Someone please help me understand the cosmological argument.

Someone please help me understand the cosmological argument.

Why is it implied that the universe "began to exist"? Shouldn't we need a starting point of reference to conclude that the universe started to exist?

Why is it automatically implied that god didn't begin to exist and just existed? Why can't we imply the same thing about the universe?

If we do apply the same thing to the universe, we don't require the need of a creator.
And if we don't assume the god exists without a beginning, then we can apply the argument to god himself.

I may be moronic, but the cosmological argument seems more like sneaky wordplay than an actual argument. Please correct me where I am wrong.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Basically, it appeals to a principle called the principal of sufficient reason. St. Augustine is one of the first to appeal to it as well as the Alexandrian School. This sets up the claim that every thing that exists has a reason for it to exist. There has to be some uncaused thing that itself imitates causation and being. Note, that some religions or philosophy like Buddhism and Native American religions reject this principal, so they don't see in principle an infinite regress as a problem. Basically, the claim requires you to have a bunch of metaphysical views. Analytic philosophers who subscribe to metaphysical antifoundationalism share a similar metaphysics to the Buddhists and Native American religions in that sense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      all philosophical arguments are sneaky wordplay. you have a good philosophical sense and the correct intuition. the universe has no beginning or ending according to empedocles, it is a Vortex whose end feeds into its beginning and vice versa.

      I’m going to kill myself

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    all philosophical arguments are sneaky wordplay. you have a good philosophical sense and the correct intuition. the universe has no beginning or ending according to empedocles, it is a Vortex whose end feeds into its beginning and vice versa.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is it implied that the universe "began to exist"?
    It isn't. Lrn2Aristotle

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are not wrong. But it's less sneaky wordplay and more the fact that any and all theories have as their foundation axiomatic assumptions.
    Since as the current mortals we are we are not omnipotent, there are always things we do not know yet or possibly cannot ever know.
    To account for these shortcomings in knowledge we make assumptions, that while in time could turn out to be completely incorrect, is still necessary if we want to model and describe the things we do observe.
    This "began to exist" is one of these assumptions.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is it automatically implied that god didn't begin to exist and just existed? Why can't we imply the same thing about the universe?
    Because the universe is physical matter, and physical matter is subject to change, which means it's subject to time. Matter, change, and time are all a package deal. The universe cannot be eternal like God is because the universe is subject to time. God on the other hand is immaterial, and so He doesn't change and He isn't subject to time.

