The Cosmological Argument

[warpspeedpetey]

It baffles me why people participate in a philosophical discussion if they are not prepared to answer any relevant question posed to them, regardless of how difficult it is or how compromising their answer may be. If we are genuinely searching for the truth we should be prepared to admit that we don’t know the answer or that we have to modify our views. What’s wrong with that? It’s a sign of courage, humility and wisdom - and far better than trying to bluff your way out. No one is infallible… except the Pope speaking ex cathedra!

it baffles me as well, but as long as they do, we dont have to take them seriously

 

[wanstronian]

it seems that existence is uniform, either thigs are or they are not. anything else would violate the law of non-contradiction. how does soemthing exist, but not exist without creating a logical impossibility?

Your waffle above simply talks about the contradiction of something existing and not existing at the same time. I have no problem with that, it’s a very simple concept. What I’m asking is whether more than one necessary being can exist. Remember, the definition of a necessary being is something that ‘if it exists, cannot not-exist.’ I am not asking whether a necessary being can exist and not exist at the same time, I know the answer to that one without your ‘help.’ I am asking whether there can be more than one of them. The answer is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’

If the answer is ‘No,’ a clear explanation of why not would be appreciated.

 

[wanstronian]

It baffles me why people participate in a philosophical discussion if they are not prepared to answer any relevant question posed to them, regardless of how difficult it is or how compromising their answer may be. If we are genuinely searching for the truth we should be prepared to admit that we don’t know the answer or that we have to modify our views. What’s wrong with that? It’s a sign of courage, humility and wisdom - and far better than trying to bluff your way out. No one is infallible… except the Pope speaking ex cathedra!

it baffles me as well, but as long as they do, we dont have to take them seriously

You’re like a couple of sniggering schoolkids! You accuse me of dodging, seemingly because I don’t have any conclusive answers to counter your assertions. The reason for that is that there are no conclusive answers. You two, by contrast, make assertions that you consistently fail to substantiate - or, substantiate by recourse to further baseless assertions.

Tony, the irony of your comment particularly beggars belief – you’ve never admitted that you don’t know the answer! I’ve picked you up on it before, many times. Whereas in fact, the recognition of ‘not enough information’ is one of the main strengths of atheism (and indeed, science). You seem blissfully unaware of your hypocrisy!

You both clearly think that unverifiable answers have more value than an honest recognition that answers are non-existent. This is evident in 90% of the poppycock that you type. You’re welcome to such delusions; just be aware that I and other clear-thinkers are unlikely to accept such wild assertions without some form of substantiation.

 

[tonyrey]

…you’ve never admitted that you don’t know the answer! I’ve picked you up on it before, many times.

False! I have pointed out on several occasions that it is impossible to **understand **fully the nature of God, Creation, free will, consciousness, the self and the mind-body relationship.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your waffle above simply talks about the contradiction of something existing and not existing at the same time.

it explains why there cant be more than one necessary being.

I have no problem with that, it’s a very simple concept. What I’m asking is whether more than one necessary being can exist.

and ive answered.

Remember, the definition of a necessary being is something that ‘if it exists, cannot not-exist.’

no, the definition of a necessary being is one whose non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

I am not asking whether a necessary being can exist and not exist at the same time, I know the answer to that one without your ‘help.’ I am asking whether there can be more than one of them. The answer is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’

obviously the answer is ‘no’

If the answer is ‘No,’ a clear explanation of why not would be appreciated.

ive already given it. 3 times. there can be only 1 kind of existence. something either is or it is not.

what part of this dont you understand?

now how about an answer on the questions ive raised, that you studiously ignore?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re like a couple of sniggering schoolkids! You accuse me of dodging, seemingly because I don’t have any conclusive answers to counter your assertions. The reason for that is that there are no conclusive answers. You two, by contrast, make assertions that you consistently fail to substantiate - or, substantiate by recourse to further baseless assertions.

we keep giving you the logic, you keep refusing to answer the questions. how is that anything less than a dodge?

simply refusing to answer the question doesnt mean it only has an inconclusive answer.

 

[wanstronian]

it explains why there cant be more than one necessary being.

and ive answered.

