Every time somebody asks for evidence of a god I bring up the Kalam cosmological argument. This is usually dismissed immediately and when I ask why they typically just respond with "it's old" and "or its been disproven" and they won't touch it anymore. With the "discovery" of the Big Bang we now have scientific proof on top of the philosophical that the universe isn't eternal so it must have a cause outside of the universe that explains itself. Current science only reinforces the argument.
Are there any real objections to this or are atheists just being close minded?
Aquinas argues in favor of a generic God not the Christian Trinity. Even Muslims and Deists can use his arguments. Just thought I'd say that.
Noah Robinson
what if I just...I dunno ;)...rejected aristotelian metaphysics? :* B)
Jackson Martinez
> Everything must have a cause. Therefore, God should exist! > So... What is a cause of God? > Don't be a retard! There is none. It isn't like anything must have a cause to exist, anyway.
Landon Morales
Yeah that's pretty obvious. I wonder why people always feel the need to point that out. It's so obvious.
Kevin Harris
An eternal being explains his own existence. God never "began" to exist so it doesn't need a cause.
Dominic Morris
> God never "began" to exist If something never began to exist, than it doesn't exist. Simply as that.
Josiah Perry
B-theory of time
Caleb Diaz
It's because that argument implies ESP.
Parker Watson
If universe had no uncaused cause than why did it begin?
Parker Perez
> cause outside of the universe Such cause is the collapse of previous universe.
Brayden Fisher
There is absolutely no requirement for there to be a prime mover. Existence may very well be a self-feeding loop that simply transforms energy from one state to another, which fits very well into the theory of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, where the universe continuously goes through expansions and then collapses back into an infinitely dense state, only to expand again and again and again.
And why can't the universe have always existed?
Landon Hernandez
But you're just moving the problem back. The universe that caused our universe doesn't explain its own existence.
Camden Foster
Because "God" for most people is the Abrahamic God, and they assume that God equals dogmatic religion.
Robert Russell
the past doesn't even exist
checkmate
David Gonzalez
Why there should be a cause? It just begin. Like God just exist in your theory without any cause behind it.
Matthew Butler
It's the same universe, user. It has always existed and it always will exist. It just expands and contracts over billions of years.
Cameron Davis
>And why can't the universe have always existed?
We know the universe had a beginning. We call it the big bang, and we know it will have an end. We call that heat death. If it has a beginning and/or an end then it can't be eternal.
If you take a hot plate of food out of the oven and leave it on the counter, over time the plate will cool down. This process is whats important here. The room gets hotter and the plate gets cooler until they both reach the same temperature, or equilibrium. Well the same thing is happening to our universe. The stars will eventually burn out or explode until there is just a thin mist of atoms spread throughout the universe at absolute zero. The coldest temperature anything can be. Scientists call this "heat death". If the universe were eternal than it would have already happened. If you see a flashlight that is dead, it could have been there for all eternity. But if the flashlight is shining, then you know it could not have been shining forever because the batteries would have run out a long time ago.
Jayden Thomas
That's simply not true. We know the universe and time had a beginning. This is what the Big Bang is.
Kevin Powell
Whoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the first time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness around us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought which has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed down its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light. - Fellow man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed and will ever run out again, - a long minute of time will elapse until all those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel of the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every pleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error, every blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole fabric of things which make up your life. This ring in which you are but a grain will glitter afresh forever. And in every one of these cycles of human life there will be one hour where, for the first time one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal recurrence of all things:- and for mankind this is always the hour of Noon
Jason Roberts
The Kalam is a poor argument because it's based on an obsolete ontology of time (A-theory of time)
Liam Murphy
> doesn't explain its own existence The Eternal Circle itself is the explanation.
>We know the universe had a beginning. We call it the big bang, No and no and no and no. The big bang is simply the point at which the singularity started expanding. We quite literally have no fucking idea of what was before it, since our laws of physics do not apply to the infinitely dense state the universe was in. >and we know it will have an end. No we don't. For all we know, the theory about big crunches may very well be real, which means there is no real death to the universe, as it will simply proceed to collapse into itself and transform energy back into usable form.
