The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Rawlings

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Feb 11, 2021
    Messages
    123
    Reaction score
    46
    Age
    33
    Location
    Arizona
    Offline







    The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
    2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.
    Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
    2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.​
    2.12. An infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite.​
    2.13. An actually infinite temporal regress cannot be traversed to the present.​
    2.14 Therefore, an actually infinite temporal regress cannot exist.​
    AND
    Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
    2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.​
    2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.​
    2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.​
    3. The Universe has a cause of its existence.


    Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

    The following is my own syllogistic summary of the conclusion regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

    3. The Universe has a cause of its existence.
    3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​
    3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​
    3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​
    3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​
    3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​
    3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​
    3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​
    3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​
    3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​
    3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​
    3.11. The universe is a material existent.​
    3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​
    3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​
    3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​
    3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​
    3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​
    3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

    Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the physical world cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.
     
    ....

    Once again, are you imagining that the Universe has always existed despite the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs to the contrary on which the conclusion is based?

    It's a yes/no question.
    Ummm.. so you are suggesting that the 'big bang' theory is incorrect ?
     
    I didn't directly insult you. I asked you a question. You going to report me for that?
    I’d gladly deal with you myself but in this economy, I believe it’s important to make sure the mods are recognized as the essential employees that they are.

    Wear your mask everyone!
     
    I’d gladly deal with you myself but in this economy, I believe it’s important to make sure the mods are recognized as the essential employees that they are.

    Wear your mask everyone!

    Seriously, brandon, what's with all the obtuse rhetoric anyway? I think it was you who said you believe God exists and that the Universe began to exist. So why would you, or for that matter any sensible person, suggest that existence itself popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness? If that's your position, well, that's crazy talk. End of discussion. You're. Not. To. Be. Taken. Seriously.
     
    Last edited:
    Seriously, brandon, what's with all the obtuse rhetoric anyway? I think it was you that said you believe God exists and that the Universe began to exist. So why would you, or for that matter any sensible person, suggest that existence itself popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness? If that's your position, well, that's crazy talk. End of discussion. You're. Not. To. Be. Taken. Seriously.
    I’m not sure where I ever suggested that.

    The only thing I did was point out that your argument was circular. I haven’t really commented much on the substance of the argument.
     
    I’m not sure where I ever suggested that.

    The only thing I did was point out that your argument was circular. I haven’t really commented much on the substance of the argument.

    First, it's not my argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is universally self-evident.

    Second, there is no circular fallacy in the KCA. That contention is silly.

    Third, if you believe that then you necessarily are arguing that the Universe or existence itself popped into existence from an ontological nothingness.

    Fourth, if you refuse to see why that's so and are unwilling to be taught, then: You. Are. Not. To. Be. Taken. Seriously.
     
    First, it's not my argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is universally self-evident.

    Second, there is no circular fallacy in the KCA. That contention is silly.

    Third, if you believe that then you necessarily are arguing that the Universe or existence itself popped into existence from an ontological nothingness.

    Fourth, if you refuse to see why that's so and are unwilling to be taught, then: You. Are. Not. To. Be. Taken. Seriously.
    Yea, I don’t really feel like going through this with you again. If you aren’t taking me seriously, then I’m probably right where I’m supposed to be. Have a good one. I’m out.
     
    Yea, I don’t really feel like going through this with you again. If you aren’t taking me seriously, then I’m probably right where I’m supposed to be. Have a good one. I’m out.

    Fine.
     
    Not even close.
    If, as you quoted.. " Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable ", then it means that the universe has always existed (timeless... and immutable), which rules out the traditional model of the expanding universe following the Big Bang ?
     
    Um, no.


    The argument does not prove the existence of God.

    This brings us to the question as to whether or not the "God" referenced in the non-proof is the God of Scripture. The claim was made that it is not. Yet in the constitution thread the God of Scripture is referenced. Thus we can conclude that one poster believes in more than one God or perhaps follows a version or distortion of Gnostic cosmology.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Back
    Top Bottom