No, you’ve just obfuscated as usual in a futile attempt to seem intellectual.

no, the definition of a necessary being is one whose non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

Step 7 of the SE Cosmological Argument that you proposed: “Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.” (emphasis mine)

The definition you propose is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out, because it necessitates actualization, which is entirely outside the remit of a definition. I refer you again to my ‘necessary pile of money,’ which unfortunately doesn’t exist just because I’ve defined it as necessary. For exactly the same reason, neither does the ‘necessary being’ of your definition.

You’re on a hiding to nothing here - all that remains to be seen is whether you’ve got the guts to admit it. I suspect not.

obviously the answer is ‘no’

ive already given it. 3 times. there can be only 1 kind of existence. something either is or it is not.

what part of this dont you understand?

It’s not that I don’t understand, it’s just that you haven’t given a good reason. You’re still, for some reason, confusing my question about the number of necessary beings, with your own random perception of whether something can exist and not exist at the same time. I can’t make my question any clearer, so I have to assume you’re incapable of understanding basic English. Sorry if that seems dismissive and supercilious, but I don’t know what else to think. You’re showing all the indications that you’re not understanding this basic question. Probably because you’re misunderstanding your sponsored definition of a necessary being.

**now how about an answer on the questions ive raised, that you studiously ignore?
**

Oh, change the tape. You know I’ve answered your questions many times, it’s just that you don’t like the answers. You’re just being stubborn and petty. If you’re trying to get me to make an assertion on something that cannot be known, you’re out of luck. I won’t prostitute myself to dogma in such a way.

 

[wanstronian]

we keep giving you the logic, you keep refusing to answer the questions. how is that anything less than a dodge?

I’ve pointed out that the logic is flawed, and explained why. I don’t need to do any more.

simply refusing to answer the question doesnt mean it only has an inconclusive answer.

I haven’t ‘refused,’ I’ve demonstrated that no conclusive answer can be provided. I then offered to continue anyway, but you quit at that point, I don’t know why you’re still bleating on with your lies now.

Anyway, I’m well past fed up with this futile conversation now, that’s why I started the new thread. I’ve had enough of debating with trolls. Bye.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, you’ve just obfuscated as usual in a futile attempt to seem intellectual.

thats not a refutation.

Step 7 of the SE Cosmological Argument that you proposed: “Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.” (emphasis mine)

this isnt the technical definition, but whats the point?

The definition you propose is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out, because it necessitates actualization, which is entirely outside the remit of a definition.

it necessitates the actualization of what? what is being actualized? if youre trying to say the necessary being, as ive said before, the necessary being is not actualized, it must always exist. it is always actual.

I refer you again to my ‘necessary pile of money,’ which unfortunately doesn’t exist just because I’ve defined it as necessary. For exactly the same reason, neither does the ‘necessary being’ of your definition.

how can you define a pile of money as necessary? does its non-existence entail a logical contradiction? no, of course not.

simply sayiong that you are defining something as necesssary, doesnt actuall make it necessary.

You’re on a hiding to nothing here - all that remains to be seen is whether you’ve got the guts to admit it. I suspect not.

to admit what? ive refuted the above argument a couple times now, thats not hiding, thats pointing out the impossibility of your argument.

It’s not that I don’t understand, it’s just that you haven’t given a good reason. You’re still, for some reason, confusing my question about the number of necessary beings, with your own random perception of whether something can exist and not exist at the same time. I can’t make my question any clearer, so I have to assume you’re incapable of understanding basic English. Sorry if that seems dismissive and supercilious, but I don’t know what else to think. You’re showing all the indications that you’re not understanding this basic question. Probably because you’re misunderstanding your sponsored definition of a necessary being.

this isnt a refutation.

really, how can you be missing this?

it seems that existence is uniform, either things are or they are not. anything else would violate the law of non-contradiction. how does something exist, but not exist without creating a logical impossibility?

if you understood, this wouldnt seem random too you. so its obvious you dont understand.

what part of this dont you get? specifically.

Oh, change the tape. You know I’ve answered your questions many times, it’s just that you don’t like the answers. You’re just being stubborn and petty. If you’re trying to get me to make an assertion on something that cannot be known, you’re out of luck. I won’t prostitute myself to dogma in such a way.

you have not posted an answer 1 time to any of the questions that i have repeatedly bolded.

the entire point of this thread was to show me that you dont dodge arguments when the answers begin to become uncomfortable, but in the end you did, you proved my point. you arent interested in any truth that you dont like.

notice, i address every question. you dont.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’ve pointed out that the logic is flawed, and explained why. I don’t need to do any more.

where? you have never adressed the bolded questions.