    >I may be moronic
    You are, at least in this regard. Cosmological arguments aren't "sneaky wordplay", they just involve concepts that you aren't grasping.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God has to be more than immaterial though. St. Thomas Aquinas was quite aware that if you simply grant immateriality you could end up with views like Aristotles. Hence, why he will argue that it must not have any potentiality either.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >God on the other hand is immaterial, and so He doesn't change and He isn't subject to time.
      Proof? Making this assumption the basis of the whole argument is the aforementioned "sneaky wordplay".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It really is about what he thinks reality consists of. The argument works under the assumption of a thing to be real is to a substance. Each substance moves from potential to actual.This occurs through cause and effect. If you think reality is made up of processes or qualities then it won't work either for this reason. It does however, originally had appeal with the assumption that natural language reflects reality. This is something imported from Aristotle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not an assumption, it's a necessary implication.
        If by "God" we mean "that which created the universe" then God cannot be part of the universe, because a Creator cannot be part of His creation - a being cannot create itself, this would be metaphysically impossible.
        And if by "the universe" we mean all matter, then God cannot be matter, because if he were matter then he would be part of the universe, which as I've already explained is metaphysically impossible.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cause & Effect is theory not fact
    We see Effects with apparent Causes
    When we see an effect, even without an apparent cause, we assume it must have one
    But this assumption is based on nothing but prior experience. Most effects have a cause, so all must.
    But that’s faulty logic. We cannot say for sure if every effect must stem from a cause.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Here is a video OP of a professional philosopher and physicist explaining why the argument does not work.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This guy is a hack btw. He treats God as a scientific theory and then argues for why God is a bad scientific theory, which is a blatant category error.
      God, if He exists, would not be subject to scientific analysis *by definition*, because science is *by definition* the study of the natural world, and God is *by definition* not part of the natural world.
      It's like criticizing an ethical theory for being a bad theory of biology. It's moronic. And yet midwits fall for this shit because "smart man said so" and "he uses big fancy words so he must know what he's talking about"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He is not a hack. He is saying you are going to use God to explain things, God does not do a good job of that. He is kicking out metaphysical reasoning like Aristotle's from explanations of reality. He would not and does not say that about ethics or aesthetics. His issue is the explanation part.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >He is saying you are going to use God to explain things, God does not do a good job of that.
          God does a great job of explaining all kinds of things, just not in the same way that science explains things. This is what I meant by a category error. There are different explanations for everything based on the "angle" from which you're approaching it, there are always multiple layers of explanation. Let's say a baseball breaks a window; if we ask "why did the baseball break the window?" there are multiple angles from which to approach the answer. One would be to explain it from a physics perspective, discussing why a baseball moving at a specific speed will break a window, and getting into the details of the physical composition of the baseball and the window, etc. Or we could explain it by saying "Billy and Bobby were playing baseball and Bobby hit a foul ball that went through the window". Or we could explain that Billy and Bobby aren't very good at baseball and look at Bobby's poor form at bat and what he did wrong that led to him hitting the ball badly and it going through the window.
          The point being: there are typically multiple explanations for things based on which angle you're looking at it from. Think Aristotle's four causes. The fact that God can't be used to explain the efficient cause or the material cause of something, doesn't mean that God can't explain the formal or the final cause of something.
          I know that was kind of all over the place, but hopefully it makes sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That makes sense. That is the thing about his view. He is a physicalist. He is saying there are only efficient and material causes and these apparently come from sciences. Other things like values are held to be derived for him from those things too. Rape is bad because rape hurts organisms set up like us for example. He is actually careful to argue for his scientism, the view that science only explains reality, in that language of physicalism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's the problem with his whole argument though, he's presenting it as though he's demonstrating why belief in God is irrational, when in reality he's simply demonstrating why God doesn't fit into his own preconceived worldview. Whether intentionally or not, he's being misleading. If he just wanted to argue for physicalism, fine, but he's not, he's assuming physicalism and then arguing that the notion of God is irrational because it doesn't make sense in his worldview. It's akin to a theist arguing that physicalism is irrational because we need God in order to explain certain things about reality; this argument assumes a theistic worldview, so it's really begging the question. And that's exactly what Carroll is doing. "God doesn't exist because science can explain everything" simply takes for granted that the things that science can't explain (formal and final causes, for instance) don't exist.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's simply dishonest arguing, as you'd expect from christgays. They start from the thought that the argument must prove christgayging is right, so it's natural for them to bend everything until they get that conclusion (why even bother going that far and making an argument then?). It's secondhand to them like lying to a compulsive liar.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can go deep into quantum mechanics and lose your mind over how everything works perfectly, how even tiny variation in natural laws would render the universe either volatile, short-lived or outright impossible to exist. The fact that life exists and can grow into sapience is furthermore extra ordinary coincidence. That this life becomes to wonder about God's existence is a miracle.

    But ultimately, knowledge will not bring you to God, though it might spur you onwards. Gnostics went mad by trying to approach god intelöectually and produced labyrinthine doctrines leading to nowhere. It was impossible to our forebears to understand god intellectually, and impossible for us even now.

    You need faith. Which is why Jesus extolled the importance of faith and called those blessed who cannot see and yet believe. Even people without knowledge can find god through faith.

    Universe is a finite thing, with beginning and end, and time. Everything in the universe, from black holes and stars to organic life, borns and dies. Nothing is eternal.

    God, by comparison, is infinite. And we as his children have eternal quality to us.

    This infinity, and love associated with God, is something our reason cannot understand. But our eternal nature does, and yearns towards him.

    You can understand finite things with reason. But not God.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >God, by comparison, is infinite. And we as his children have eternal quality to us.
      Is this a conclusion or a presupposition?

  10. 1 month ago
    DoctorGreen

    >Why is it implied that the universe "began to exist"?
    They believe in their biblies. that's it

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *