There is no rebuttal to his kalam cosmological argument

[Anonymous No.16182982]

Craig's recent book, On Guard, summarizes this 2 premise argument for God.

Mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically, the universe has a finite beginning. This is beyond dispute.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Period. There is no precedent anywhere ever for something coming from nothing, and not in an uncaused way either. Therefore, an uncaused entity created the universe.

There is no refuting this. God exists.

(The spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum doesn't contradict this by the way. A vacuum isn't nothing. It is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by certain universal laws and those fluctuations are what produce the particles. This is not in any way congruent to the state of the beginning of the universe and only a brainlet could assert otherwise.)

[Anonymous No.16183041]

>>16182982

>Mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically, the universe has a finite beginning. This is beyond dispute.
The universe is everything that exists. If God exists he is part of the universe. So God must have had a beginning if the universe did. If you're arguing that everything that exists BESIDES God had to have had a beginning that's just special pleading.

>There is no precedent anywhere ever for something coming from nothing, and not in an uncaused way either.
A supposed metaphysical truth relying on the empirical observation that things don't seem to pop into existence. Yawn

[Anonymous No.16183119]

>>16183041
>So God must have had a beginning if the universe did.
there’s more reason to believe the universe had a beginning than God. For example, God isn’t bound by time, so he avoids the infinite regress problem that the universe does not avoid.

[Anonymous No.16183133]

>>16183041
>Yawn
No arguement

[Anonymous No.16183139]

>>16182982
>scientifically, the universe has a finite beginning. This is beyond dispute.
Literally a third grade understanding of the Big Bang theory
>There is no refuting this. God exists.
Not true, since this cause could be non-personal. It could be something akin to Spinoza's God (which is not a God at all for Craig), or it could be the eternal universeas a brute fact (dince it has not been proven that thr universe had a beginning).
>>16183041
Retarded definition of "universe"

[Anonymous No.16183146]

>>16183041
>A supposed metaphysical truth relying on the empirical observation that things don't seem to pop into existence
the alternative is simply more absurd. The point is not to prove God’s existence beyond a doubt but to demonstrate that the alternative view leads to more absurdity.

[Anonymous No.16183151]

>>16183041
>supposed metaphysical truth relying on the empirical observation that things don't seem to pop into existence. Yawn
In that case what you call "nothing" eould not be a nothing, since it would have propertirs for ehich it can potentially turn into what you would cwll "something"

[Anonymous No.16183159]

>>16183139
>Not true, since this cause could be non-personal.
Craig answers this by saying God made a free choice to create the universe, and that this implies personality of some sort

[Anonymous No.16183160]

>>16182982
Has he even read hume?

[Anonymous No.16183169]

>>16183160
Hume is a selfrefuting retard

[Anonymous No.16183172]

>>16183119
If God can not be bound by time then why can't the universe also not be bound by time. Again more special pleading everything BESIDES God is bound by time

[Anonymous No.16183184]

>>16183139
>Not true, since this cause could be non-personal.
You can know that this uncaused cause is an agent with a will because this cause is infinite, and the properties of infinity stipulate that any effect this cause would cause would have existed for infinity as a result of the properties of infinity. But the universe is proven to not exist for infinity. Therefore, the uncaused cause is an agent that is both infinite and in possession of a will that allows for spontaneity.

[Anonymous No.16183196]

>>16183146
The existence of God is much more absurd than something coming from nothing

>>16183151
I mean nothing as in no matter. Aristotelian actuality and potentiality are a joke

[Anonymous No.16183202]

>>16183172
because the universe obviously operates temporally and has an apparent past. An infinite past is absurd, given that the present has been reached by exhausting something that is infinite. God doesn’t move through time in such a way. He is either beyond time or experiences all moments of time at once.

[Anonymous No.16183207]

>>16183196
>The existence of God is much more absurd than something coming from nothing
You've yet to be able to state anything that supports this claim. You're already defaulting into tautology. You're mentally weak.

[Anonymous No.16183211]

>>16183196
>The existence of God is much more absurd than something coming from nothing
but God can come from nothing as well according to your logic. It may as well be guaranteed

[Anonymous No.16183217]

>>16183139
Which is why the argument should be about everything that exists not the visible universe. Universal laws like anon was trying to use apply to everything God included not just the visible universe. If they don't they're not universal and can have exceptions

[Anonymous No.16183222]

>>16183041
>A supposed metaphysical truth relying on the empirical observation that things don't seem to pop into existence. Yawn
It's science you freak LOL

[Anonymous No.16183223]

>>16183041
>So God must have had a beginning if the universe did.

[Anonymous No.16183235]

>>16183207
>You've yet to be able to state anything that supports this claim

What supports God being less absurd than something coming from nothing? Besides your opinion

[Anonymous No.16183239]

>>16183217
>Universal laws like anon was trying to use apply to everything God included
Hoo boy I'm really suprised at how poor the atheist position is in this case. I never realized how pathetic it is until this specific post. Wtf!

[Anonymous No.16183246]

>>16183222
And science says something can come from nothing. OP even alludes to it

[Anonymous No.16183256]

>>16182982
>"why yes i believe in god and immortal souls, in fac-"
>*WHAM*
>"*sputtering and gagging on own blood*w-what?? y-you ca- *gurgle gag* cant just h-hit me with a hammer! th-"
>*WHACK THUMP SPLACK*
>"*cradling stray skull fragments and busted elbow* n-noooo i-i can't re remember what i was going to s-say *hick sob*"
>*SPLUNK BAM WUMP WUMP WUMP*
>"*glazed expression as blood gurgles from nostrils* wh-whuh? cnti talkk?"
>*THWIMP as the hammer embeds itself deeply into the skull that had become an indented pool for the blood that now spills its crimson tide on the tile flooring as the theist slumps forward*
>the theist's corpse twitches as the last of its electro-neural mush fires its final, futile charge and the room resolves into a somber silence
>"let us wait, my dear students, to see whether his hypothesis was correct. for surely if an immortal soul and god exists our dear theist will return presently to inform us of this most epochal of truths and win the debate!"
>an acutely tense silence as the corpse continues to pour blood from the carrion pulp that was once its head
>"ah well and so, class, as we can see, his god hypothesis is entirely refuted thusly."
>a sporadic applause is taken up among the college students that gradually swells into a full on standing ovation as they all recognize with absolute lucidity the empirically proven truth of Physicalism, knowing that at last the anemia of theological thought was passing from the face of the earth forever,

[Anonymous No.16183264]

>>16183239
This is basic logic. If universal laws that apply to everything don't apply to God they don't apply to everything and are not universal. There is a specific fallacy called special pleading that addresses this

[Anonymous No.16183268]

>>16183246
OP explicitly states why the pop science "rebuttal" is wrong you jackass.

[Anonymous No.16183276]

>>16183268
And he's trying to rebut it with his metaphysics. So which is correct science or metaphysics. You're fucked no matter what your response

[Anonymous No.16183277]

>>16183264
Universal laws don't apply outside of the universe. I would think this is obvious. You seem to picture the nothing outside of the universe as empty space, but that's not what it is. It is nothing. There are no laws, matter, or energy or empty space or anything. Nothing about the universe can be extrapolated outside of it.

