The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

Meno,

I don’t know why you chose god over yourself. I can tell you that this supplication by you is embarrassing.

Always chose yourself over god meno.

If you do chose god over you; in a non-zero sum hyper-dimensional mirror reality attached to your individual desire matrix, you can reflect god to rule your life if you believe that’s best for you. But don’t dictate to everyone that that’s what they “should” choose for themselves!

Ecmandu:

I don’t think so. In reference to John’s conjecture that god can’t be self created, I refer to that conflict. that if He isn’t self created. then we would need to construct him out of similar parts , out of mirrored, or reflective forms.

But we have agreed that that could not be a sensible way to re-construct a formally defined idea, therefore, I suggest that we need not seek to constantly refer to the fourteen arguments, since the omni, all singular position has to be assumed.

That assumption, invokes a scintilla of difference between omnipotense
and all the other arguments, for God includes all contentioussness within Himself, where he seems to carry on an internal debate , as to how close to the limit he should go, in order to have another particular existence.

After all, the reasons are wearing paper thin, and man knows it, and despite that knowledge, he is unable to assimilate into that presumption.(faith)

Faith is as difficult as DNA, especially for whom miracles have not occurred.

It is, as though identifying with god is not the same as placing one beneath him, or above, he can be at both places simultaniously, without a sense of heeding to a zero sum, although there are moments when those types of states must irreducible occur, as well.

Aww, do I have to be on the side of John’s dichotomy argument? I actually can’t see any reason for it to be a good argument for God’s existence…

Mind if I just pull it apart and destroy it instead? Yay thanks :-"

So the first sentence of “argument I” is like a statement of intention. The goal is to demonstrate the necessity of an “uncaused Creator”.

First paragraph:

1. We move on from this statement of intention to a “something or nothing” dichotomy, and at this point it seems as though it’s already a given that either way there’s an uncaused reason right from the start, “because it’s either that or uncaused absolute nothingness”. So without addressing any more possibilities that might seem like they’re still on the table, we’ve already arrived at the intended demonstration of the necessity of an “uncaused Creator”, simply because there isn’t absolute nothingness. Immediately this seems like a “false dilemma” fallacy alongside a “begging the question” fallacy since we’ve practically assumed the conclusion in the premises - but let’s go on in case more context is subsequently provided.
2. Next there’s an interesting admission that since we already began with the premises that this “dichotomy” of the “uncaused” is exhaustive of all logical possibilities, neither side of the resulting dichotomy can be caused to be real. But instead of undergoing any further examination of the whole set-up that forced everything into being unable to be caused to be real, we have that “it just is, without reason or necessity”.
3. To close the first paragraph we have some justification of our uncaused Creator being indestructible: because parts would “cause” it, destruction is the breaking down of something into parts, so the uncaused can’t be destroyed into parts. This breaks down into a nice valid syllogism, but I’m not convinced that it’s a sound one because I don’t see how parts “cause” existence. They might “constitute” something’s existence, but e.g. three H20 molecules don’t “cause” water, there’s just 3 parts that could be isolated, which would “destroy” their slightly larger collective volume of water that they had when grouped together. As an analogy, let’s say water “just was”, like this “uncaused Creator” is being presented to be. Nothing about the possibility of destroying their more voluminous grouping gets in the way of their being uncaused in this situation. So why can’t an “uncaused Creator” likewise be destructible? This whole addendum just seems to force the same language of causation into an unrelated point about physical constitution and identity, to justify traditional conceptions of God as eternal.

In summary of the first paragraph:
a) “there isn’t nothingness, so there’s an uncaused Creator”. It’s simply to be accepted that all other possibilities than absolute nothingness need not be addressed.
b) It’s weird that nothing causes Him to be real, but reality exists, so He must be real in spite of this.
c) an unsound and seemingly unrelated syllogism that the Creator is indestructible.

Next paragraph:

1. There’s potentially a negligible difference between existence as it is, and some other way it could be - so because of the potential similarity between the two tending towards zero, their difference not being zero means they’re interchangeable… hmm.
   Now multiply this “zero/not-zero”, even an infinite number of times, to get completely different states of existence that are likewise interchangeable… which also assumes that all these differences are uniform and do not amount to anything non-linearly more or less possible no matter how different things get. That is to say, as you accumulate these changes away from how actually things are, certain arrangements of the universe “don’t become increasingly less realistic” - potentially to the point of absurdity… hmm.
   I note that sometimes it’s argued that the precision of universal constants needs to be so high that it seems impossibly unlikely that they’d all turn out so perfectly, therefore God. Here we have the opposite, therefore God.
2. So given this interchangeability of the universe, there must be a reason why this way and not any other way, and the reason is uncaused because the reason would have to come first, before any physical reality is created. Have I got that right?

Final paragraph:

1. Continuing with the theme of the previous paragraph, the universe being how it is, and not all the other ways as well, is a possibility. So decision had to be involved. This is where the whole intelligence thing is being justified. Given an uncaused Creator, maybe this way is the only way He knows how to create, if He even knew what he was doing upon the creation of this configuration. It doesn’t follow that, since other possibilities could be so similar, any knowledge of them or how to create even the “most minute” difference must exist. There’s no evidence of this knowledge or the power to act effectively on it, because there’s only evidence of what we have, in the way we have it. Speculation on this point is trivial and arbitrary. Likewise there’s no evidence of control or destruction because without comparison to other universes that are known to be uncontrolled, there’s no grounds to test any of this. And obviously it’s not all destroyed yet, so what’s to say it ever could be? And maybe the fact that it’s sustaining has nothing to do with any given uncaused Creator. As with Deism, God could just as easily have switched on the computer and then left the room.

So there’s no valid reason for any decision-making ability to any degree to be present. And finally, whatever you make of the universe, why call anything God? There’s a lot of religious baggage that can be associated with God that isn’t even remotely covered by the argument. Even if it was a successful argument, you’d barely be past the quoted intro to Genesis, and it certainly isn’t sufficient to say “because of the first sentence, therefore all the rest”.

Conclusion:
The False dilemma and Begging the Question fallacies do not appear to get resolved.
The proposed properties of being eternal, powerful and intelligent appear to be non-sequiturs.
Similarity of possible worlds tending to zero is not valid grounds to justify interchangeable infinite difference in other possible worlds.

There’s obviously an attempt to at least portray logical coherence and progression here, but I would recommend distilling all ideas to the most simplistic of logical concepts, sticking rigorously to their definitions when combining them syllogistically, and then seeing if they really do follow on from one another to create a cogent argument.

Sure, I’ll debate you! I didn’t check this forum for a few days, so I didn’t notice your comments. Anyway, I usually debate one question at a time. So, what’s your first question?

I know you’re not with me anymore … there were other intelligent posts to consider.

I always come back to PoE.

Are you stating that god is not powerful enough to send us to heaven forever and still make us in the image of god?

1). Evil is caused by evolution.
2). Evolution is necessary for life to exist in physical reality.
3). God chooses to allow evil to exist, because it is the greater good to create life.

Sounds to me like god is not very powerful or benevolent.

Can you give me one reason why tooth and claw is necessary for evolution?

Also… why does god have such low self esteem that god needs to make us all like god?

Evolution depends on survival of the fittest in competition for limited resources entailing combative behavior.

I know that. Are you a Nazi? Life (not the dead) life running through your veins understand that the translation of desirable states is more important than the encryption of desirable states.

What is the translation of desirable states?

Teaching someone how to say “hello” in another language. You lost nothing, they gained it

Evolution is all about the encryption of desirable states, “I won, you lost”

Your mind is so small to this regard John.

Silhouette and/or gib? Let’s discuss your comments. I am here to answer your questions/objections.