I haven’t ‘refused,’ I’ve demonstrated that no conclusive answer can be provided.

where? because ive provided as conclusive an answer as one gets, based on the laws of logic.

I then offered to continue anyway, but you quit at that point, I don’t know why you’re still bleating on with your lies now.

you tried to dodge the challenge you gave, and then you quit, i can post the evidence yet again.

Anyway, I’m well past fed up with this futile conversation now, that’s why I started the new thread. I’ve had enough of debating with trolls. Bye.

:

 

[sofa_king]

1.A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-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.
5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide an 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 that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

This was the premise of this forum thread.

Sorry if this is a necro or whatever but I was directed to this forum thread by someone and they wanted me to post my questions here. So anyway, I’ll work out my thought process here. Please comment where I go wrong.

1 - If something can exist, it must be able to not exist… agree

2 - As there are two possibilities, to exist or not exist, there must be some reason for the different outcomes (and the “reason” can be random)… agree

3 - Something cannot cause its own existence, it must be created by something else… agree

4 - This is a tricky step, but I think I understand. A contingent being comes from anything which is not the same contingent being. The everything else falls must be another contingent being or non-contingent being.

5 to 7 - Using regression, you end up with 1+ contingent beings and 1 non-contingent being … but assuming infinite contingent beings, you don’t ever necessarily link to the non-contingent being. I understand logically, a non-contingent being ought to exist, but with infinite (not just a large finite number), the regression never completes and you can never actually prove it.

Now my general thoughts on this. The theory basically seems to provide a framework whereby you don’t have to suddenly create something out of nothing, which is what I assume the previous references to the “POOF theory” were. So all of the contingent beings are created by the non-contingent being which must exist, because contingent beings exist.

But what created the non-contingent being? One can say the non-contingent being MUST exist from the existence of a contingent being, but that is only half of the problem. Just because a non-contingent being MUST exist doesn’t answer where the non-contingent being came from, so the cycle starts again, unless you start from the premise that the non-contingent being has always existed to begin with. In which case, why cant an infinite number of contingent beings have always existed in the first place too?

Apologies for the length, but if you could break it down for me, it would be much appreciated.

 

[tonyrey]

But what created the non-contingent being? One can say the non-contingent being MUST exist from the existence of a contingent being, but that is only half of the problem. Just because a non-contingent being MUST exist doesn’t answer where the non-contingent being came from, so the cycle starts again, unless you start from the premise that the non-contingent being has always existed to begin with. In which case, why cant an infinite number of contingent beings have always existed in the first place too?

Welcome to the forum!

It is a logical possibility but it infringes the principles of contingency and parsimony. The notion of an infinite number of entities is at the opposite extreme from an economical explanation! Why should their multiplication make it more likely that they are not contingent?

 

[sofa_king]

Welcome to the forum!

It is a logical possibility but it infringes the principles of contingency and parsimony. The notion of an infinite number of entities is at the opposite extreme from an economical explanation! Why should their multiplication make it more likely that they are not contingent?

Hi Tonyrey and thank you for answering my post! Please don’t be offended by the content of my post, I just want to hear different opinions on this topic.

Once you say that it is a logical possibility for an infinite number of contingent beings and that there has always been an infinite number, I don’t think this breaches the principle of contingency. Infinity is not just a large finite number, so there is no way to regress back to the “original” one contingent being and there is no way to identify the “final” contingent being either.

I am not 100% sure what you mean by the principle of parsimony is, but if it is the same as Occams Razor, its not really a scientific method, merely a rule of thumb. In addition, I think even under Occam, the hypothesis that there are an infinite number of contingent beings is to be preferred to the assumption that there are 1+ con-contingent beings.

Multiplication does not free them from the requirement of contingency, the concept of infinity does.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Multiplication does not free them from the requirement of contingency, the concept of infinity does.

Occam’s razor is certainly a good precept for a scientist to keep in mind, a rule of thumb as you say. Here’s another good rule of thumb that scientists use.