[Anonymous No.16183288]

>>16183276
Yeah either that or my point stands exactly as it did before your impotent post.

[Anonymous No.16183308]

>>16183277
So universal laws don't apply to everything then. What would you call
>Everything that has a beginning has a cause
if it's not universal? Super-universal? What do you call a law that applies to everything?

[Anonymous No.16183316]

>>16183308
I'd say universal laws apply to the universe, retard.

[Anonymous No.16183320]

Where do I start with this nigga?

[Anonymous No.16183322]

>>16183316
So is everything the universe?

[Anonymous No.16183329]

>>16183322
You misunderstood. I'm no longer interested in your posts. I can't go back and forth with your deliberate idiocy forever. Find someone else to troll, maybe?

[Anonymous No.16183339]

>>16182982
>Mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically, the universe has a finite beginning. This is beyond dispute.
So I dispute it.

[Anonymous No.16183352]

>>16183202
>An infinite past is absurd
no

[Anonymous No.16183354]

>>16183329
I'm not trolling and this is a basic intellectually dishonest apologetic tactic. The normal usage of universal means it applies to everything. Claiming the strength of universal laws and then exempting God from those same laws that apply to everything is a textbook example of special pleading

[Anonymous No.16183356]

I have to say, as a new poster and an agnostic atheist, I am actually floored by how weak every single reply to the OP's argument has been. Is it actually true that WLC has made a strong proposition for which there is no good rebuttal? Based on the endless ignorance in this thread the answer could be yes.

[Anonymous No.16183363]

>>16183354
>>16183329
God didn’t begin to exist, the universe did. There, stop fighting

[Anonymous No.16183364]

>>16183354
No, exempting the beginning of the universe from the laws of the universe is special pleading. Acknowledging the logical consequence of the universe having a beginning as being something outside of it is nothing like special pleading and is actually just having a functional brain.

[Anonymous No.16183371]

>>16183356
The best counter is that "nothing" the way WLC defines it cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.16183373]

>>16183356
watch Craig’s video with Alex O’Connor (cosmicskeptic) on youtube. Even he went back and refuted his original video he made attacking the Kalam argument, and he didn’t really find any advantage in the whole discussion.

[Anonymous No.16183379]

>>16183363
The universe didn't begin to exist. Boom refuted

[Anonymous No.16183387]

>>16183379
The universe has existed for a finite period of time. There is no escape from this. The universe is approaching entropy. If it existed for infinity we would already be there. That's how infinity works.

[Anonymous No.16183388]

>>16183379
the absurdity of an infinite regress of time and causes, as well as the scientific evidence of the beginning of the universe, shows that it’s more reasonable to believe in a finite universe. It’s simply the less absurd position.

[Anonymous No.16183395]

>>16183364
You can't even give me a definition of universal and the universe. If the the universe is not everything and universal laws don't apply to everything why do I care about them?

[Anonymous No.16183404]

>>16183395
I'm not the same person, reddit, but I do also see through your pedantry, as he called it. I'd call it dishonesty, but either way I don't care what you think or feel.

[Anonymous No.16183410]

>>16183387
The universe is outside of time just like anon claimed for God above. Boom refuted.

[Anonymous No.16183418]

>>16182982
So then God also came from something?

[Anonymous No.16183422]

>>16182982
>Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Period.
Complete and utter horseshit. Causality connects events in spacetime. To talk about the cause of spacetime itself is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.16183425]

>>16183404
It's not pedantry if the apologetic screed mixes the dishonestly mixes the definitions like OP does

[Anonymous No.16183437]

>>16183410
The universe obviously has a temporal aspect to it, with a past, present, and future. Physics doesn’t work without time.
>>16183418
God didn’t begin to exist. He has always existed beyond time or in all moments of time.

[Anonymous No.16183442]

>Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Period. There is no precedent anywhere ever for something coming from nothing, and not in an uncaused way either. Therefore, an uncaused entity created the universe.
St Thomas Aquinas made this argument in the 13th century. Why are you crediting this Craig guy?

[Anonymous No.16183449]

>>16183437
God obviously has a temporal aspect to his dealing with human beings. And if God can exist beyond time why can't the universe?

[Anonymous No.16183452]

>>16183422
>To talk about the cause of spacetime itself is nonsensical.
You're an idiot. The issue is that spacetime is FINITE and that a cause is a necessary result of that. First you need to prove that the universe is infinite before your autism about causes.

>>16183442
Aquinas uses faulty Aristotelian philosophy and thus his arguments are weak and groundless, and even self refuting.

[Anonymous No.16183454]

>>16183422
How could spacetime have been uncaused if nothing can be uncaused?
>>16183418
Yes, Himself.

[Anonymous No.16183456]

>>16183442
Aristotle made it a millennia before Aquinas. Apologetics is just recycling the same refuted arguments into eternity

[Anonymous No.16183457]

>>16183449
>And if God can exist beyond time why can't the universe
Because it is finite. >>16183387

[Anonymous No.16183459]

>>16183452
>Aquinas uses faulty Aristotelian philosophy and thus his arguments are weak and groundless, and even self refuting.
You never read him.

[Anonymous No.16183467]

>>16183454
>How could spacetime have been uncaused if nothing can be uncaused?

Man you're the one claiming an uncaused creator

[Anonymous No.16183468]

>>16183437
>God didn’t begin to exist. He has always existed beyond time or in all moments of time.
how?

>>16183454
>Yes, Himself.
how?

[Anonymous No.16183469]

>>16183456
>refuted
Hmm there's that word...

>>16183459
Yes I have. He's not as deep as you think.

[Anonymous No.16183470]

>>16183449
>God exists beyond time, and all of our observances of him as being temporal are a reflection of our own temporal nature within this universe
or
>God exists in all moments of time, avoiding infinite regress
or
>God freely chose to enter into time through the creation of the universe

Either way, denying the temporal aspect of this universe is absurd. If that’s what you want to believe in order to deny God, then go ahead.

[Anonymous No.16183478]

>>16183457
And I'm claiming the universe in not finite. Science says it not but science also says it sprang into existence from nothing. You can't just pick and choose what you want to support your position

[Anonymous No.16183480]

>>16183469
If you think you can refute his methodical, dialectical proofs with a cute turn of phrase, you clearly haven't read him

[Anonymous No.16183483]

>>16183452
>>16183454
Spacetime itself isn't an event in spacetime, you fucking moron. Only events can have causes.

[Anonymous No.16183488]

>>16183467
Self-caused, not uncaused.
>>16183468
I don't know, ask God.

[Anonymous No.16183492]

>>16183478
>science also says it sprang into existence from nothing
Source? Must be peer reviewed.

[Anonymous No.16183498]

>>16183483
Wow your bald assertion and extreme special pleading is a really interesting argument and post that has totally convinced me of your position!

[Anonymous No.16183501]

>>16183488
>I don't know, ask God.
then how do you know that God didn't came from nothing?

[Anonymous No.16183504]

>>16183373
It's sad that the best public attempt at refuting the Kalam was done by a vegan youtuber

[Anonymous No.16183505]

>>16183492
Oh science doesn't say it came from nothing? What was before the beginning of the universe? Scientifically

[Anonymous No.16183513]

>>16183501
He came from Himself, as was neccessary for something to exist

[Anonymous No.16183527]

>>16183505
You made a positive claim for what science states. It now appears you were completely bullshitting since you posted a big stinky cope rather than a source. Very interesting. Why would you do that?