1). The dichotomy is of two uncaused sides. The absolute nothingness side is there to show that neither side is necessary, but one side is simply the case.
2). God is uncaused because the power to create logically possible physical realities cannot be contingent or it would also be a possibility.
3). A thing is caused by its parts because the disassociation of those parts would cause the thing to cease to be. A thing without parts can’t be destroyed, because destruction is the disassociation of parts.
4). Agency is explained. The greatest decision making capacity logically possible is necessary for the fullest extent of everythingness to be logically possible. For example, decision making capacity affects the extent of what can be created, as one would not expect a Mona Lisa from a robot but only from a DiVinci.

5). The Cosmological Arguments are Bible independent.
6). Absolute nothingness is the absence of God. God being uncaused cannot be destroyed. So, even were something to end, there would always be God and not absolute nothingness. Moreover, because we do not see physical reality ceasing to be, then one can also argue that the end of effect would also require a God. However, the end of physical reality is an uncertainty due to the arrow of time and the principle of conservation of energy/mass. I would note that a final effect would not affect God, because God is causing the effect to end.
7). The speed a causality is fixed in relativity, so I don’t think you’ll get much mileage out of appealing to general relativity as a monkey wrench to causality.
8. The rest of your comments are philosophical nitpicking and not terribly significant at that.

John:

It’s commendable how mirror-simulation so nearly matches what science has come up with so far.

Therefore the lower and higher logics can be said to be - not merely comparatively similar, but, reductively induced by preconception.

Which makes inductive reasoning more a validation , ( by comparison/ reflection ) of ontology rather then the reverse.

That said, do post enlightenment attacks on reason justify simulated inducements, through material dialectics , only to relieve the appearent antithetic containment of thetic /synthetic a-priori propositions?

Is science really a necessary defense against the sudden lack of belief in the bible?

Is it Guttenberg’s fault that Darwin had to literally account for the Creation?

So many questions, that probably, John, You could not explain for similar reasons , as that, which social awareness today is in a foundry.

At times , it’s overwhelming for us romantics.

How can everything become a mirror of its self when if so, even God becomes a reflection of Himself , causing Jesus to oblige to redempt anew the appearent guilt of ‘His’ Father.

Too many questions, I know, so how in the world did You expect me to pose simply one?

The Cosmological arguments are only valid, with Jesus existing at both alpha And omega , simulteniously.

Therefore if He isn’t already here, (here being Omega) , then he must be there, when Omega reappears.

But then, He must be here and not there.

Therefore He must be omnipresent, as well as omnipotent.

Now I will try to read all the initial arguments and see if there may be some correspondence .

Go figure,

John is scared of the PoE argument just like every creationist!

Can god make evolution to have no suffering unless we want to explore it and make god clones of us? Or can god only violate every being in existences consent to make god clones of all of us?

Do you doubt gods omnipotence?

You seem to.

I ask you this John:

Why is it so important that god violate the consent of every being in existence against their will rather than letting every being learn on their OWN terms?

Every being in existence is having their consent violated against their will. From humans to a simple virus or a simple blade of grass.

God must be “perfect” for violating the consent of every being in existence. Right? I don’t think so.

What I do think is that you’re not being honest with yourself.

Would it be fair to say that you have mostly reiterated your arguments rather than answered questions/objections?

I’d be fine with you simply saying that there’s something and not nothing.
It’s not possible for there to “be nothing” though, because “be” and “nothing” contradict each other. A statement alone is “something” - even the potential for a statement at all is “something”. “Nothing” doesn’t even get off the ground to even begin to say anything about its opposite, “something”. If it did, it would be something and not nothing. Therefore if there is a dichotomy of “something or nothing?”, the existence of the dichotomy alone already answers itself as “there is something”. It would even be problematic to say “nothing” requires the non-existence of any dichotomy, because this would appear to attribute a property to “nothing”, which would be the existence of “something” and therefore it would not be “nothing”.

