Cosmological argument.

[Vera]

Well, I suppose even as an intelligent person, you're entitled to waste your time posting lengthy rants about how stupid you think something is. And adding a thinly veiled, incredulity insult at your fellow forum members and the futility of stupidly discussing stuff with someone as stupid as me. Did I trigger you? Could you simply not fight the irresistible urge to stoop so low as replying to the posts of an idiot?

You wanna know what I think is stupid - and rude and crass.?

Going out of your boganish way to mock and insult the low IQ and ignorance of an obvious moron like me. Calling a child childish. Calling a retarded person a retard. Screaming at a dumb animal which is so dumb, it doesn't understand the insults you're screaming at it.

There is nothing thinly veiled about it, you idiot. You just said the effective cause of the universe is probably not human because the universe is very very big.

Unless you meant something else and just haven't mastered the English language you're demosntrably DUMB AS SHIT. Dumber actually, dung is actually useful. This unveiled enough for you? It's a miracle you haven't forgotten to breathe yet.

Oh, and I apologise, I didn't know you're "retarded" (nice hate language there, how Xtian of you), and a dumb animal. My mistake

[Lion IRC]

I see that @Lion IRC has not only ignored my shutting down of his bullshit claim that the cosmological argument isn't about his gawd, now he's trying to shift the goal posts by calling it "the argument from causation." He seems to think we won't be able to smell the bullshit through that extremely thin veil. A rose, by any other name, may not smell as sweet, but bullshit stinks no matter what you call it.

I sincerely apologize for leading you to think that I was ignoring your devastating slam dunk argumentation. I'll try harder to make time for your delightful posts.

The first two premisses of the cosmological argument - aka the argument from causation, first cause, kalam, contingency, etc. do not contain any reference to divinity. They are theologically neutral.  Likewise the conclusion entails nothing other than the existence of a cause. (Deliberate or accidental.) To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being, the inference is that it was caused by a higher power. (Deliberately or accidentally.)

1. Whatever begins to exist/move has a cause of its existence/movement. (Secular) 
2. The universe began to exist. (Secular)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. (Secular)

If things can and do magically begin to exist, spontaneously popping into existence without a cause, then the argument unquestionably fails at the first premise. 

If the universe didn't have a beginning, if it has, (like God,) always existed, then the argument fails at the second premise.

If P1 and P2 are true, or at least more plausible than their negation, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is inescapable. The conclusion merely invites further consideration as to the nature of the cause.

Nice dodge of my actual point. 

Maybe you could answer that instead of pretending to be some intellectual giant by twisting what the fucking argument is really all about.

Theres no dodge.
You cited;
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Wrote: "From these facts..."

The link you provided says exactly what I'm saying.
The Cosmological argument is a launching pad from a starting set of facts. 

If its a fact that stuff doesn't magically, spontaneously pop into existence without a prior cause, then it must have been caused. If an object at rest remains at rest UNLESS it is acted upon in a way that causes motion, then such motion must have a cause. 

Now, does the Cosmological Argument lend itself very nicely to an argument for the cause being intentional rather than accidental/spontaneous? Yes, of course. 

Does the Cosmological Argument lend itself to consideration of whether that intentional agency entails something akin to a 'higher' being? Yes. Why is that unreasonable? Do theists use the word "God/gods" when referring to agency? Sure. Pick another word if you don't like that word. 

The categories of animate agent and inanimate mechanism are not controversial anywhere else
... apart from when the atheist is presented with the concept of a divine agent.

[airportkid]

If it's a fact that stuff doesn't magically, spontaneously pop into existence without a prior cause, then it must have been caused. 

Again, see post #71

[Lion IRC]

Yes I read that post.

If things can and do magically begin to exist, spontaneously popping into existence without a cause, then the argument unquestionably fails at the first premise. 

Then it fails.

Can you please persuade your fellow atheists here that instead of screeching about apologists trying to smuggle God into the argument, they would do much better to simply follow your example and just deny the first premiss of the argument.

Now, the link you posted says..."Virtual particles are indeed real particles."
But this is surely a fallacy of ambiguous language. 
Which is it? Are they real particles or virtual? Why do we need to disambiguate a real, actual physical particle by calling it 'virtual'? Why does a virtual particle need to justify its existence as a real particle if it already IS a real particle? "Part of our world."

...virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.

I think this statement from the article poses a problem for you because it locks these particles and this process into the natural, physical reality of the universe. "Part of our world."

These so-called 'virtual' particles are a part of the very thing which P1 (the first premiss of the cosmological argument) asks us to choose whether it either has or has not always existed.

[Dānu]

I dont assert that deliberate agency and spontaneous, mysterious accident are the only two options. 

Liar.

If it wasn't unintentional/spontaneous, then what other possibility is there other than than it was caused by deliberate volition?

