote:8. The universe is contingent.

That is an assertion that I do not accept as supported by evidence. It may be but if there can be a being that simply exists then it would be a lot simpler for there to be a universe that simply exists.

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

Since I don't accept that there has to be anything necessary, especially a being, and I don't accept that the universe is itself contingent the conclusion is rejected.

Quote:Argument from Possibility and Necessity

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.

You have switched from "being" to "thing". If you only mean "thing" then I reject point 1 because I can't say that it is possible for the universe to not exist. I also can't say that if the universe is contingent that the cause had to be necessary (see point 4 in the first argument) or even what the rules of causation would be under those conditions. If you mean "being" in point 1 then you have executed a bait-and-switch in point 5.

Quote: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.

Points 6 through 10 depend on point 5 which depends on point one and I reject one or both of those according to what you mean by "thing" and "being". Points 6 and 7 are just bald assertions bsed on an assumption that the universe we experience is all of reality and that the rules of causality that you want to apply within our universe would apply to whatever created it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
06-02-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
The Five Proofs are simply a crutch for believers who need to convince themselves. They are shot through with fallacies, and as such should be discarded for the sloppy thinking that they are.

Furthermore, they ignore the point that you cannot reason anything into existence. If something exists in this reality, reason won't make it go away, and if something doesn't exist in this reality, reason cannot change that either.

I hated Phi101 when I took it about two centuries ago, but one thing I loved about it was my Jesuit-trained Professor, Dr Hughes. He'd stand at the door chain-smoking Winstons and sipping his coffee and vodka, and telling us why both Anselm and Aquinas were idiots to peg their faith on this sort of thing. He made a great point, to my mind: if you're trying to find solid reasoning for belief in god(s), doesn't that bespeak a lack of faith?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
06-02-2017, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 11:18 AM by Ace.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
as promised the videos regarding our new posters arguments which we've beaten a million times more than a dead horse by now

Naielis you better at least watch the first 6 videos before trying to argue anything

something rather than nothing bit








Modal Ontological Argument




Nothing Exists Necessarily












-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lroKN5gdm08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnlW59--JE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAR29P6L4rM&t=2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf9q1Ukhefw&t=633s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4TlUNV-uB4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZkrX5lMiks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Ace's post
06-02-2017, 11:14 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
"The Kalam states that all things require a cause. I modified this claim."

But the issue with such assertions is that they aren't demonstrated as true. So if one assumes that all things make a cause, you can move forward with that argument. But without actually demonstrating that ALL things/events/occurrences require a cause, it is a rather useless starting point. If that is where you want to start, you need to rationalize why it's an acceptable position and initial assumption.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-02-2017, 11:27 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 10:32 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:17 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I think I decided to leave because the arguments weren't really being dealt with.

That's rich given that you were the one not dealing with the arguments.

But the problem of induction brings into question whether causality is a property being observed or a property being imposed. Given what we know about space/time equivalence it seems likely to me that causality is a necessary invention for us to make any sense at all of the world. We see patterns which aren't really there because that's what we do. We see patterns. We have to. We're wired to. But just because causality has primacy over other inventions doesn't mean it's not an invention.

Well now I'm not sure whether Nailthis sees the problem of induction as a problem or not. I was under the impression he did. No? If you accept the implications of the problem of induction on causality then debating over a "first" cause or a "necessary" cause is just a metaphysical circle jerk where nobody gets off.


Seems to me if you're arguing for a "first" cause or a "necessary" cause you're the one ignoring it.

Peebot pointed out that many of the comments in that thread weren't seen because of how fast it was going. It's probably the case that I missed some of the responses and some of my arguments weren't seen by many.

"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, 11:27 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Gah ... not Acquinas and his stupid 5 arguments again.

I've found that every time a theist comes up with a 'proof' that their god exists, you can change it to more successfully argue that it cannot. This is my take on Acquinas ...

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1065959
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
06-02-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
The real kicker is that the Cosmological Argument is essentially pointless.

The CA claims to prove a First Cause deity. A sentient being of some sort that consciously chose to create the universe.

So what?

It does not prove:

That the "god" intended to create humans.
That the "god" is even aware that humans exist.
That any of the human religions are valid.
Anything regarding an afterlife.
That the "god" interacts with the universe in any other way.

All you have done is essentially renamed the "Big Bang" to "god". You have done the same thing that ancient peoples did when they created weather gods. It's the god of the gaps.

A "god" that does not interact with the universe in a perceptible way and does not interact with humans?

