Two problems I see with this are:
The assertion that the universe has a beginning is unsubstantiated.
The conclusion that a cause behind a finite universe must be a divine being doesn't logically follow.
Philosophy-The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Sort:
13 billion year old, it's a theory, we don't know that's the case.
Finite, infinite? We just don't know either way, just theories.
God whatever he/she/it is, if anything,. Again, nobody knows. The one thing we do know is that we don't know what the hell started the universe, that's if it even had a begining. 😦
No, lots of things in science have been proven, many things are aimost proven 99. something % certain but to suggest they're fairly certain of the origin of the universe is bordering on religion.
SabrinaI27 wrote:
@blargblargdragon you have to be kidding...
We now know through science that the universe did indeed have a beginning roughing 13 billion years ago
"Finite" lol the universe evidently isn't finite for sure, as we know the distance between the celestial bodies increase. Why? Dark matter perhaps? We don't know for sure but it certainly keeps expanding.
Adding to that, have you heard about the multiverse theory?The possibility that we have infinite amount of universes. And this model has been very useful to explain other ideas. Again, the universe is outright not finite
In my second point, I meant "finite" as in temporally finite--as in it has a beginning--so I'll reword it for you: "The conclusion that a cause behind a universe with a beginning must be a divine being doesn't logically follow."
We trace the history of the universe back over 13 billion years, and what happened before that is not settled science. It may or may not be temporally infinite. It may have burst into existence from something at a higher order, or be part of an infinite cycle. Likewise, whether it is or isn't spatially infinite is not settled science. It clearly extends out further than we can see, but its geometry and the order of things beyond are likewise not settled.
Mar 18, 2019
0
#6
the chessocomological thread-locking argument:
1. this thread has a beginning
2. it's op is against TOS
3. this thread will be locked
4. this thread will end.
Religion is kinda not allowed on the forums... this thread will be locked soon.
SabrinaI27 wrote:
This argument was put forth by Al ghazili and recently been revived. It rests on 5 premises:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists
Till now I haven't come across anyone actually disproving this argument, there was one named Rationalityrules on youtube that tried but was met with backlash.
Your thoughts?
P.s: I'm new to this forum
Dimwit, am I?
“Therefore:
(5) God exists”
SabrinaI27 wrote
@mr_alex_pims. this thread isn't about a specific religion dimwit, so I doubt it would offend anyone. It's philosophy read the title
But nobody can prove or disprove it. If god exists, something must have caused god so what caused the thing that caused god to exist and what caused that? ...