There's the rub. We don't know.

This isnt about knowing. It's about picking between two possible options.

[Lion IRC]

I dont assert that deliberate agency and spontaneous, mysterious accident are the only two options. 

Liar.

There's the rub. We don't know.

This isnt about knowing. It's about picking between two possible options.

Still waiting on you to demonstrate that there are three extra options above and beyond the two possible options to which I referred.

Now, easy does it with the 'liar' accusations because I said two POSSIBLE options. 

You, on the other hand claimed you had three and I like to take people at their word rather than assume they're lying. That being the case, it shouldn't be hard for you to present those three other possible options. Can you? Will you?

[Dānu]

I dont assert that deliberate agency and spontaneous, mysterious accident are the only two options. 

Liar.

This isnt about knowing. It's about picking between two possible options.

Still waiting on you to demonstrate that there are three extra options above and beyond the two possible options to which I referred.

Now, easy does it with the 'liar' accusations because I said two POSSIBLE options. 

You, on the other hand claimed you had three and I like to take people at their word rather than assume they're lying. That being the case, it shouldn't be hard for you to present those three other possible options. Can you? Will you?

I didn't say three additional options, and seeing as you're going to continue with the dishonesty, and appear to know shit about both the science and the philosophy, I fail to see an incentive for answering your deflection.

[Lion IRC]

LOL

[Dānu]

LOL

Typical theist troll.  I don't take you seriously, Lion, because you aren't worth taking seriously.  It's obvious you don't understand anything about cosmogeny and are simply regurgitating moronic crap that was old before you were born.  Try looking up the big bang and the Hawking-Hartle No Boundary proposal on Wikipedia.

[Free]

*Clicks in here. Snoops around. Sees some stupid Christian shit going on. Ducks out.*

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I sincerely apologize for leading you to think that I was ignoring your devastating slam dunk argumentation. I'll try harder to make time for your delightful posts.

The first two premisses of the cosmological argument - aka the argument from causation, first cause, kalam, contingency, etc. do not contain any reference to divinity. They are theologically neutral.  Likewise the conclusion entails nothing other than the existence of a cause. (Deliberate or accidental.) To the extent that the universe is of such large scale that its effective cause was probably not a human being, the inference is that it was caused by a higher power. (Deliberately or accidentally.)

1. Whatever begins to exist/move has a cause of its existence/movement. (Secular) 
2. The universe began to exist. (Secular)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. (Secular)

If things can and do magically begin to exist, spontaneously popping into existence without a cause, then the argument unquestionably fails at the first premise. 

If the universe didn't have a beginning, if it has, (like God,) always existed, then the argument fails at the second premise.

If P1 and P2 are true, or at least more plausible than their negation, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is inescapable. The conclusion merely invites further consideration as to the nature of the cause.

Nice dodge of my actual point. 

Maybe you could answer that instead of pretending to be some intellectual giant by twisting what the fucking argument is really all about.

Theres no dodge.
You cited;
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Wrote: "From these facts..."

The link you provided says exactly what I'm saying.
The Cosmological argument is a launching pad from a starting set of facts. 

If its a fact that stuff doesn't magically, spontaneously pop into existence without a prior cause, then it must have been caused. If an object at rest remains at rest UNLESS it is acted upon in a way that causes motion, then such motion must have a cause. 

Now, does the Cosmological Argument lend itself very nicely to an argument for the cause being intentional rather than accidental/spontaneous? Yes, of course. 

Does the Cosmological Argument lend itself to consideration of whether that intentional agency entails something akin to a 'higher' being? Yes. Why is that unreasonable? Do theists use the word "God/gods" when referring to agency? Sure. Pick another word if you don't like that word. 

The categories of animate agent and inanimate mechanism are not controversial anywhere else
... apart from when the atheist is presented with the concept of a divine agent.

Duck, dodge, spin, twist. Wash, rinse, repeat.


No one's accusing you of smuggling anything. You're being accused of using special pleading, then trying to claim it's not special pleading, then renaming your argument in a futile attempt to avoid the special pleading, then ignoring the site that proves the cosmological argument, the argument you've been desperately defending, is special pleading.

It's like special pleading is all you have.

[Lion IRC]

*sigh*
Can someone please tell this dude what special pleading is?

Me : Everything has a causal explanation for its existence. So who made the universe.
You : Who made God?
Me : Nobody. God has always existed.
You : Why is God exempt from the causal explanation rule.
Me : coz Hes special. You just gotta believe me...please. I'm pleading with you.

^^^this is special pleading^^^

That's NOT what I'm saying.
Im NOT saying its one rule for my past-eternal thing and different rule for your past-eternal thing.

[Bucky Ball]

2. The universe began to exist. (Secular)

He has no evidence at all to support that assertion. There is no "secular" source for it.
Cosmologists do not state that. Stupid Christian apologists do, as they LIE about what the Theory actuallys says.
The Big Bang Theory does not say that the universe had a beginning, and it's nothing but ignorant speculation, based on nothing.
Roger Penrose, (Hawking's friend from Cambridge) wrote "Cycles of Time") ... bangs and rebangs. If the smartest guy (probably) in the world says no beginning, Little Leon is in no position to preach something else. Unless he can tell us what exactly was "at high temperature and high density" which banged, and where that came from, he's got nothing. Yeah, he's got nothing.

Even *if* the universe were to have had a beginning, he knows nothing about the conditions from which it arose, and the LEAP to asserting that what we observe, from observibng a tiny fraction of this universe, is even similar to that which would not be in this universe, is in no way justified by anything he's presented. Therefore asserting it needs a cause is an unjustifed LEAP to his ignorant speculative conclusion. It does not follow from anything. There *is* no "cosmological argument". It's all bullshit, based on FAULTY reasoning, false assumptions, and ignorant speculation. Leon was asked about what causes virtual particles ... no answer. Ho doesn't know. He was asked what causes random decay of an isotope into a different isotope ? He did not reply, as he doesn't know. There are no known causes, just as virtual particles have no known causes.

Pussy Cat pretending to be a lion has nothing. He never did have anything.

BTW, Pussy Cat, the natural state of just about everything we know about (particles and energy) is "moving". It needs nothing to "start it moving."
That was one of the big mistakes of Aquinas and the Scholastics, and funny, even though it's centuries later, and physics knows it's false, here we have you, the genius apologist, still
repeating the false medieval bullshit. The natural state of matter is moving. When you get all big and go to school, you will learn about quantum mechanics, (well maybe you won't be in the advanced group), so maybe not. But someone can explain it to you, (I hope). Then we have Chaos Theory, which you fools have never heard of. Order arises spontaneously in this universe. Jebus got laid off, as there is no need for the gods any more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[Lion IRC]

Evidence for the Big Bang - The University of Western Australia

The Big Bang is the best model used by astronomers to explain the creation of matter, space and time 13.7 billion years ago.   [my bold]

What evidence is there to support the Big Bang theory?
Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:
• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and
• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.

I've also got a much older/authoritative source citation which claims the universe hasn't always existed

[Dancefortwo]

*sigh*
Can someone please tell this dude what special pleading is?

Me : Everything has a causal explanation for its existence. So who made the universe.
You : Who made God?
Me : Nobody. God has always existed.
You : Why is God exempt from the causal explanation rule.
Me : coz Hes special. You just gotta believe me...please. I'm pleading with you.

^^^this is special pleading^^^

That's NOT what I'm saying.
Im NOT saying its one rule for my past-eternal thing and different rule for your past-eternal thing.

Nobody. God has always existed.

Until you present empirical evidence of this statement you're just pulling shit out of your ass.  Provide the evidence.

[Bucky Ball]

Evidence for the Big Bang - The University of Western Australia

The Big Bang is the best model used by astronomers to explain the creation of matter, space and time 13.7 billion years ago.   [my bold]

What evidence is there to support the Big Bang theory?
Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:
• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and
• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.

I've also got a much older/authoritative source citation which claims the universe hasn't always existed

Bully for Pussy Cat. Lets see it. LOL. Sure you do. Sure you do. *As if* "much older" is any good in cosmology these days. You're such a fraud.
It does NOT say the universe "began" to exist.
Tell us then, Pussy Cat, WHAT WAS AT HIGH TEMPERATUE AND DENSITY ? "Nothing" is NOT at high temperature and density.
If you can, you get a Nobel. "Best model" LMAO ... until a better one comes along ... which is how SCIENCE works. It does not say IT IS THE ONLY model.

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang EARLIEST known PERIODS ... says nothing about THE BEGINNING.

The Big Bang Theory is about EXPANSION, not beginnings. Just as random decay can produce a different isotope, some other random event could be what caused whatever was at high temperature and high density to begin to EXPAND. Christian liars highjacked the theory, as they have NO EVIDENCE for the gods, and need to PRETEND they do. This FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory is as common as dirt among religionists, especially Apologist types.

See this Pussy Cat. On the left, quantum fluctuations. Whatever happened, a physical reality was ALREADY in place. The Big Bang Theory says nothing about beginnings.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

*sigh*
Can someone please tell this dude what special pleading is?

Me : Everything has a causal explanation for its existence. So who made the universe.
You : Who made God?
Me : Nobody. God has always existed.
You : Why is God exempt from the causal explanation rule.
Me : coz Hes special. You just gotta believe me...please. I'm pleading with you.

^^^this is special pleading^^^

That's NOT what I'm saying.
Im NOT saying its one rule for my past-eternal thing and different rule for your past-eternal thing.