Basically the existence of a dichotomy of “something and not nothing” is not a dichotomy, because its existence is only consistent with one half of itself and not the other half. Thus a dichotomy at the level you’re suggesting internally contradicts itself out of existence. There cannot be a dichotomy at this level. “There is something” is all you can say by virtue of saying anything at all. “Nothing” doesn’t come into it - literally.
So “something is simply the case” is fine, but the dichotomy that concerns itself with “absolute nothingness” is not.

It’s just not a strong fundamental basis for an argument, and even “something is simply the case” doesn’t say anything specific about itself - only that there is general existence, which is a meaningless tautology that provides no information about its nature or its properties.
Since “there is something” is logically all you can say about “something and not nothing”, there is no beginning and no end suggested at this point. Even if you were to say that there is no cause suggested at this point, “therefore it’s uncaused”, this would be a logical error similar to committing the formal fallacy of “Affirming a disjunct”: p v q, ¬p ⊢ p. This is because you could arbitrarily swap p and q to say there’s nothing suggested about things being uncaused at this point, “therefore it’s caused”.
It’s only once a beginning is asserted for “caused or uncaused” to be logically exhaustive, but since there is no beginning or end suggested by “something and not nothing”, nothing about causation can be concluded. In fact it’s safer to say that causation has nothing to do with it, which rules out any talk of a Creator at all.

The property of “uncaused” is therefore simply thrown in there as a premise. You stated it to be your conclusion that there is an “uncaused Creator”, but if this is your premise - that’s why I identified the logical fallacy of “begging the question”. You’re assuming the conclusion of your argument in your premise. This is a critical problem, simply as a result of logical necessity. Is that really “not terribly significant philosophical nitpicking” as in your point number 8?

I’m not sure the wording here is optimal.
What does the “it” refer to?
“The power to create logically possible physical realities”, “God is uncaused”?
As I just explained above, a creator is necessarily not logically provable from 1). Caused or uncaused doesn’t come into it. Agency with or without power doesn’t come into it - nor even a beginning or end to create.
The only thing we have from “something and not nothing” is that there is a physical reality, therefore a physical reality is logically possible.
“There is something and not nothing” is a tautology and therefore not contingent - but strictly logically that does not necessarily entail anything else that you’re asserting.

So the condition for something to be “caused” is that it is not destroyed? This is what your first sentence breaks down to:
P1. “The disassociation of those parts would cause the thing to cease to be”.
P2. A thing exists that is not disassociated into parts.
∴ Such a thing is not caused to cease to be.
Therefore “a thing is caused by its parts” by virtue of it not being destroyed into its parts?
This is why I recommend breaking everything down into syllogism - because doing so really highlights any logic there is or isn’t in your arguments.

As such, the first sentence actually says nothing at all about the uncaused - it only covers “that which is caused to be/that which is not caused to be” as a function of parts.
If a thing has no parts, and therefore can’t be destroyed, it also cannot be caused to be according to your first sentence. Being uncaused doesn’t get out of this because the first sentence only deals with the existence of the caused.
For the uncaused to be indestructible, it has to exist in the first place, but we only know about the existence of the caused from your arguments. “How can the uncaused be said to exist?” remains unanswered.

“The fullest extent of everythingness to be logically possible”, i.e. the universe (with no valid proof that anything else than how it ended up could be possible) doesn’t necessitate decision making capacity of any kind. Decision making and agency can at best be posed as possible, not necessary. At best you can say that IF there was agency involved in universe creation, and assuming decision making requirements scale up uniformly from the mundane level to the level of the entire universe, universe creation would be unfathomably huge to a human. What you “expect” from mundane creations like paintings and robot technologies really isn’t relevant to the logic of an argument that necessitates agency.

