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.
     
    Are you suggesting that something has not always existed? Something does exist, after all, rather than nothing. The physical world has not always existed. See above.

    I am asking you to demonstrate your claim that god has always existed.

    In fact, it might be helpful to back up a step and ask you how you are defining 'god'.
     
    God didn't begin to exist. God has always existed. Let's start there.
    I was told this entire wall of text was a proof of God’s existence.

    But you’re telling me that in order for this proof to work, I have to accept the final conclusion (that God has always existed) in the initial premise.

    That’s not a proof. It’s circular logic.
     
    I was told this entire wall of text was a proof of God’s existence.

    And so it is. Did watch the videos and the pertinent "wall of text"?

    But you’re telling me that in order for this proof to work, I have to accept the final conclusion (that God has always existed) in the initial premise.


    No. Not at all. You're confused. The conclusion is that the Universe has a cause of its existence. 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?
     
    Last edited:
    And so it is. Did watch the videos and the pertinent "wall of text"?



    That’s not a proof. It’s circular logic.


    No. Not at all. You're confused. The conclusion is that the Universe has a cause of its existence. 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?
    No, I’m saying that you said this was a proof that God existed, but in order for the proof to work, I have to accept that nothing caused God to exist, but instead that he always existed.

    Therefore you are requiring me to accept that God exists in order to prove that God exists.

    The universe stuff is irrelevant.
     
    [
    No, I’m saying that you said this was a proof that God existed, but in order for the proof to work, I have to accept that nothing caused God to exist, but instead that he always existed.

    Therefore you are requiring me to accept that God exists in order to prove that God exists.

    The universe stuff is irrelevant.

    False! "The universe stuff" is indepensibly relevant!

    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.
     
    [


    False! And the universe stuff is not irrelevant.

    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.
    I’m not considering the universe question.
    I’m demonstrating that your argument fails to prove the existence on a god. Rather, it depends on the existence of a god.

    It’s logical fallacy.

    And for what it’s worth, I believe in the existence of God and believe that the universe had a defined beginning. I just also happen to think that your argument is fallacious.
     
    I’m not considering the universe question.
    I’m demonstrating that your argument fails to prove the existence on a god. Rather, it depends on the existence of a god.

    It’s logical fallacy.

    And for what it’s worth, I believe in the existence of God and believe that the universe had a defined beginning. I just also happen to think that your argument is fallacious.


    You're not proving any such thing. I'm trying to help you understand the argument, but you won't answer the question.

    Why?

    Once again, are you claiming that the Universe has always existed?

    Yes/no?
     
    I’m not considering the universe question.
    I’m demonstrating that your argument fails to prove the existence on a god. Rather, it depends on the existence of a god.

    It’s logical fallacy.

    And for what it’s worth, I believe in the existence of God and believe that the universe had a defined beginning. I just also happen to think that your argument is fallacious.

    Well, if you're not going to consider it, dummy, then I'm not going to waste my time on you.
     
    There is no need to resort to personal attacks.

    Then snap out of it. By definition God would necessarily be an unembodied mind, i.e., an eternally and transcendently self-subsistent, timeless, immutable, immaterial being of incomparable greatness.
     
    Then snap out of it. By definition God would necessarily be an unembodied mind, i.e., an eternally and transcendently self-subsistent, timeless, immutable, immaterial being of incomparable greatness.

    Can you demonstrate these qualities?
     
    Can you read the OP?

    Yes. Let's say that I agree with every single premise. You have demonstrated that some entity you call 'god' exists. Are you saying that this is the god of the bible or no?
     

    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