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.
     

    That clears up a lot, thank you.

    How are you demonstrating that this thing you call god not only exists but is an "eternally and transcendently self-subsistent, timeless, immutable, immaterial being of incomparable greatness."

    What tools are you using to measure this?
     
    That clears up a lot, thank you.

    How are you demonstrating that this thing you call god not only exists but is an "eternally and transcendently self-subsistent, timeless, immutable, immaterial being of incomparable greatness."

    What tools are you using to measure this?

    The pertinent imperatives of logic, mathematics and science. See OP.
     
    Except for the giant logical fallacy.

    Well, yes, there's the logical fallacy that the Universe magically popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that it caused itself to exist . . . before it existed, which, as you say, is essentially the same giant logical fallacy. Good observation.
     
    I didn't attack you. I humorously deconstructed your obfuscations
    Not only are you cutting and pasting his arguments, you are copying his zingers.

    One has to read and think.
    If people did that, there wouldn't be any religions, and most likely, no one would believe in gods.

    I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have, but I would suggest that we deal with one question at a time for the sake of clarity.
    I don't have any questions. I have heard the argument many times.

    Again, the OP does not directly pertain to the God of the Bible.
    That's what Craig says every debate too. But he's not fooling anyone, well, most anyone. He believes there is only one god and no other gods exists, so...
     
    Well, if you're not going to consider it, dummy, then I'm not going to waste my time on you.
    Let me rephrase. I am not ignoring your argument.

    The problem with your argument is that the logical fallacy in the premise nullifies the need to discuss the timeliness of the universe.

    You clearly stated this:
    God didn't begin to exist. God has always existed. Let's start there.
    The supposed thesis of your argument is that all of the properties of the universe, math, science, physics, calculus, logic, etc, prove the existence of God. But you also demonstrated that the whole argument is dependent on starting with “God has always existed.”

    If your argument to prove God exists is dependent on the premise that God has always existed, your argument is a circular fallacy.

    Therefore, literally nothing else you have posted is relevant.

    Putting it another way, in order for your scientific proof of God’s existence to work, it must NOT require that we accept in the premise that God has always existed. Only then can it be a logically sound argument.

    And again, I believe in God. I also believe that the universe had a beginning (though I don’t believe that those two statements are necessarily connected). But I also believe that believing in God is a matter of faith, and not of science, reason, or logic, because there’s no real logical argument that can hold up to scrutiny in terms of proving God exists. And that’s where faith fills the gap.
     
    Last edited:
    Let me rephrase. I am not ignoring your argument.

    The problem with your argument is that the logical fallacy in the premise nullifies the need to discuss the timeliness of the universe.

    You clearly stated this:

    The supposed thesis of your argument is that all of the properties of the universe, math, science, physics, calculus, logic, etc, prove the existence of God. But you also demonstrated that the whole argument is dependent on starting with “God has always existed.”

    If your argument to prove God exists is dependent on the premise that God has always existed, your argument is a circular fallacy.

    Therefore, literally nothing else you have posted is relevant.

    Putting it another way, in order for your scientific proof of God’s existence to work, it must NOT require that we accept in the premise that God has always existed. Only then can it be a logically sound argument.

    And again, I believe in God. I also believe that the universe had a beginning (though I don’t believe that those two statements are necessarily connected). But I also believe that believing in God is a matter of faith, and not of science, reason, or logic, because there’s no real logical argument that can hold up to scrutiny in terms of proving God exists. And that’s where faith fills the gap.

    The premise of the argument is not God has always existed. That's categorically false. The premise of the argument is that which begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
     
    Last edited:
    Not much to add at this point. The argument is basically a really nice house of cards built on unproven assertions or assumptions, so once you pull a few away it all falls apart.
    • "God" is pretty much injected in the first line when it's asserted that there is a cause to existence, so it's no surprise that's where you end up (as Brandon points out, a circular argument).
    • Also, the statement "the universe began to exist" is really not knowable. Science can trace things back to the "Big Bang," but that was the process by which universe manifested in it's current state, not where it came from -- there was something there before.
    The short and dirty reply is simply, "where did the unembodied mind come from?" and then apply the answer to the universe.
     
    Last edited:
    • "God" is pretty much injected in the first line when it's asserted that there is a cause to existence

    Well, for someone who claims to have heard the argument many times, you sure are confused.

    The first premise is:

    That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.​
     
    The premise of the argument is not God has always existed. That's categorically false. The premise of the argument is that which begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
    Also, I did not say that “God has always existed” was the premise of your argument. I said that the thesis of your argument was dependent on the acceptance that God exists (as proven by your statement, not mine, that God has always existed).
     
    Not only are you cutting and pasting his arguments, you are copying his zingers.


    If people did that, there wouldn't be any religions, and most likely, no one would believe in gods.


    I don't have any questions. I have heard the argument many times.


    That's what Craig says every debate too. But he's not fooling anyone, well, most anyone. He believes there is only one god and no other gods exists, so...

    The first premise is:

    That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.​
     

    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