Yes, all the way until you decide to name any uncaused Creator “God”, knowing how easily people will thus associate the first line of genesis with the entire rest of the bible - when the rest of the bible is as you say: independent from Cosmological argument. But fortunately Cosmological Arguments are deeply flawed in the many ways that I’m explaining, so there’s no danger of logical people casually or accidentally buying into the entire bible based on arguments that attempt to logically justify its opening line only.

Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything at all. If you define God as everything that isn’t nothing, then sure - your first statement follows. The problem is in justifying that definition of God. If you simply assume it from the start, then any argument intended to prove the existence of an uncaused Creator that you want to define as God will just be “Begging the Question” - a logical fallacy.

Not sure if you read my play on the logic of Cosmological Arguments - which can be equally applied to a final effect as a prime cause - but it explains that if any prime cause was explained by God as “something” then any final effect would equally be explained by God as “nothing”. The argument undoes itself simply by looking at it from both ends. Physical reality ceasing to be actually ends up being logically necessary, at least given any validity of physical reality being initially created. It’s interesting that you’re willing to use scientific understandings to explain the universe after any initial beginnings, but not for the initial beginnings themselves. I even predicted in my previous post that people would be tempted to say that God would be the cause of any “final effect”, explaining that given the same logic of God as the prime cause (uncaused somethingness), He would equally have to be the final effect (caused nothingness) if you’re strict about using the same logic “from the other direction”. But my prediction came true even though I explicitly said it before it happened…

Speed is a function of time (unit distance/unit time), and spacetime most certaintly is NOT fixed in relativity - that’s the entire premise of relativity in fact: that spacetime is not fixed as was previously assumed in the Newtonian days, centuries ago. Time dilation literally involves time itself being stretched, making seconds themselves longer. So yeah - plenty of mileage here, but not even my primary argument, just an area of interest as it undoes the assumptions of linear time that are so seldom questioned by people who want to impose a starting point where there might not be one at all, and which science might very easily explain.

It’s not nitpicking to sufficiently deconstruct the logic of an argument. Just because I’m picking up small fundamental errors, the fact that they’re what props up your entire argument makes them terribly significant errors. The only reason you’d want to dismiss them as otherwise is if you’re not interested in a logically complete argument - perhaps instead preferring to rationalise the beliefs you already hold circularly? Which would be another logical fallacy. I’m unclear of your real intentions, but it should be clear that I’m simply being strictly logical, and applying this to your arguments.

Is this what you’re after?

An interjection here:

There seems a primal fallacy here with “nothing”

It isn’t as if nothing is merely a definitive problem, it is also a conceptual as well as at fault with usage.

All three approaches appear at times to be either one , or the other, or with connections with one in tandem.

The modus operandi operate toward or away from a well understood connotation of nothingness, or, a somethingness that contains more than a dual aspect of containment.

For instance, does some content imply two, or, 3 ingredients filling half of the whole? Can it be said to be half full or empty?

Such considerations may appear trivial, but in usage, they may displace conceptual or definitive qualifiers.

For example: is ‘nothing’ a lack of some thing, a logical definitive, which presumes an objective logic with implication of movement backwards into the more definitive mode of interpretation, as opposed to the more ‘useful’ role that can dispose of the conceptual problem of the content of a definitive ‘thing’., moving forward.

The relative ambiguity with the objective reality of God, is requisite to both : a biblical or/ and ‘objective’ qualifier of the source out if which God is created/recreated. The obvious definitive aspect of God negates a self creation, as per John, so the re-creation, the 2nd coming has to induce a more objective criteria of meaning. Here again that objectivity requires a shift away from logic toward phenomenal objectivity. Hence that objectivity has to shift from a nominal logical apprehension through the conceptual envisioning toward the objective promise of a hyperreal application.

It is trough the original criterion of John’s cosmological arguments leading to the phenomenal nature of
an existential nothingness that His existence can be validated.

An existential nothingness is not merely that difference between between different shades of the meaning of nothing, but a reapplucation of the reaffirmation with the Being separate from God’s essence.