>If it has a beginning and/or an end then it can't be eternal. Unless, as I said, it's a loop of expansions and collapses.
No. The Big Bang is the expansion of the universe from an infinitely dense state called the singularity. Our current knowledge of physics and reality does not allow us to apply laws and theories to that state, but we know that state existed before the big bang and there's no reason to assume it all just popped into existence at that very moment. The singularity existed before the big bang.
Nicholas Flores
>lol if God created time and causality then what created God
There was no "before" time. The concepts of before and after simply do not apply to God because he created them. The same is true of causality.
The universe clearly exists as a series of chronological packets, and the argument can be made that there is causal logic built into the structure.
This is the residue of design.
Lincoln Campbell
What makes you think there is an eternal circle of life?
Andrew Young
Na-ah, my Mega-God is better than your God and doesn't have to follow your laws.
Xavier Perry
>an infinitely dense state called the singularity
you realize this is all theoretical of course.
>current knowledge of physics and reality does not allow us to apply laws and theories to that state, but we know that state existed before the big bang
strange, something existing "before" the unfolding of space-time.
What will they think of next.
Lucas Fisher
>If the universe were eternal than it would have already happened. This doesn't follow and your analogy isn't adequate. The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe but it wasn't the beginning of all matter. We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang or how long it had been there.
Brayden Turner
If God isn't a part of causal system than he can't be a cause of anything.
Nathan Morris
>circular logic doesn't count if I'm arguing against divine necessity
Wyatt Reyes
At this level of "discussion", is there any difference between an uncreated god and an uncreated universe? Aren't they basically the same thing in your feeble minds?
Aaron Torres
>you realize this is all theoretical of course. Per our current understanding and observations of the universe, everything leads to the universe having started expanding from a point, to which our current laws of physics do not apply, as by extrapolating we reach a state where the universe had infinite density and temperature, which in turn breaks down general relativity and with it pretty much everything we know. So yes, it's theoretical as in our current knowledge simply does not apply to such a state.
>strange, something existing "before" the unfolding of space-time. If space-time unfolded, it had to have existed. That is the singularity and the expansion is the Big Bang.
Ryan Jenkins
> not being uncountably higher in hierarchy of the beyond omnipotent beings > not existing outside the outside of the outside of the universe
Jeremiah Perry
Steady State Theory has been btfo for 70 years.
The universe is slated for eternal expansion at a rate that outstrips the gravitational bind, all particles in our universe will end up absolutely cold and dispersed across the void after an unimaginably huge amount of time, and will not reunify.
This is a one shot deal, so says the almighty Red-Blue shift.
Parker Anderson
>The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe but it wasn't the beginning of all matter. We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang or how long it had been there.
It's irreverent because the point is that the universe is not eternal. If there were an infinite number of days we would never reach today, and heat death would have already occurred.
Ryan Scott
>"or its been disproven" and they won't touch it anymore. Radioactive decay occurs spontaneously and without an external cause.
Evan Howard
t. craigcuck
Xavier Wright
It's not the same thing because we know the cause of the universe doesn't explain its own existence.
Leo Hall
> god exist > because > god exist Guys... It is totally not circular logic! It is just... God being... eternal! Trust me! XD
Angel Parker
>If God isn't a part of causal system than he can't be a cause of anything.
If the universe actually adheres to a causal system, it is because God literally made that system possible. He is super-causal, not bound either within or outside that system.
On my part I'm inclined to doubt in our concepts of causal relation, cause Hume and Berkley had some pretty good points in that regard.
Yeah its sad to still see people spouting that shit. The biggest proponent of this theory was an atheist who mocked the guy discovered the big bang and accused him of trying to inject religion into science. Even he gave up on the steady state theory.
Xavier Scott
> universe actually adheres to a causal system Can you prove that universe as a whole adheres to causal system? This is obviously a false as any of possible causes should be a part of universe, so in the end there is no cause for universe itself. Super causal solutions doesn't solve anything, if God is a part of super causal system what is a super cause of God? Mega God? Top fucking autism.
Jaxson Campbell
>If space-time unfolded, it had to have existed.
Yes, apparantly as an infinitely compact and reduced singular point.
That kind of structure does not allow for linear temporal progression, what we call time. This "time" allows for change.
If the singularity shares all the qualities you attribute to it, it should have never broken down. It should be an eternal structure, without change or degrading entropic flux.
Clearly it isn't, but all evidence seems to point towards it once being that way. Which raises the question of what kind of outside force or influence could have disturbed that eternal balance if the balanced point was literally everything that could ever exist as one?
Cameron Anderson
I don't see how that follows. The singularity could have always existed and we were born at a time (relatively) close to whatever triggered the big bang. Eventually the universe will be dead, but not now.
Tyler Jackson
The current age of the universe is not old enough to have reached equilibrium
Chase Wilson
>Can you prove that universe as a whole adheres to causal system?
No, I can't even prove that the area immediately around me adheres to causality.
That's why I'm inclined to doubt it.
>if God is a part of super causal system what is a super cause of God?
Talk about autism. You really don't understand what omnipotence means, do you?
Robert Wilson
> if God is a part of super causal system what is a super cause of God?
I think you're misunderstanding. Everything that began to exist needs a cause. "Began to exist" are the key words. An eternal being would explain its own existence so it doesn't need a cause.
Aiden Reed
>That kind of structure does not allow for linear temporal progression, what we call time. What, why not? Explain.
the position that the universe will not collapse back on itself.
Dylan Scott
So you're saying the universe might as well be eternal?
Again, is there any difference whatsoever between an ever-existing prime mover and an ever-existing universe?
Elijah King
If the singularity was eternal then it would always stay a singularity. It makes no sense that it would change.
Brayden Johnson
>With the "discovery" of the Big Bang we now have scientific proof on top of the philosophical that the universe isn't eternal
Da fuck are you talking about?
Pre Big Bang, there is no surviving information and very likely impossible for any information to survive. A huge amount of matter was in a relatively small amount of space and expanded outward. It makes no claim as to how that matter got there or what (if anything) it was doing before expansion.
You can still make a very plausible argument for the eternality of matter-energy.
Gabriel Roberts
Until we find out what makes the universe expansion accelerate, we cannot entirely dismiss the big crunch.
Adrian Fisher
Imagine all possible moments collapsed into one another. You could not distinguish between them.
This is the theoretical singularity, there is no time in a structure like that. Therefore it is eternal and unchanging.
But clearly it appears to be changing. So either this singularity is impossible or something impossible happened to disturb it.
Christopher Adams
Unless it's fed by dark matter which may very well at one point run out, stopping the expansion, allowing for a big crunch.
Ayden Taylor
Assuming "things exist that do not come into existence" is assuming that something akin to a God exists, and you can't use it as a premise to prove God exists without being circular.
Colton Cooper
>Pre Big Bang
lol
SPACE AND TIME ARE THE SAME THING PEOPLE
David Green
>Imagine all possible moments collapsed into one another. You could not distinguish between them. Which does not mean those moments don't exist. It simply means they are as one.
>This is the theoretical singularity, there is no time in a structure like that. Therefore it is eternal and unchanging. That does not explain to me why time could not exist in a singularity. There is no time because there is no time. God exists because he exists and so forth.
Sebastian Wood
But it did so maybe it does make sense that it would change. I don't know, you don't know. Enough with this "therefore god" bullshit though.
Xavier Roberts
Well the cause of space and time cannot be bound by those things so the cause of those things must be eternal.
Cooper Russell
> What omnipotence means. It means that your logic is garbage. If you doesn't know about the principle of explosion it says, that when your logic have contradictions, everything is possible, to claim existence of omnipotent being, that literally make everything possible, is to claim that your logic literally doesn't make any of sense.
Jordan Morales
>It simply means they are as one.
Which means that our normal conception of "before and after" time goes right out the window, at which point still using the word time is just useless pleb rhetoric because at the singular level existence is timeless.
Brayden Allen
He makes a very good point about it here This isn't just lazy "therefore dun it", this is realizing that god is the best explanation for it.
Aiden Wilson
If something doesn't began to exist than it doesn't exist as you need at least began to exist to exist.
Austin Johnson
Then what caused the universe to exist?
John Davis
It just started to exist. What causes one atom to decay and other not to? It just happens.
> it appears to be changing. > appears Changes are illusion, nothing changes, actually.
Benjamin Powell
This would mean that time is infinite, so there would be an infinite number of days. The implication if that were true is that we would never reach today.
Chase Anderson
People in the future who traveled in the past and created the universe. :^)
Andrew Morris
>The implication if that were true is that we would never reach today. No it's not, it simply means there will be an eternity of days after today.
Blake Bennett
>to claim existence of omnipotent being, that literally make everything possible
Yes.
A1 : (A = ~A) T
>to claim that your logic literally doesn't make any of sense
No, it still makes sense. You're just don't accept that contradictions are only accepted to be false because the systemic logic everyone uses axiomatically assumes it to be so.
There are a great number of logical systems you can build that do not assume the same rules of internal validity.
Besides, there isn't even a contradiction implied in the position that there exists an omnipotent entity that can make a statement simultaneously true, false, and blue. That's just how impossible things become possible through the expansion of potential space, happens all the time.
Nathaniel Cook
t. Zeno
for real though, seems you can't empirically prove otherwise.
James Howard
God is literally the best and most parsimonious explanation for the existence of temporal space.
Deal with it.
Christian Wilson
There would also be an infinite number of days in the past, and we would have never reach today.
Imagine there's a woman and she says "after I finish counting all of my roses I'm going to open a flower shop." If she only had 100 roses she could open that shop up very quickly. If she had a billion roses it would take a long time but she would eventually get to the point of opening the shop. If she had an infinite number of roses the shop would never open.
Carson Lewis
It's an illogical assumption without evidence. You might as well just abandon rationality altogether.
>If she had an infinite number of roses the shop would never open.
She would if she had an infinite amount of time to do it in cause lol limits.
Kevin Bennett
Everything except cogito ergo sum is dependent on irrational assumptions.
Leo Smith
No she would still be counting for eternity. The infinites aren't going to cancel each other out.
Hudson Rodriguez
> No, it still makes sense. It totally isn't. You can say things like god doesn't exist but he cause of the Universe anyway... How this is even possible? He is omnipotent, therefore any absurd shit is possible and at this point there remains zero possibility for formal analysis or the whatever prove you could try to push. Basically, it is useless to prove omnipotent God from logic, he doesn't adhere to it anyway. Even if it is blue that such a God even exist.
Nolan Torres
the meatbag that exists within the same system he assumes to know the origin of must clearly have a better explanation for it's origin based off his meatbag senses than literally almighty God.
Colton Flores
Except no. It's not about finishing counting the roses, nor did she ever start counting the roses, if we make the assumption that the universe has existed for eternity. She has simply been counting them forever, will count them forever and we're just in the here and now.
Ryder Jones
> It's magic! > I explained everything. Wow, you are such a bro with your explanations.
Alexander Phillips
Not if God has anything to say about it.
[spoiler]he does[/spoiler]
Christopher Price
But consider the shop opening to be "today" or present time. If there were an infinite number of days before today than we never could have reached the present.
Gavin Ward
so does god exist or what?
ffs tbqh
Liam Ortiz
I don't see what my biological composition has to do with this argument. In any case, you're in my same exact position, so I don't know what are you even trying to say here.
Brandon Richardson
Yes.
Joshua Wilson
no
Kevin Gonzalez
> Then what caused the universe to exist? Yeah... Who could cause it? Could there be an answer...
Luke Smith
Maybe
Ryder Smith
Maybe
Nathaniel Bailey
>You can say things like god doesn't exist but he cause of the Universe anyway
I could, but I didn't.
>He is omnipotent, therefore any absurd shit is possible and at this point
Yes, in fact this seems to be a fairly important point. God is in fact so powerful that he can stop being God, and then become God again.
Think about the implications of this quality for a while.
>it is useless to prove omnipotent God from logic
Yup utterly, doesn't mean you can't though. Cause he can both adhere to logical form and deviate from it and then do both at the same time by virtue of his divine mystery (this truth statement brought to you by Catholicism).