Are you defending the cosmological argument? Yes or no? If yes, it's special pleading. If no, maybe you should start a thread not titled "Cosmological argument.' and make your argument there.

All I've seen is you defending the cosmological argument, with twists to try to hide what you're doing.

[Dānu]

Evidence for the Big Bang - The University of Western Australia

The Big Bang is the best model used by astronomers to explain the creation of matter, space and time 13.7 billion years ago.   [my bold]

What evidence is there to support the Big Bang theory?
Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:
• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and
• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.

I've also got a much older/authoritative source citation which claims the universe hasn't always existed

You haven't presented any citations so far. What is your older citation?


~ Dr. Don Lincoln of Fermilab

The Big Bang theory is an explanation of the early development of the Universe.

~ Evidence for the Big Bang - The University of Western Australia (link)

[emphasis mine]

For more than 50 years, we’ve had definitive scientific evidence that our Universe, as we know it, began with the hot Big Bang. The Universe is expanding, cooling, and full of clumps (like planets, stars, and galaxies) today because it was smaller, hotter, denser, and more uniform in the past. If you extrapolate all the way back to the earliest moments possible, you can imagine that everything we see today was once concentrated into a single point: a singularity, which marks the birth of space and time itself.

At least, we thought that was the story: the Universe was born a finite amount of time ago, and started off with the Big Bang. Today, however, we know a whole lot more than we did back then, and the picture isn’t quite so clear. The Big Bang can no longer be described as the very beginning of the Universe that we know, and the hot Big Bang almost certainly doesn’t equate to the birth of space and time. So, if the Big Bang wasn’t truly the beginning, what was it? Here’s what the science tells us.

Forbes (2020)

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

(Phys.org)

Which brings me to the other key point: The Big Bang is a description of how the universe began, not an explanation of why it began. It does not assume anything about what (or who) made the universe, and it does not assume anything about what (if anything) came before.

To modern cosmologists, the Big Bang is a model describing how the universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense early state into the reality that we see today. The evidence for this interpretation is overwhelming. Certainly, nothing else has come anywhere close in the last 50 years, even as our knowledge about the universe has grown tremendously.

(Discovery Magazine)

See the 3:00 and 10:10 mark in the following video from Fermilab:

[Bucky Ball]

The silence is deafening.

[SYZ]

I'm NOT saying its one rule for my past-eternal thing and different rule for your past-eternal thing...

But... you have yet to prove that you have a past eternal "thing" (God?) whereas
we do have—as evidenced by the sciences; cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy,
mathematics, geology, spectroscopy, astronautics etc.

—Remind me again;  your evidence is?

The Australian aborigines have observed various gods for more than 60,000 years.

WOW.
Thanks for that.
More evidence that atheism is false.

Not so.  It simply proves that your putative God, who was only invented around
the 8th century BCE was in no way an original and unique god.  Which means by
default, its existence is as unfounded as those of our Aboriginals' gods.

I'm actually surprised that for someone as well-educated as you appear to be that
you seem to so often flounder responding to many direct questions, and simply
defer to empty rhetoric, sarcasm, or ad hominems.

Whatever begins to exist/move has a cause of its existence/movement. (Secular)

Apparently my partner left a new variety of apple on my desk last night for me to
try today.  Until lunchtime I hadn't been into my office space, so the apple wasn't
in existence. This afternoon I got back home and walked into my office, and instantly
the apple sprung into existence.     What was the cause of this?

[Bucky Ball]

Whatever begins to exist/move has a cause of its existence/movement. (Secular)

You STILL, (dispite continually burping that back up), have not told us what causes virtual particles and new isotopes that come into existence from random decay. Why is it you haven't ?

You know nothing except a few things about this universe.
You have no justification for your generalization, you don't have a statistically significant sample to make that generalization, even about *this* universe.

You have ZERO evidence about the environment your deity lives in. You can say NOTHING about that reality.

Oh well. Leon lost again.

[Lion IRC]

So much beating around the bush.

Why not just admit that you used to believe the newly created universe was merely 13.7 billion years old but that you now believe differently - that it has always existed? 

Same goes with the old school belief that UNIverse meant 1. And that old fashioned idea has now been replaced with the pragmatic belief that there are multiple universes, some of which have the goldilocks effect and others not.

[Lion IRC]

...of course if there are an infinite number of parallel universes, one of them might have Jesus turning water into wine, and curing cripples and multiplying loaves and fishes.

[GenesisNemesis]

...of course if there are an infinite number of parallel universes, one of them might have Jesus turning water into wine, and curing cripples and multiplying loaves  and fishes.

One of them might also have Muhammad and Allah being in that Universe. Another might also have the Greek gods. Another, the Hindu gods. Your point? I know logic isn't your strong suit.

[Lion IRC]

You just amplified my point.