Are you a pseud? Or a sodomite afraid of God existing?

[Anonymous No.16183528]

>>16183498
Next time learn some physics or philosophy before pontificating about causes and effects like a moron.

[Anonymous No.16183529]

>>16183513
>He came from Himself
how?
>as was neccessary for something to exist
why?

[Anonymous No.16183530]

>>16183513
He came from himself is less absurd than something from nothing? Get a grip. And besides I thought God was outside of time.

[Anonymous No.16183540]

>>16183528
hahaha holy shit /lit/ posts like this just prove how ignorant and low iq this board really is.

[Anonymous No.16183545]

>>16183528
You never posted anything about physics or philosophy. You posted aggressively uninformed reactionary opinion and then started accusing other posters of not knowing anything about these fields / having an autism meltdown.

[Anonymous No.16183547]

>the universe is finite

[Anonymous No.16183549]

>>16183527
Didn't answer my question

[Anonymous No.16183555]

>>16183530
He is
Could an omnipotent being not create Himself?

[Anonymous No.16183559]

>>16183555
Could something not come from nothing? That makes even more sense

[Anonymous No.16183562]

>>16183549
>*brrrraaaaapppp* oh no mommy i did a big fat cope in my diaper please change me *brrraaaP*

[Anonymous No.16183563]

>>16183540
>>16183545
Not an argument. Causality is mediated by bosons and presupposes the existence of spacetime. Better luck next time, pseud.

[Anonymous No.16183566]

>>16183529
God is Logic and the Truth, which permits its own existence. Because Truth necessarily exists (if it did not exist, then this would be true, etc.)

[Anonymous No.16183569]

>>16182982
Watch his debate with Sean Carroll he gets btfoed on every single point.

[Anonymous No.16183571]

>>16183566
Literal nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16183574]

>>16183559
so can God

[Anonymous No.16183575]

>>16183563
Post a peer reviewed source that asserts the totality of your claim. Now.

[Anonymous No.16183576]

>>16183555
Rufus the pink dinosaur is also omnipotent. Of course Rufus doesn't exist. But wait Rufus is omnipotent so he causes himself to exist. Do you also worship Rufus?

[Anonymous No.16183583]

>>16183559
then so can God. And if nothing can create anything, then wouldn’t it eventually create something that always exists and is omnipotent and can create on its own? Not so absurd, now, is it?

[Anonymous No.16183586]

>>16183566
what are you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.16183591]

>>16183576
Occam's Razor
God is neccessary for being, Rufus is not

[Anonymous No.16183592]

>>16183571
>>16183586
Logic and Truth are self-creating. And God is the Truth and the Logos

[Anonymous No.16183593]

>>16183583
But wouldn't the universe also eventually pop into existence without God? That's the one we live in

[Anonymous No.16183600]

>>16183592
>Logic and Truth are self-creating.
how?

>And God is the Truth and the Logos
how?

[Anonymous No.16183604]

>>16183593
>But wouldn't the universe also eventually pop into existence without God?
No.

[Anonymous No.16183605]

>>16183591
This is devolving into gibberish. You've switched from God being omnipotent to being necessary for being. This is why apologetics is an academic ghetto. Craig is an intellectual freak show kept on staff for novelties sake

[Anonymous No.16183610]

>>16183593
It’s more likely that this universe is the result from a God that never dies. It’s just statistics. The odds are infinitely in the favor of God

[Anonymous No.16183616]

>>16183575
Crack open any physics textbook. All interactions are mediated by force-carrying bosons. Photons are bosons with spin=1, gravitons are bosons with spin=2, etc.

[Anonymous No.16183617]

>>16183593
>That's the one we live in
nice argument

[Anonymous No.16183625]

>>16182982
Youre right that it proves God exists but a) it’s not his argument, he took it from actual philosophers
b) it demonstrates God, not his cryptojew personal god

[Anonymous No.16183627]

>>16183617
About the same quality argument as claiming it's the universe God created

[Anonymous No.16183629]

>>16183616
No you need to post something that states that all of causality is due to bosons.

[Anonymous No.16183630]

>>16183605
>being omnipotent to being necessary for being.
How are those contradictory?

[Anonymous No.16183632]

>>16183625
his argument actually includes personality as well. Read more before being so arrogant.

[Anonymous No.16183640]

the conclusion to the kalam cosmological argument is that "The universe has a cause." not "god exists"

[Anonymous No.16183642]

>>16183627
see >>16183610
If it’s truly the case that nothing can create, then this universe is most likely the result of an infinite God who cake from nothing

[Anonymous No.16183649]

>>16183640
but the cause has God-like properties, which is why it’s not just called a cause

[Anonymous No.16183652]

>>16183640
how could that cause not be god?

[Anonymous No.16183656]

The Western fetishization of reason and logic is exactly why you have nihilism and cultural relativism destroying your nations. When you follow logic to its end it is reduced to absurdity. Why would God, the Creator of all things, need to exist within the confines of the human operation of logic? Why is there such a presupposition that logic is the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe? It's not, God transcends it, He doesn't play by our rules. You can't have a formal proof for something that exists outside of formal proofs. Christ is to be experienced, not proven.

[Anonymous No.16183665]

>>16183656
yes, but God is less absurd than no God. That’s the purpose of the argument. And that doesn’t even get into the practicality of believing in God (all beliefs and actions are ultimately predicated on benefit anyway)

[Anonymous No.16183670]

>>16183629
There is no other meaning of causality in physics. X is a cause of Y means that there is a physical interaction in which a bosonic signal traverses from X to Y at a velocity less than or equal to c.

[Anonymous No.16183672]

>>16183632
Preemptively refuted by Spinoza (plug

[Anonymous No.16183676]

>Nothing exists without a cause
>Except this weird guy floating in the sky that I just made up cuz fuck you
>Logically concludes to the existence of said guy
This is all so tiresome, can't you niggers just read Kant and call it a day?

[Anonymous No.16183678]

>>16183656
Based mindless faith zombie BTFO of all the pseud midwits who are embarrassed at how stupid their religions sounds

[Anonymous No.16183680]

B-theory of time

[Anonymous No.16183687]

>>16183676
>floating in the sky
why do you intentionally make your argument less credible with this language?

[Anonymous No.16183688]

>>16183656
>The Western fetishization of reason and logic
this argument is based on Islamic theology. also world's most prosperous nations are "their" westerner nations

[Anonymous No.16183689]

>>16183632
Could you give a rough overview?

[Anonymous No.16183691]

>>16182982
All prime mover arguments are special pleading and can be discarded.
PS: virtual particles prove causalty false

[Anonymous No.16183695]

>>16183689

>>16183159

[Anonymous No.16183700]

>>16183670
I'm confused. Did you ever address how the universe is scientifically proven to be infinite?

[Anonymous No.16183701]

>>16183687
He's not the one who is talking about heaven

[Anonymous No.16183704]

>>16183701
you people are insufferable. Just go back already

[Anonymous No.16183709]

>>16183687

[Anonymous No.16183711]

>anon doesn't understand causality
>anon doesn't know what eternal means
Some say that he will never make it.

[Anonymous No.16183712]

>>16183695
>argument from causality
>free choice

[Anonymous No.16183716]

>>16183712
God is the cause, yes

[Anonymous No.16183719]

>>16183704
Don't be embarrassed by your faith bro. Own that stupidity

[Anonymous No.16183721]

>>16183670
Why can't you post a source?

[Anonymous No.16183723]

>>16183709
>the limits of human expression through physical means demonstrates that God floats in the sky
wow, incredible reasoning. We rely on metaphor

[Anonymous No.16183730]

>>16183680
/thread

[Anonymous No.16183732]

>>16183700
I never made a claim about the size of the universe. It is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

[Anonymous No.16183734]

>reality has a first principle
>therefore, YHWH chose the Jews as his people, parted the red sea, granted them Israel, then later changed his mind and sent himself to die on a cross before coming back to life three days later in order to let everyone else join the club

[Anonymous No.16183733]

>>16183709
Is it autism awareness month?

[Anonymous No.16183736]

>>16183159
Not that anon, but there's no proof the unmoved mover made the choice to create the universe. It could have followed out of necessity from His nature, again, akin to Spinoza's God.

[Anonymous No.16183741]

>>16183723
Finally we're getting somewhere. Not everything in the Bible is literally true. All the times the Bible says heavens above it doesn't really mean above. So how do you know it means a real place?

[Anonymous No.16183742]

>>16183736
then why is the universe finite while God is infinite? Why hasn’t the universe always existed?

[Anonymous No.16183751]

>>16183678
I know you are trying to be funny, but arguing about God is pointless. Attend an Orthodox liturgy and submit to the beauty, you will feel "faith" growing without needing to justify and argue a position.

[Anonymous No.16183754]

>>16183741
>So how do you know it means a real place?
it doesn’t even have to be a “place.”

[Anonymous No.16183757]

>>16183680
this
the whole argument only works if you subscribe to presentism

[Anonymous No.16183761]

>>16183733
I'm pretty sure Michelangelo wasn't an atheist but who knows new scholarship may have made a discovery I'm not a art historian. So why
>why do you intentionally make your argument less credible with this language(imagery)?

[Anonymous No.16183763]

>>16183716
Why was it a free choice? There’s no actual reasoning for it other than the obsession Abrahamics have with free choice. Additionally even if a personality were demonstrated it would not be the personality of the highly changeable and human Christian God

[Anonymous No.16183766]

>>16183721
Modern Particle Physics by Mark Thomson.

Or hundreds of other physics textbooks.

[Anonymous No.16183767]

>>16183754
So it's not a place above. How do you know it's real if 2 of the 3 properties ascribed to it aren't true?

[Anonymous No.16183775]

>>16183680
>So it always have been?
>Always have been.

[Anonymous No.16183780]

uncertainty lies in the foundation of thought
suicide is the only option

[Anonymous No.16183784]

>>16183751
I've got no argument with this kind of faith. Your subjective experience is yours I can't argue with it. But you can't argue with my impression of it being a mind numbing drag that I will never be part of.

[Anonymous No.16183822]

Postulates God because existance can't otherwise be explained.

[Anonymous No.16183828]

>>16183822
Postulate God^2 because otherwise God can't be explained

[Anonymous No.16183837]

>>16183751
> feelings over facts
Kek

[Anonymous No.16183866]

>>16182982
At the end of the day, religious intellectuals have an a priori NEED to preserve their beliefs, whereas their adversaries do not. So it is entirely worthless to argue with you types, because you will lie about what sounds sensible and what does not, and twist everything around to rationalize your pre-established belief.

[Anonymous No.16183911]

>>16183784
>>16183837
The reason that there is no factual information or "proof" of the existence of God is because of free will. Our free will is what makes us like God and what separates us from animals. God has the ability to force us to believe in Him, but He does not because He wants us to love Him willingly. If God could be proven real in the sense that 2+2=4, then you wouldn't be making the choice to believe in Him. God exists outside of human logic and is not bound to its rules. The paradox in this is that an understanding of it results in belief despite the absurdity. God is "unreasonable" in that sense that He is not found in reason, but the most reasoned response is to believe in Him.

[Anonymous No.16183918]

>>16183911
And again that is your opinion you're not trying to rationally argue that it is true. And my opinion is that is garbage. Both are equally valid

[Anonymous No.16183924]

>>16183866
when it comes to such a fundamental thesis as "the universe has a prime mover" it's basically a choice whether you believe that or not. why don't you examine your own motivations for wanting to believe the universe is a cosmic car crash?

[Anonymous No.16183984]

>>16183924
But if someone presented a compelling counter-argument to the assertion that there is a prime mover, you would not be able to accept it, because you are also compelled by supra-rational faith to believe in your holy book.

So it's not just about whether you believe in that fundamental thesis alone, because the entire edifice of your religion with all of its stories and commandments rests upon it, and you cannot get rid of the edifice unless you are willing to lose your faith in the process.

[Anonymous No.16184009]

>>16183984
>>16183924
whereas the free thinker who is unbounded to any particular religion could entertain any religion's ideas at will, and is not committed by supra-rational faith to the idea that the universe was created in a "cosmic car crash." And while they argue in good faith, you conceal that you cannot actually relent to their counter-arguments no matter how well they are formulated. So there is no point at all in arguing about it.

[Anonymous No.16184027]

>>16183984
>But if someone presented a compelling counter-argument to the assertion that there is a prime mover
irrelevant, no such argument exists. dispense with the tiresome pablum

[Anonymous No.16184087]

>>16182982
I remember reading about this one study Scientists did where they had a machine with a space inside of it that contained 0 matter, and they, over time, absorbed matter popping in and out of existence inside.

I wish I remembered the source.

[Anonymous No.16184090]

>>16184027
Read Spinoza, nigger

[Anonymous No.16184098]

>>16184090
>reading a Jew
lmao

[Anonymous No.16184099]

>>16182982
>There is no rebuttal to his kalam cosmological argument

Sed contra:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-difficulty-for-craigs-kalam_2.html

[Anonymous No.16184115]

>>16184099
>muh aquinas

[Anonymous No.16184147]

>>16184090
summarize his argument then

[Anonymous No.16184148]

>>16183649
ye nothing intentionally vague about that

[Anonymous No.16184157]

God-like properties = my personal wish fulfilment is true

simple as

[Anonymous No.16184184]

>>16182982
Watching Sean Reddit Carroll dismantle this huckster was actually embarrassing
I can't take a theologian seriously if someone who watches rick and morty can beat them in a debate

[Anonymous No.16184234]

>>16183202
>because the universe obviously operates temporally and has an apparent past.

within the universe, yes. Properties of a reality contained within an entity don't have to apply to that entity. If you run a computer simulation in which reality bending physics are possible, say for instance having a larger space confined within a smaller space like a bag of infinite holding, then that doesn't mean that the same rules apply to the computer running the simulation. Extrapolating rules we observe about reality contained within that universe to the origin of the universe which grants us these observables makes no sense.

If we assume that observables can be extrapolated beyond our reality then there is no reason for the entity which contains our reality to not be timeless.

[Anonymous No.16184300]

Here is my argument for the existence of God:

All living creatures share one defining trait: self-preservation. This trait transcends all material boundaries. It is life-affirming. In a universe so cold and seemingly devoid of life, the concept of life as we know it affirms itself. The natural state of the universe lends towards existence of life.

A state of 'nothing' is unnatural. The only state of the universe is 'something'. We perceive a beginning and end to life because we view things from an individual perspective, but objectively speaking, all objective interpretation of life is continuous.

Therefore, something could never come from nothing, it must always come from something. God is ever-present and cannot have a beginning.

[Anonymous No.16184345]

>>16184300
>Here is my argument for the non-existence of God:
>All living creatures share one defining trait: self-preservation. This trait transcends all material boundaries. It is life-affirming. In a universe so cold and seemingly devoid of life, the concept of life as we know it affirms itself. The natural state of the universe lends towards existence of life.
>A state of 'nothing' is unnatural. The only state of the universe is 'something'. We perceive a beginning and end to life because we view things from an individual perspective, but objectively speaking, all objective interpretation of life is continuous.
>Therefore, something could never come from nothing, it must always come from something. The Universe is eternal and cannot have a beginning.

[Anonymous No.16184365]

>>16184300
self-preservation is just a manifestation of entropy

[Anonymous No.16184368]

And then you still dont know anything about the attributes of this god or power except that it caused the universe to begin existing.

[Anonymous No.16184429]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't an attempt at proving God, because it's a proof of Allah. WLC uses it to argue that you can't just discount God. Apologetics for the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Salvation, etc come later, which you have to allow him to argue because the Kalam Cosmological Argument demonstrates that Allah is logical, and God is just a variant of Allah.
>inb4 some retard gets butthurt
Look these things up before you talk about them.

[Anonymous No.16184567]

>>16183119
>For example, God isn’t bound by time
if God is outside of time then he cannot be the cause of something

[Anonymous No.16184620]

>>16184567
Time has been caused.

[Anonymous No.16184644]

>>16184620
causation presupposes time. what would it mean for something to atemporally cause something else?

[Anonymous No.16184651]

>>16182982
It all hinges on how you view infinity.

[Anonymous No.16184686]

>>16184644
god, being infinite, is timeless, therefore time is something which he can manipulate as everything else in his universe

[Anonymous No.16184766]

>>16184686
yeah you're just begging the question, I understand you think God exists outside of time. what I'm saying is that that means he cannot engage in causation, unless you can provide an account for what it means for something to atemporally cause something else.

[Anonymous No.16184783]

>>16184766
again you're looking at a process in a linear way when scientists are beginning to discover that time is anything but linear

[Anonymous No.16184786]

>>16183592
Stop capitalizing randomly.

[Anonymous No.16184811]

>>16184766
a being that is timeless and not bound by the law that governs all things logically would have some power over that thing, ie time

[Anonymous No.16184825]

>>16184783
I don't think I'm presupposing linear time over nonlinear time. I'm just saying causation presupposes time full-stop - linear or nonlinear. even a nonlinear theory of time wouldn't be an explanation for how God could atemporally cause something.

[Anonymous No.16184829]

>>16184811
I don't think this word logically means what you think it means

[Anonymous No.16184850]

>>16184811
I understand that's your position. I'm asking how something could cause something atemporally. or are you suggesting that God can wield power over something without engaging in causation?

[Anonymous No.16184852]

>>16184783
You can do the whole Buddhist "time and causes aren't real" bit but all systems of Buddhism prohibit "God" in the Christian sense. If you're reifying God, you sort of have to reify time and causes.

[Anonymous No.16184857]

>>16184825
>even a nonlinear theory of time wouldn't be an explanation for how God could atemporally cause something.
how would it not?

if you've already done everything you're going to do then it invites dynamic manipulation

[Anonymous No.16184879]

>>16184829
>x affects everything except y
>y has some special governance over x
seems fairly logical
>>16184850
>I'm asking how something could cause something atemporally
god exists outside time, not my "position" just my supposition. that should answer your questions

[Anonymous No.16184884]

>>16184857
but that wouldn't be atemporal

[Anonymous No.16184902]

What is the cause for spontaneous atomic emmision?
If you can't answer this, you can't claim any of what you just said.

[Anonymous No.16184906]

>>16184879
>god exists outside time, not my "position" just my supposition. that should answer your questions
sure I grant you're supposing it. I'm saying that an argument that contains that supposition runs into the problem of atemporal causation.

[Anonymous No.16184921]

>>16182982
Setting aside the fact neither premise has been proven, I'm not sure the deductive proof is sound. First, the premises should probably be reordered.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.

I think this works better, working from the bigger premise to the smaller (that's a strange bit of figurative language, but I don't know how else to put it at the moment). However, I don't think we can necessarily jump to the conclusion Craig does. It's easy enough to say

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Banal even, but I don't see how we can make the jump from "cause," even "external cause," to "uncaused entity" to "god." Even if we could make it from "the universe has a cause" to "the universe was caused by an entity," I don't see how we can conclude an entity must be god simpl because it was presumably uncaused. Such a conclusion relies on inductive logic, a presumption that we know all there is to know about the laws of the universe, which we don't.

[Anonymous No.16184962]

>>16182982
There are plenty of spontaneous events in the universe, some of which you cited yourself. Why can't the beginning of the universe be one such event?

[Anonymous No.16185007]

>>16182982
So, correct me if I haven't understood this right.

> everything is bounded to a prior cause.
> but the universe is finite
> therefore, there must be a cause of the universe. And that cannot have a previous cause.

And that's proven mathematically, scientifically and philosophically? Where? I mena there are theories in Physics not proven that experts still discuss about, but somehow this man can prove the existence of God talking about causes and effects?

It is almost free to talk metaphisically about God, the beginning of the universe and whatever you want. There's millenia of work about that, and it hasn't reach even the slightiest understanding of the nature as the natural sciences.

Keep on reading Aristotle or his newest adept in order to prove your beliefs, and then try to force ethics with them.

Seriously guys. Stop saying things that you don't know. Maybe we won't ever be able to check statements like "the universe is in/finite". Maybe these things are way more complex than that (think about the probabilistic nature of quantum physics).

[Anonymous No.16185019]

>>16182982
If time doesnt exist befire the big bang does causality exist?
Also a grand mover who is unmoved is not really anything new.

[Anonymous No.16185179]

>>16183356
those guys don't know anything. if you want actual rebuttals for Kalam, the cosmological argument, argument from change, and reasoning about God in general you should read the critique Kant gives.

[Anonymous No.16185223]

>>16185007
physics can never tell us if the universe is finite or infinite. that's a metaphysical proposition. you can be against metaphysical reasoning, but replacing it with physics is putting the cart before the horse. all you can say is that we can never know, and so we shouldn't talk about it.

[Anonymous No.16185228]

>>16182982

This is just another version of "we don't know, thus god"

[Anonymous No.16185328]

There isn't a defeat of the cosmological argument proper. Kalam however is generally considered a rudimentary form of the argument which Aquinas later improved on (it originates in al-Ghazali.)

Aquinas rejected the Kalam cosmological argument and didn't think it could be proven that the universe had a beginning. Moreover, he thought it was unnecessary and actually weakened the cosmological argument if what you're concerned with is temporal causation.