How is that different from fictional characters?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
06-02-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Argument from contingency:

In point 1-7 you talk about contingent and necessary beings, and how the cause of all the contingent beings must be a necessary being. In point 8 you state: "the universe is contingent". But its not a contingent being.
Thus, you are trying to smuggle in a (with a mind?) being, where we basically are talking about things (in a very abstract way). Its very obvious that this is a cheap shot to try and equivocate things and beings.

The whole argument, when we put the thesaurus back on the shelf and boil it down to what it is, sounds like this:

there are *normal* beings, and they need a cause, which is another being
there is a necessary being, which needs no cause
thus, a necessary being must be the cause of all *normal* beings, to avoid infinite regress
the universe is a *normal* being
thus a necessary being caused the universe

First, you need to establish that a being caused the universe, other than by smuggling it in in such a dishonest way.
Second, you need to demonstrate that two different types of beings exist, by more than just asserting there are *normal* ones and *contingent ones*, because otherwise your argument would run into infinite regress. You need to solve this problem, by anything else than just creating that "exeption" of a necessary being. This is by the way (making up two separate types of beings), why you already have been told that you are comitting a fallacy of special pleading, or lets better say, you tried to circumvent it.
Third: quantum physics (and relativity with spacetime rather than space-and-time) already proves that "reality" works, on a fundamental level, anything but intuitive. So appealing to "causation" as a rule valid outside of the universe and space time is not supported by evidence, quite to the contrary.

In the end, all your argument would be good for, if i would let it stand as it is, is: "The universe was caused by something that has no cause."
You wont get further than a "thing" (that caused the universe) and still have to demonstrate how a thing can cause the universe but needs no cause itself, in other words: how you think you can circumvent or avoid special pleading.

Again, i am a mere engineer, and have no clue about Philosophy, but even my intellect feels insulted by the dishonesty and stupidity of this argument, with the big open issue of special pleading.

The whole purpose of 1-7 is to smuggle in "being" and to cast a smoke screen on special pleading, nothing else. Then the universe gets equivocated with "being" and we are done....are we?
[Image: CJ0lUUvXAAA5x4I.png]

Please excuse me if i dont waste my time with the other arguments, because people tend to bring forth the best ones first, and the first one is not convincing at all....and i am hungry, i need a snack and watch the superbowl on my DVD player.

Let me remind you again: since quantum physics and spacetime we know that the universe itself is absolutely counter intuitive. Thus, by applying philosophy, sitting in your armchair and thinking hard with your human brain, about the universe and what is possibly "outside", without even looking at the universe, namely by applying science and making experiments and watching the ultimatively strange and -almost- unbelieveable results, you will never find out the mysterious ways it works or beyond, never.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Deesse23's post
06-02-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The Kalam states that all things require a cause. I modified this claim."

But the issue with such assertions is that they aren't demonstrated as true. So if one assumes that all things make a cause, you can move forward with that argument. But without actually demonstrating that ALL things/events/occurrences require a cause, it is a rather useless starting point. If that is where you want to start, you need to rationalize why it's an acceptable position and initial assumption.

But the point of my post was that it wasn't a rational assumption. I have repeatedly stated that there must be a necessary being. This would mean not all things have to have a cause. This is why I said I modified the Kalam's first premise. Instead of it being all things require a cause, it can be stated as all contingent beings require a cause or a grounding separate from their own being.

"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, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 11:46 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 10:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You stated the solution to this in the first sentence. The causes are not yet known. This doesn't mean there is no cause. You address this by saying it's indeterminate. But I disagree. The Principle of Sufficient Reason holds that all things have grounding. Contingent beings have grounding other beings. The fact that observation can't determine something doesn't mean it is indeterminate.

You didn't read the entire paragraph. The argument is at best ineffective.
Your re-stating something does not make it true.
I reject the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning. The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive. No reasoning demonstrated Uncertainty, or Relativity. It is inadequate. Reasoning is necessary, but insufficient.

Quote:I also addressed this. I probably did it a bit too briefly.

You didn't do it AT ALL. Nothing in any of the arguments says anything about "potency". Thanks for moving the goal posts. LMAO.


Quote:Fallacy of Composition
The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition, being what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.

Quote:I addressed this as well. To say that universe is uncaused would mean that it is necessary rather than contingent. But the universe doesn't have the potency to cause all things. This follows from the Priniciple of Proportionate Causality.

LOL. Circular argument if ever there was one. No. It just means that it always existed. You STILL have never once addressed Penrose's Cycles of Time. We do not know anything about the conditions before the Big Bang.
I reject that principle as well, AND you have not demonstrated it to be true.

And we all noticed you FAILED to address the matter of multiple simultaneous uncaused causes. You have no explanations why you happened to land on only one.

You have also FAILED to explain why, and in what manner, this made up imaginary cause of yours, has ANY possible relevance to human life, today.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: