The Cosmological Argument

[shrewsbury]

The Cosmological Argument states;

1st Argument;

what moves must be moved by another
the series of moving movers cannot be infinite or there would be no origin
their origin cannot be moving or it would be in the chain of movers
this unmoving origin of motion is God

2nd Argument;

Things are caused to exist by other things
what is caused to exist must be caused by another thing, for nothing can cause itself to exist
the series of causes cannot be infinite
thus the first cause is God

[centrehice]

There are knowns and unknowns.

There are known knowns, and unknown knowns. The most interesting of known knowns, may be employed to determine if unknown knows can become known knowns. Without experimentation, unknown knowns can never become known knows, and remain unknown.

Richard Noggin - Donald Rumsfeld.

I don't have it correct but Rumsfeld is such a twerp that is does not matter, Does somebody have a YouYube version of that comical anecdote?

[JustAlex]

UGH...

One of the most debunked and badly held arguments out there.

Replace "god" with just about anything and the same holds true.

I'll just leave this video here from 2009 to show how easy this argument is to debunk:



THANK YOU COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT!

I now know that the FSM really is REAL!

[gsj68]

suffers from the same paradox that the other creationism and big bang theories,the paradox of "what came before"
what created this god and what created the thing that created this god? and on and on.
same with the singularity.where did it come from and where did the place the singularity came from come from? and on and on
so you cant get to a beginning and if you cant get to a beginning then there must not be a beginning,
and without a beginning there can be no end and without a beginning and end then,
things are not linear

says my completely inept,only can perceive 4 dimensions,not much more than a pill of goo,human brain

[shrewsbury]

alex, glad someone responded, but, the video is junk.

the guy obviously has never read the works of Anselm, because he covered all of this.

getting rid of the FACT that nothing can cause itself to exist is the first mistake.

him stating that the theory contradicts itself, shows not only has he never read Anselms work but never studied the arguments against it.

the whole idea of both arguments is that God is the unmoving mover, the uncaused cause, the beginning, the unknown, it does not follow Newton's laws, but creates them, so it does not have to be static nor dynamic.

Though the idea of the video is good, the video is not.

got a better one? or better argument?

I do

[Wickabee]

There are knowns and unknowns.

There are known knowns, and unknown knowns. The most interesting of known knowns, may be employed to determine if unknown knows can become known knowns. Without experimentation, unknown knowns can never become known knows, and remain unknown.

Richard Noggin - Donald Rumsfeld.

I don't have it correct but Rumsfeld is such a twerp that is does not matter, Does somebody have a YouYube version of that comical anecdote?

So the Marglar goes into the Marglar with Marglar's help. But another Marglar might Marglar that Marglar, leading to a Marglar?

[JustAlex]

Shrew, the premises in the argument is the REAL Junk.

You're simply giving an attribution to something that is unknown, ANYONE can do that.

Furthermore, the logic is simply flawed.

It's equivalent to doing this:

Argument #1 All objects that are pushed forward move faster.

Argument #2 A baseball is an object.

Therefore.....A baseball moving at the speed of light can be pushed to move FASTER than the speed of light.

HOLY CRAP!

Did you see what I just did?

I just proved that Einstein was WRONG.....I just proved that objects can move FASTER than the speed of light with this form of argumentation.

Now, can someone point out what's wrong with my logic?


Oh that's right....my PREMISE is incorrect, I'm failing to account for relativity.

[Wickabee]

suffers from the same paradox that the other creationism and big bang theories,the paradox of "what came before"
what created this god and what created the thing that created this god? and on and on.
same with the singularity.where did it come from and where did the place the singularity came from come from? and on and on
so you cant get to a beginning and if you cant get to a beginning then there must not be a beginning,
and without a beginning there can be no end and without a beginning and end then,
things are not linear

says my completely inept,only can perceive 4 dimensions,not much more than a pill of goo,human brain

What about a never ending line?

[JustAlex]

I'm not impressed by this argument, it's simplistic and EVEN if we were to allow it to be true it doesn't give us anything.

Furthermore, this is special pleading at it's highest degree.


Now, here is what science has been able to prove, the Universe began by an expansion of all matter and energy....NOT created....an expansion.

This expansion came from a singularity.....what "created" this singularity or what was before the singularity or what occurred for this singularity to expand?

We don't know.

Why is that so difficult to accept?

Why must we attribute other unknowns to this unknown?

Why can't we just say, hey we don't know so until we DO know let's just say the truth....we don't know.

For all we DO know, it COULD'VE been the FSM, it also could've been just about ANYTHING.

[gsj68]

What about a never ending line?

what or how was this line created or drawn?

the only way to get something out of nothing is with magic,which im fine with but want unicorns and dragons with it



"says my completely inept,only can perceive 4 dimensions,not much more than a pill of goo,human brain"
this is my key statement and the cause of all confusion