See his rebuttal of the idea here:

https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm#38

Aquinas is correct in noticing that a better way to do this is talk about contingency.

The cause Aquinas is looking for is not temporal -- rather, think in terms of *reason for being* -- that which *makes something possible to exist*. Which is not ultimately for Aquinas a temporal relationship necessarily. Because there has to be something holding up existence at all moments.

[Anonymous No.16185428]

>>16185328
Craig acknowledges this and praises the standards that aquinas has

[Anonymous No.16185479]

>>16185223
Metaphysics is simply the realistic interpretation of physics.

[Anonymous No.16185487]

>>16183356
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.16185562]

>>16183159
How? Also it is still not proven that the universe had a beginning in time (in fact, following Kant, I would go as far as saying that this claim cannot ever be confirmed empirically): as far as we know the physical universe is eternal and has always been so. Does he mean "beginning" in a more abstract sense, as in, God is logically and ontologically prior to the universe?
>>16183184
>But the universe is proven to not exist for infinity.
When was this proved?
>>16183196
>I mean nothing as in no matter. Aristotelian actuality and potentiality are a joke
Why would you say so. Your "no matter" isn't merely nothing, since it can be one of the poles in a process of becoming. A pure nothing will always be nothing. Your "positively charged nothing" is by all accounts an entity with a potency, wether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.16185574]

>>16183742
As far as we know, the universe might be infinite and it might have always existed. You're just assuming that this is not the case, but so far you have given no argument for these claims.

[Anonymous No.16186461]

When humans hit the limit of their empirical knowledge, it is natural for them to conjecture with deities, myths, etc. As a philosophical argument, kalam's is interesting, as well as Aquinas' improvement, but it still doesn't *answer* the questions that are truly at hand.

When we ask: "how long has the universe been around?" or "how was the universe created?", we play at those limits of observable things. To the former question, we can actually come close to an answer - not by philosophy or theology, but mathematics and science (inb4 reddit-face IFLScience posters). To the latter question, we can still come close through physics (check out Higgs-Boson particles and Virtual Particles that can seemingly "pop into existence"). But further to the latter question, we are still at a loss to explain the origin of the universe definitively, not only because of infinite regression, but also because our model of the universe is still incomplete.

So what do we do? The scientists continue to research, and the theologists continue to philosophize. You have to ask the question: which will most completely answer the question? which will give a real answer?

Well, in the meantime where we have only confusion, I suppose it's up to the individual to decide what they're comfortable with.

[Anonymous No.16186518]

>>16183041
>Yawn
Silence, redditor.
>if universe, God part of universe
Flawed premise.

[Anonymous No.16186778]

>>16183169
Explain

[Anonymous No.16186866]

>>16182982
If causal finitism is true then God must be simple, which craig doesn't accept. Otherwise an infinite succession of causes in God is inescapable. But causal finitism is true, so there can't be succession in God. So God is unchangeable. The only kind of thing that could in principle by unchangeable is a simple being.

[Anonymous No.16187447]

>>16182982
>I share a board with people who do not understand anything they argue against
holy shit you guys are retarded
>The universe is everything that exists.

[Anonymous No.16187461]

>>16186866
Are you a complete fucking retard Craig and every classical theist argues exactly that about God's nature. Holy fucking hell I hate this board and the unfathomable depths of their smug fucking ignorance.

WHY POST IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

[Anonymous No.16187469]

>>16185574
There are numerous absurdities that would result from an infinite universe. For one, why have we not reached the heat death of the universe of it has existed stretching back into infinity.

By the very definition of infinity entropy would not be in the process of happening as we observe it.

[Anonymous No.16187479]

>>16182982
>Mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically, the universe has a finite beginning. This is beyond dispute.
Wrong. The only thing beyond reasonable doubt is that scientifically, the known universe had a beginning.
>Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Period. There is no precedent anywhere ever for something coming from nothing, and not in an uncaused way either. Therefore, an uncaused entity created the universe.
Wrong, merely an intuition that has been refuted by indeterminism in modern physics.
>There is no refuting this. God exists.
Your conclusion doesn't follow for the premises. You need to add some more premises to prove the first cause is God.

3/10 attempt, better luck next time

[Anonymous No.16187489]

http://archive.is/e45WF

[Anonymous No.16187490]

>>16187469
>There are numerous absurdities that would result from an infinite universe. For one, why have we not reached the heat death of the universe of it has existed stretching back into infinity.
That this is the inevitable result of an eternal universe is still up to discussion, and so is the application of concept of entropy to the entire universe. You might be working with concepts derived from popsci

[Anonymous No.16187647]

>>16187489
>But "events" are things the mind artificially creates.
Dropped.

[Anonymous No.16187715]

>>16187647
Problem?

[Anonymous No.16187734]

>>16187469
>There are numerous absurdities that would result from an infinite universe. For one, why have we not reached the heat death of the universe of it has existed stretching back into infinity.
This argument misses the point because no one denies that the known universe was kickstarted by the initial singularity. The question is whether the singularity is itself an absolute beginning in time or it was brought about by unknown to us physical processes and natural laws.

[Anonymous No.16187752]

>>16187461
>Are you a complete fucking retard Craig and every classical theist argues exactly that about God's nature. Holy fucking hell I hate this board and the unfathomable depths of their smug fucking ignorance.
>WHY POST IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
Literally take your own advice. Craig is not a classical theist and doesn't believe in divine simplicity.

[Pessoa No.16187753]

>>16182982
Yeah that's interesting. But you know what's really irrefutable? The fact that strong Artificial Intelligence will be here by 2025. Even Elon Musk knows it.

[Anonymous No.16187774]

>>16186461
>When humans hit the limit of their empirical knowledge, it is natural for them to conjecture with deities, myths, etc. As a philosophical argument, kalam's is interesting, as well as Aquinas' improvement, but it still doesn't *answer* the questions that are truly at hand.
This is an obvious case of question begging. If you want to say that they don't answer the question at hand you need to show why they are wrong. You are making atheism and agnosticism look bad.

[Anonymous No.16187786]

>>16182982
>Mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically, the universe has a finite beginning. This is beyond dispute.
lol.

[Anonymous No.16187790]

>>16187734
>This argument misses the point because no one denies that the known universe was kickstarted by the initial singularity
Literally numerous posters in this thread do.

[Anonymous No.16187797]

>>16187734
Either way there is a causal chain at play so I don't see your point.

[Anonymous No.16187798]

>>16183356
>I have to say, as a new poster and an agnostic atheist, I am actually floored by how weak every single reply to the OP's argument has been. Is it actually true that WLC has made a strong proposition for which there is no good rebuttal? Based on the endless ignorance in this thread the answer could be yes.
OP didn't even give a defence of Craig's premises, he just asserted them, yet you only find the replies weak? You are just acting like this because it's the cool thing for atheists now to be all humble and shit.

[Anonymous No.16187802]

>>16187798
This post was written by an anxiety-ridden autist who places self worth in internet arguments and identities. This poster may be trans as well.

[Anonymous No.16187809]

>>16187790
I am talking about actual philosophers, not what anon #46465765 said

[Anonymous No.16187819]

>>16187797
>Either way there is a causal chain at play so I don't see your point.
So you don't understand what Craig's argument is? He argues for a finite universe, an infinite causal chain is no good for him.

[Anonymous No.16187823]

>>16187802
trans posters are based
but otherwise I agree

[Anonymous No.16187826]

>>16187819
What model of the universe both has the singularity and is also infinite? You're not getting to your point.

[Anonymous No.16187828]

>>16183388
>the absurdity of an infinite regress of time and causes, as well as the scientific evidence of the beginning of the universe, shows that it’s more reasonable to believe in a finite universe. It’s simply the less absurd position.
I find an infinite universe less absurd then an infinite God, in the first the universe is all there is, in the latter we are God.

[Anonymous No.16187831]

>>16183656
>The Western fetishization of reason and logic is exactly why you have nihilism and cultural relativism destroying your nations.
Implying nihilism or cultural relativism are logical or reasonable.

[Anonymous No.16187843]

>>16187826
What I am saying that if by "universe" you mean what happens from the singularity onwards, that leaves open the possibility that the singularity iwas caused by unknown to us physical causes. There is no model of the universe before the singularity because we nothing from before the singularity.

[Anonymous No.16187862]

>arguing for a generic theist god
It's a terrible they can just admit it's some god that does not give a shit about us, no a caring personal God who I assume he is arguing for.

[Anonymous No.16187866]

Yeah, makes sense to me.

An infinite regress doesn’t seem philosophically possible to me, given that an infinite regress leads to logical contradictions such as indicative of the Paper Passer thought experiment. Either we have an infinite regress or we have an unmoved mover, which one is it?

The infinite regress has been proven to be unsalvageable, with no solution given to rescue the idea. Causal finitism reigns supreme.

The question is, what if the first cause? Many people ponder this, but if the cause were to be the first, it couldn’t be contingent, it would have to be spaceless, timeless, and necessary; not to mention, He would have to be conscious too, given that if that the first cause was not conscious and was therefore determined, it would be contingent and therefore not necessary; by that way we can conclude that this unmoved mover has to have a consciousness.

To sum it all up, this unmoved mover has these ontological properties:
•Necessary
•Spaceless
•Timeless
•All powerful (to create all contingent things)
•All knowing (to know all contingent things to create then)
•Conscious

There you go, you got God, gentlemen. I rest my case.

[Anonymous No.16187870]

>>16187866
them*

I always have like one typo in my posts. What gives?

[Anonymous No.16187880]

>>16187866
>but if the cause were to be the first, it couldn’t be contingent, it would have to be spaceless, timeless, and necessary
>timeless
>>16184567

[Anonymous No.16187883]

>>16187866
Why would a regress into an unmoved mover not be an infinite regress also.

Either the unmoved mover is infinite and you have the same problem or the unmoved mover started existing in a point in time, then you have the same problem again.

[Anonymous No.16187892]

>>16182982
The question of "God exists" isn't really the question. The question is "Is there a God Consciousness?" For a God to exist, as per our understanding of God, there would have to be a single entity intending to create the universe. That entity would have to be able to think in some way. That is certainly not affirmed by your statement. It is perfectly imaginable that there is not "a creator" in that there is not an entity which created us.
Imagine if Ned Block's famous example of the China Brain created humanity. There would thus not be "a creator" or "a God" because nothing would know the rules of the universe nor would anything purposefully be doing anything; everything would simply be reacting to something else and one of those reactions could create the universe. But, that God certainly isn't "a God" by any definition.

[Anonymous No.16187894]

>>16187866
>An infinite regress doesn’t seem philosophically possible to me
>*inserts ex nihilo creation*

[Anonymous No.16187925]

>>16187866
Most embarrassing post in the thread so far, you made an incoherent salad out of Leibniz's argument from contingency and the kalam without understanding either.

[Anonymous No.16187931]

>>16187880
>Timeless things can’t interact with things in Time
????

“Timeless”, just means that the thing in question isn’t effected by time, doesn’t mean that that thing can’t be the one that effects time.
>>16187883
Because an unmoved mover is unmoved. Remember, the first premise of the Kalam is “if anything came into being, it has a cause.” The universe came into being, God didn’t. God does not fit the criteria of the first premise of the kalam.

If you want to get rid of both possibilities, then we don’t have any philosophical backing at all for the beginning. That’s not philosophy, that’s ignorance.
>>16187894
There wasn’t really nothing, God just is. He has infinite ability and infinite actuality, He can, by definition, create anything.

[Anonymous No.16187940]

>>16187931
>There wasn’t really nothing, God just is. He has infinite ability and infinite actuality, He can, by definition, create anything.
Do... you.... know what ex nihilo creation even means?

[Anonymous No.16187943]

>>16187925
Most misunderstanding poster I’ve ever seen. You just literally misunderstood my entire argument, despite trying to act smart. Bravo Anon.

[Anonymous No.16187947]

>>16187940
>t. Doesn’t understand Ex Nihilo creation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

[Anonymous No.16187950]

>>16187931
>>Timeless things can’t interact with things in Time
>????
I'm saying atemporal thing cannot cause anything at all. causation presupposes temporality.

[Anonymous No.16187954]

>>16187931
>Because an unmoved mover is unmoved. Remember, the first premise of the Kalam is “if anything came into being, it has a cause.” The universe came into being, God didn’t. God does not fit the criteria of the first premise of the kalam.
So, why would that be any different from the universe being infinite?

I mean, are you saying the unmoved mover has no beginning, or did have a beginning.

[Anonymous No.16187960]

>>16187947
>t. Doesn’t understand Ex Nihilo creation
>>16187931
>There wasn’t really nothing

[Anonymous No.16187970]

>>16187950
>I'm saying atemporal thing cannot cause anything at all.
What’s your justification for that?
>>16187954
>So, why would that be any different from the universe being infinite?
The Universe isn’t infinite. There’s no evidence to support that it’s infinite, and all of Big Bang cosmology supports that. If you want to suggest a steady state model then I would like to say that there’s no evidence to support that either, and I can easily make a mathematical model that says that the Universe isn’t actually like 3-Dimensional or whatever. Both seem counter intuitive, and they are. They’re just conjecture.

[Anonymous No.16187978]

>>16187960
You think the people who support creation ex nihilo believe God didn’t exist before creation? Retarded

[Anonymous No.16187979]

>>16182982
>Mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically, the universe has a finite beginning. This is beyond dispute.
But it is. There is no a priori reason (mathematical or philosophical) to suppose the universe isn't eternal and beginningless. Scientifically, the big bang is not viewed as a strict beginning in every cosmological theory. In one view, it is the consequence of higher dimensional entities called branes colliding. In another, it's a cyclical phenomenon of periodic expansions (big bang) and collapse (big crunch). In another, the big bang is merely a exit point of a black hole, a white hole.
Extremes of nature, particularly those on the scales at which general relativity or quantum mechanics play a deciding role, outstrip common sense human concepts such as beginnings or sequential causality.

[Anonymous No.16187981]

>>16187970
>The Universe isn’t infinite. There’s no evidence to support that it’s infinite, and all of Big Bang cosmology supports that. If you want to suggest a steady state model then I would like to say that there’s no evidence to support that either, and I can easily make a mathematical model that says that the Universe isn’t actually like 3-Dimensional or whatever. Both seem counter intuitive, and they are. They’re just conjecture.
Thats not an awnser to my question, so I will just repeat it:

So, why would that be any different from the universe being infinite?

I mean, are you saying the unmoved mover has no beginning, or did have a beginning?

[Anonymous No.16187983]

>>16187978
so you believe god created the universe out of himself? I'm god?

[Anonymous No.16187987]

>>16187943
>You just literally misunderstood my entire argument
Here is a simple challenge for you. Do you know the name of the argument you just presented? If you do I will retract my statement that you are embarrassing yourself by not knowing what are you talking about.

[Anonymous No.16187993]

>>16187970
>>I'm saying atemporal thing cannot cause anything at all.
>What’s your justification for that?
temporality is built into causation. what would it mean for something to atemporally cause something else?

[Anonymous No.16188002]

>>16187981
>So, why would that be any different from the universe being infinite?
>I mean, are you saying the unmoved mover has no beginning, or did have a beginning?
It’s different because the Universe is full of contingent things, and full of parts, which would destroy the entire idea of an unmoved mover.

God has no beginning.

>>16187987
My argument was the Kalam. I just said that if God existed He couldn’t share some of the properties of the Universe. Check out this debate, (ignore the title, can’t find out the true video) Where he makes the same points
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SdEvXK91B58

[Anonymous No.16188004]

>>16188002
>God has no beginning.
Why is that different from an infinite regress?

[Anonymous No.16188006]

>>16187993
>If you’re atemporal you can’t cause anything
>”What’s your Justification for that”
>Temporality is built into causation
What’s your justification for that?

[Anonymous No.16188009]

>>16188004
Because an infinite regress involves an infinite chain of beings and causes. You can have an infinitely old thing, that’s not the same thing as an infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.16188015]

>>16188009
>Because an infinite regress involves an infinite chain of beings and causes. You can have an infinitely old thing, that’s not the same thing as an infinite regress.
So, its basically the same, only somewhere along the line you simple state, yeah, no more beings and causes.

Thats dishonest isnt it, you dont know when those beings and causes stop, you just assume they do, because thats much easier.

[Anonymous No.16188016]

>>16188002
>uhhh check out this youtube video I'm trying to regurgitate
>"Best debate ever Christian vs Atheist Christian wins"

4channel christc*cks are literally r*ddit atheists from 10 years ago...

[Anonymous No.16188018]

>>16188015
>So, its basically the same, only somewhere along the line you simple state, yeah, no more beings and causes.
So, you don’t understand what an infinite regress is? Because if there is finite causes, it isn’t a infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.16188026]

>>16188016
If you actually watched WLC’s opening statement you would understand what I’m talking about. I don’t even think he won that debate, I think it was on mostly equal footing.

[Anonymous No.16188031]

>>16188018
>So, you don’t understand what an infinite regress is? Because if there is finite causes, it isn’t a infinite regress.
What exactly in this statement, proves I do not understand what infinite regress is:

>So, its basically the same, only somewhere along the line you simple state, yeah, no more beings and causes.

[Anonymous No.16188032]

>>16188006
causation involves changes in states. changes in states are necessarily temporal. i'll ask again: what would it mean for something to atemporally cause something else?

[Anonymous No.16188039]

>>16188031
>So, its basically the same
This shows how you completely don’t know what I’m talking about. If you want a logical proof against infinite regresses being a thing, just google the “paper passer thought experiment” or something like that.

>causation involves changes in states

Yeah, so what? God can act in time, that’s what Omnipotence means. It just means His true nature is timeless.

[Anonymous No.16188042]

>>16188039
>This shows how you completely don’t know what I’m talking about.
I see, so you are not going to explain why this statement, proves I dont know what I am talking about.

>So, its basically the same, only somewhere along the line you simple state, yeah, no more beings and causes.

Again, what is actually wrong about this.

[Anonymous No.16188048]

>>16188039
>Yeah, so what? God can act in time, that’s what Omnipotence means. It just means His true nature is timeless.
you're saying God becomes temporal in certain instances? that would be a change in state, which again would presuppose temporality.

[Anonymous No.16188050]

>>16188039
>>16187983
Are we god? yes or no

[Anonymous No.16188056]

>>16188002
>My argument was the Kalam.
The first part of your argument was close to the kalam but then you added this part which I am assuming you thought it yourself:
>The question is, what if the first cause? Many people ponder this, but if the cause were to be the first, it couldn’t be contingent, it would have to be spaceless, timeless, and necessary; not to mention, He would have to be conscious too, given that if that the first cause was not conscious and was therefore determined, it would be contingent and therefore not necessary; by that way we can conclude that this unmoved mover has to have a consciousness.
This has nothing to do with the kalam, you just shoved a bunch of Leibnizian metaphysics into it. I can walk you step by step to why what you wrote is incoherent if you want.

[Anonymous No.16188074]

>>16188042
I already explained this. You’re just not understanding.

>>16188048
God can do temporal things, yes, but His nature can be beyond time. That’s not a change, nothing in His nature changes. Look up the Essence-Energy distinction
>>16188056
Just nonsense. Watch the debate, listen to WLC’s reasoning, not mine.

[Anonymous No.16188090]

>>16188074
>God can do temporal things, yes, but His nature can be beyond time. That’s not a change, nothing in His nature changes.
you're saying that when God engages in the temporal that he remains atemporal? what does it mean for something to be atemporal then?

[Anonymous No.16188272]

Physicist most of the time have better things to do rather than debating inside that cesspool called apologetics so people like WLC end up going against youtubers. BUT, Sean Carroll actually made an effort an BTFOd Craig completely.

[Anonymous No.16188286]

>Why would God, the Creator of all things, need to exist within the confines of the human operation of logic? Why is there such a presupposition that logic is the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe? It's not, God transcends it, He doesn't play by our rules. You can't have a formal proof for something that exists outside of formal proofs. Christ is to be experienced, not proven.

You just made a literary character named God.

[Anonymous No.16188344]

The existence of God in some capacity is possible, or even likely. What is borderline impossible is for said deity to exist in anything close to see capacity by which he is depicted in religious texts. Abrahamists will argue til they're blue about the existence of God, but cannot make any compelling argument for why any one theistic text depicts the "real" God. There absolutely is the possibility that God exists, but that he (or it) has absolutely zero correlation with religious texts, and that every single prophet has been a complete bullshitter.

[Anonymous No.16188390]

>>16183665
>but God is less absurd than no God
Ah, the ole' argument from personal incredulity. A classic

[Anonymous No.16188411]

>>16182982
The 'universe' - meaning everything - can't have a finite beginning, and how does that prove the existence of God more than it does a big bounce or whatever they call it? His physiognomy is more proof that God exists, because coincidences don't.

[Anonymous No.16188424]

>>16184087
>space that contained 0 matter
literally impossible with our technology

[Anonymous No.16188435]

I hate WLC. Even though I agree with him and most of his ideas IU stull hate him. Something in that arrogant grin of his, like he has the true nature of God figured out, and he just plays with those little atheists, something about him just ticks me off

[Anonymous No.16188454]

>>16183256

Holy autism

>>16182982

Read Spinoza lmao