That must logically preceded the spirit of God by Holiness , a whole separated by an existential otherness.

refer:

“Something that is sacred is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a … It shares the same triliteral Semitic root as the Hebrew kodesh …”

"Testament period of history, the people of God , as a whole, did not individually experience the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit "

Silhouette,

The dichotomy of existence is a metaphysical dichotomy. It is meant as an explanation of first principles, and not a thing in itself. You’ve misconstrued absolute nothingness as “not something”. Absolute nothingness is the absence of God. God is not a physical reality. Absolute nothingness is likewise not primarily the absence of physical reality. The absence of God surely entails the absence of any physical reality created by God, but absolute nothingness excludes physical reality through the exclusion of God. Accordingly, your objections are nullified because you failed to use the proper conception of absolute nothingness. You’ve pressed no argument to suggest that the absence of God would be incoherent. But, be my guest in doing so, because you would have succeeded in demonstrating the necessity of God. Your subsequent discussion concerning causation is fatally infected by your initial misconception concerning absolute nothingness. In any event, the concept of absolute nothingness as “not something” does not necessarily create contradiction, because the absence of physical reality is not itself a state of physical reality.

The rest of your criticisms are not terribly significant. I am not concerned with 100% philosophical certainty. No reasonable person demands 100% philosophical certainty to believe in God.

A short reply that doesn’t address the half of what I’ve brought up.

So be it. “Absolute nothingness is the absence of God” - there we have that same “begging the question” logical fallacy. If only God can be “not absolute nothingness”, then of course “God” - by virtue of my own argument around “something and not nothing”.
But then, of course “not God” because this definition of absolute nothingness is begging the question.

You expand “absolute nothingness” as “not primarily the absence of physical reality” - good! Here you recognise the lack of necessity of any God/uncaused Creator.
But then you say “the absence of God surely entails the absence of any physical reality created by God” - again, very good. The addendum “created by God” is the key. “The absence of any physical reality created by God” does not necessitate “the absence of any physical reality”.
Absolute nothingness indeed excludes physical reality, with or without the exclusion of God, though if you define absolute nothingness as the absence of God, then of course “physical reality through the exclusion of God” is going to be impossible by virtue of the definitional contradiction that is your premise as well as conclusion.
This logical fallacy that I repeatedly point out is what nullifies your objections to my objections, because if you don’t assume your conclusion within your premises: God is indeed not a necessity for physical reality.
If you’ve missed this - and are under the impression that my repeated identification of your “begging the question” is a lack of pressed argument to suggest that “the absence of God would be incoherent”, then you are quite simply mistaken.

So hopefully you recognise my valid objection to your definition of “absolute nothingness” at this point, and understand that my argument against the non-absence of God is coherent.
It’s only “demonstrating the necessity of God” to raise such an objection if one fails to reject your logical error. Accepting your logical error, arguing against the non-absence of God does not in turn necessitate Him. Thus my subsequent discussion concerning causation remains in tact.

You’re confused. God and only God creates physical reality. No God - no physical reality. Absolute nothingness is the absence of God. There cannot be an absolute nothingness without God but with physical reality. The begging the question criticism is unfounded, because the narrative does eventually get around to proving the existence of God. The argument is not in syllogistic format, and I do not care about achieving 100% certainty with the argument.

Yes, but if it is an intended confusion, then it would appear that without such confusion the percentages would decrease drastically, approaching naught.

If it is unintended, there can be no objective way to determine any syllogism inherent in the reasoning for god to exist in the first place.

Not to confuse with the certainty of God’s essential nature.

What do you mean by objective? Do you think 100% certainty is required for objective philosophical proof? There is no such thing as 100% certainty. One could always claim your belief is uncertain, because you cannot exclude the possibility that you’ve been fed your misbelief by your alien masters while you sit as a brain in a vat. Objectivity is really only indicative of widespread agreement, but it’s not defined as 100% certainty.