When infinites creep into a hypothesis, it means the hypothesis is in trouble.

 

[tonyrey]

It is a logical possibility but it infringes the principles of contingency and parsimony. The notion of an infinite number of entities is at the opposite extreme from an economical explanation! Why should their multiplication make it more likely that they are not contingent?

No need to thank me! It’s a pleasure. Different opinions are the spice of the forum!

Once you say that it is a logical possibility for an infinite number of contingent beings and that there has always been an infinite number, I don’t think this breaches the principle of contingency. Infinity is not just a large finite number, so there is no way to regress back to the “original” one contingent being and there is no way to identify the “final” contingent being either.

Infinity does not take us beyond the physical world. An infinite number of beings still need to be explained. Otherwise they must be considered as necessary beings - even though we know nothing in the universe which fits this description.

I am not 100% sure what you mean by the principle of parsimony is, but if it is the same as Occams Razor, it’s not really a scientific method, merely a rule of thumb. In addition, I think even under Occam, the hypothesis that there are an infinite number of contingent beings is to be preferred to the assumption that there are 1+ con-contingent beings.

I am not sure what “con-contingent” beings means!

Multiplication does not free them from the requirement of contingency, the concept of infinity does.

Infinity itself is contingent because there’s no evidence that it exists necessarily.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Infinity does not take us beyond the physical world. An infinite number of beings still need to be explained.

Infinity itself is contingent because there’s no evidence that it exists necessarily.

I actually agree with your reasoning here. What I don’t understand is why God is exempt from requiring an explanation?

 

[centurionguard]

I actually agree with your reasoning here. What I don’t understand is why God is exempt from requiring an explanation?

It’s not a matter of God being exempt in giving an explanation.

How should God explain to humans who have for example 1% IQ in comparison to God having one billion % IQ? It would be like humans trying to pick a conversation with an ant.

I think its like that with numerous mysterious subjects about God’s infinite existence where we would fail in our intellectual capacity of understand the mystery about what is infinite.

Even if God lowered Himself to our intellect (“which is what He did two-thousand years ago”) we still find it difficult to grasp such mysteries because we are still stuck on eating pablum in our very limited intellect.

Peace
Chris

 

[Moonstruck888]

It’s not a matter of God being exempt in giving an explanation.

How should God explain to humans who have for example 1% IQ in comparison to God having one billion % IQ? It would be like humans trying to pick a conversation with an ant.

I think its like that with numerous mysterious subjects about God’s infinite existence where we would fail in our intellectual capacity of understand the mystery about what is infinite.

Even if God lowered Himself to our intellect (“which is what He did two-thousand years ago”) we still find it difficult to grasp such mysteries because we are still stuck on eating pablum in our very limited intellect.

Peace
Chris

Two hundred years ago, we didn’t understand evolution. Five hundred years ago, we didn’t understand how objects behave in gravitational fields.

As the man said, give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum strong enough and I’ll move the world. Why not investigate God the same way as we’ve investigated other forces of nature?

 

[centurionguard]

Two hundred years ago, we didn’t understand evolution. Five hundred years ago, we didn’t understand how objects behave in gravitational fields.

As the man said, give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum strong enough and I’ll move the world. Why not investigate God the same way as we’ve investigated other forces of nature?

Why not investigate God the same way as we’ve investigated other forces of nature?

Who do you think is the creator and author of Nature itself?

Actually God likes it when you investigate Him. Paradoxically speaking; the more you investigate God the more you are humbled by His grandiose finite creation and of course the infinite greatness of God Himself.

I don’t give a significant amount of credence to the Science of Man. Too many fallacies and theories.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Who do you think is the creator and author of Nature itself?

I’m not sure… There are so many to choose from… God, Allah, Zeus, Wotan, Isis… There are litterally thousands of claims.

Actually God likes it when you investigate Him. Paradoxically speaking; the more you investigate God the more you are humbled by His grandiose finite creation and of course the infinite greatness of God Himself.

I don’t think our ideas of what constitutes investigation would coincide.

I don’t give a significant amount of credence to the Science of Man. Too many fallacies and theories.

You’d rather put your credence in iron age schizophrenics and epileptics?