TheLordsSouljah Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 You could present one, cut and paste it, link to it, and we could discuss that one in particular. Otherwise it seems I will never address the particular one you are thinking about, the one without the god of the gaps conclusion. No can do. This week is the busiest I have been since before Christmas, and the day after tomorrow I am leaving the country. You will have to do your own homework this time. By the way, there actually are three types of cosmological arguments. Which one are you thinking of? Aquinas: impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress; Termed by Craig: infinite temporal regress impossible because an actual infinite impossible; Clarke: Principle of Sufficient Reason IIRC, Craig is mostly just a rehash of Kalaam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 No can do. This week is the busiest I have been since before Christmas, and the day after tomorrow I am leaving the country. You will have to do your own homework this time.LOL. I've already done the homework. There is no substance to any of the Cosmological arguments. As I have already stated, no-one knows how energy/matter is created or if it has always just been there. There is no possible homework that I can do to research which particular version Nihil is thinking about. Well, I guess I could ask a psychic, but I don't believe in magic. I've asked you several times but got no answer, so we will leave it at that.As far as I am concerned Christianity is about belief and faith not about factual based knowledge thus I don't know why some Christians actively seek proof of their unobservable god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I am impressed that you know and understand everything to do with such highly regarded arguments. It is unfortunate that you are not capable of articulating them in any competent form. Sorry, but I will not have the time or desire to respond if you insist on pontificating on subjects you refuse to properly research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I am impressed that you know and understand everything to do with such highly regarded arguments. It is unfortunate that you are not capable of articulating them in any competent form. Sorry, but I will not have the time or desire to respond if you insist on pontificating on subjects you refuse to properly research.I was willing discuss one of them with you, but you kept insisting that I was discussing the wrong one, but you wouldn't tell me which one you wanted to discuss. So given those parameters, how is it possible to discuss with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 You were not simply discussing the "wrong one". What you have been talking about is not a cosmological argument at all. That indicates to me that no, you have not done your homework. It would be like if we were talking about wild cats and I insisted that wolves are the most effective predatory cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 You were not simply discussing the "wrong one". What you have been talking about is not a cosmological argument at all. That indicates to me that no, you have not done your homework.It would be like if we were talking about wild cats and I insisted that wolves are the most effective predatory cats.You didn't state that before.We were talking about the cosmological arguments. The necessity for a prime mover or a first cause.The assumption that energy/matter requires a first cause. The assumption that energy/matter is contingent.The assumption that a god is not contingent and that it exists.These are false assumptions and cannot be derived because we don't know that energy/matter is contingent.If you can prove that energy is contingent then we can continue with the Cosmonlogical argument. If you cannot, then the Cosmological argument fails based on the "Begs the question" logical fallicy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 As I said, there is nothing left that I can even discuss. It is simply an exercise in futility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 As I said, there is nothing left that I can even discuss. It is simply an exercise in futility.Absolutely, if you can't be bothered discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Do let me know when you understand the arguments you claim to have all figured out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Do let me know when you understand the arguments you claim to have all figured out.Do let me know when you are capable of having a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 welll they say the begenning of the universe was just quantum and pre matter, pre particles. im beginning to question whether a first cause as un uncaused cause, can really be established Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Cats Edited February 16, 2013 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) i had for years said God couldnt be proven. then for the last eight or so months tended to say he could. i thight the uncaused cause could be demonstrated as at least most probable. my big change in thinkng was thermodynamics, that energy is going to zero in our universe as we understand it. that means there was no infinite beginning, never ending chain or ticking time bomb of matter etc. for if there was, itd have an infinite beinning but not an infinite end. that means there must be a beginning. even a ticking time bomb of matter wouldnt be possible cause itd have to be something that always existed, an infinite chain of matter/energy even if it was self contained, teh first cue stick if u will. what i had thought though was if there was a primordial soup of quantum that just explodes like a ticking time bomb then we couldnt prove an uncaused cause as we dont know enogh about quantum. but i had for got that science actually said that that's how teh unverse began, as quantum. so i think im reverting to God cannot be proven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe this argument to me is very much science driven. when we or i learn more of quantum, then ill tweak my views if necessary i dont know how thermodynamics works with quantum Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) that link says matter will turn into quantum, and it's unknown if the universe will meeet thermodynamic equiliirum. that means we just dont know enoguh. i dont think we can say uncaused cause of quantum can be established, if we could argue it always existed as a never ending chain. i know catholic theologians say an infinte chain is self caused a fortiori, and so God or uncaused case. but i see that as a cop out. if God can just be an inifinite chain can be if we could say thermodynamics wroks in quantum though, id say there's no infinite beginning as there's no ininite end. and then id say God culd be proven. so maybe i cold say i tend to saying he can be. but its quite a jump to assume more likely yhan not that it works that way Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now