Objection to Cosmological Argument??

[Mattsterpiece]

Well, I was in a debate on the Cosmological, and a rather odd objection posed itself on me....

I'll try to explain what I mean in simple terms here: in order for god to cause anything, contingency itself must already be in existence. Contingency is born the moment anything at all happens. This means that causation is contingent upon the existence of contingency, which means god is contingent on contingency, which means that god cannot be the absolute first cause unless he is contingency himself. Pure contingency cannot be personal. Do you see how I reached this conclusion, or am I still being too vague?

I knew that this was a non sequitur to some extent, but the reasoning was so vague I wasn't sure how to respond, so I simply explained that the potentiality for it to be there was there, but not that physical causes have always been taking place.

I thought the comment would be an interesting subject for discussion though, as it presented some interesting ideas.

[ENeGMA]

That's not a serious objection. It doesn't even make any sense.

It's based on a non-existent understanding of what 'contingency' is.

You're debating with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Mattsterpiece]

I thought so, more or less. Still, I was hoping that it wasn't that simple, and that I might have missed something.

Oh well, gracias.

[SatanTheAlien]

Perhaps he meant to ask you, if God is not temporal, then how did he create time, or anyting, since the act of creating is a temporal act. Or how did a non-temporal being do a temporal act?

[Mattsterpiece]

Perhaps he meant to ask you, if God is not temporal, then how did he create time, or anyting, since the act of creating is a temporal act. Or how did a non-temporal being do a temporal act?

I've come to a better understanding of what he meant, but our debate was primarily historical. When I posted a paper of mine covering much of his objections, he stopped posting on the page.

Anyway, I was inferring that God is apart of contingency, because I had used the phrase "contingency itself".

[Abelard]

Perhaps he meant to ask you, if God is not temporal, then how did he create time, or anyting, since the act of creating is a temporal act. Or how did a non-temporal being do a temporal act?

God is a super-temporal being. God acts sequentially but out of time (google molinism).

We can only see one limited view of our existence. God's work is in a different dimension. YouTube demonstration here.

[shunyadragon]

God is a super-temporal being. God acts sequentially but out of time (google molinism).

Biblically this does not fit. The God of the Bible most definitely exists, operates and functions within time. Another point, if God acts sequentially, God operates within time.

[Abelard]

Biblically this does not fit. The God of the Bible most definitely exists, operates and functions within time. Another point, if God acts sequentially, God operates within time.

How can a being with no beginning and no end be considered to exist within time?

Read Aquinas

[Mattsterpiece]

Yeah, William Lane Craig is the leading proponent of this today it seems. I seriously doubt he missed something as devastating as this being against fundamental Christian doctrine.

I would recommend just about any paper by him on divine eternity.

[shunyadragon]

How can a being with no beginning and no end be considered to exist within time?

Read Aquinas

That is a problem for you and Aquinas. The Biblical God operates in time regardless of what Aquinas or you rationalize about how God (must?) should be.

There may be a difference between operating within time and with time. I have no problem with viewing the nature of our physical existence and the existence of God in terms of potential infinities. I have no problem with Quantum Time being potentially eternal with no beginning and no end, and Quantum existence being potentially infinite, simply in terms of our physical existence. .

[Mattsterpiece]

Aside from the sort of stuff you'd hear in such "fabulous documentaries" as "What The Bleep Do We Know", Aquinus wasn't side-stepping around the issue of divine eternity.

Undergoing temporal relations upon something doesn't justify the assumption that that temporal relation has always existed. Therefore, God undergoes temporal relations once he causes those temporal relations to exist. That is all that reason will permit here.

[Griggsy]

Without giving evidence for how He operates in the Cosmos, the argument gets nowhere! By the magic of let it be? Science rules, so be content that we have this eternal Metaverse, lacking a need for the supernatural sufficient reason when natural ones are that reason! Aquinas errs, because natural cause themselves are the Primary Cause in his sense of a hierarchical series of explanations. William Lane Craig's,Thomas Clarkes' and others' cosmological arguments likewise fail. Craig and Richard Swinburne's personal explanation fails due to manifesting reduced animism as illuminated at my arguments about God.
Aquinas' other four ways fail. We rise above his sophistry!

[shunyadragon]

Well, I was in a debate on the Cosmological, and a rather odd objection posed itself on me....



I knew that this was a non sequitur to some extent, but the reasoning was so vague I wasn't sure how to respond, so I simply explained that the potentiality for it to be there was there, but not that physical causes have always been taking place.

I thought the comment would be an interesting subject for discussion though, as it presented some interesting ideas.

I do not believe the above is an effective approach to arguing against the cosmological arguments, but . . .

I object to the Cosmological arguments on simply the problem that the necessity of contingency has not been demonstrated for our physical existence including our universe and all possible universes. There are a lot of evidence for beginnings in our physical existence, but none for an absolute beginning. The present knowledge of the Quantum world is that there is not any evidence of the need for a cause outside the cause and effect within the observed Quantum world.

Arguments for contingency based outdated Aristotilian infinities fail to demonstrate the necessity of a finite temporal physical existence with a beginning.

As for the hotel or library. i propose that you begin with the infinite library or hotel empty. Now try and fill it!!!

[Griggsy]

The books and hotel are Craig's red herrings. He cannot comprehend that in dealing with infinites that they don't operate as finite numbers do, so no contradictions arrive and so of course his argument fails. He assumes a starting point but alas, it's each day arriving on time forever. The addition of day by day is the potential that is also then the actual! We never would arrive at infinity but always by successive addition add to infinity. And his support for the Resurrection is so pathetically credulous!