Cosmological argument

William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith, and other philosophers discuss the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Aquinas
• theism
• existence of God
• William Lane Craig
• Quentin Smith
• Peter Van Inwagen
• Keith Ward
• big bang
• universe
• first cause
• Kalam argument
• creation ex nihilo
• creation out of nothing
• atheism
• cosmology

[emailpobox666]

@ParadoxEternal Perhaps you can explain why Dr Craig admits the Cosmological is incoherent yet still uses it

[locinf92]

hahahah "the universe was eternal in the past" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH YA FUCKING RETARD!!11!!1oneone!!!

[ParadoxEternal]

The argument really is simple. An infinite series cannot exist. Because it has no beginning, and therefore no series. Therefore infinity must be nothing. And where there is a series, it must be finite, and must have the transcendent infinite as the cause.

Good to see others that have the intellectual capacity to understand this! Peace.

[Pcampbell09]

Honestly could not give shit about the argument just want to pass my bloody A-levels

[RevDevilin]

@Dathinkingman Indeed any strongly held belief, that cannot stand up to scrutiny by yourself is ultimately worthless, wanting something to be true is completely different from it being true, and wanting something to be false is completely different from it being false, whatever that strongly held belief is

What strongly held belief do you desire to be true ?

[Dathinkingman]

@RevDevilin for example searching arguments for debunking atheism?

[RevDevilin]

The cosmological argument oh my

If you are looking for evidence to prove any strongly held belief you will always find that evidence, this is human nature, when you look for evidence to debunked your own strongly held beliefs now that's enlightenment

[GodTheHypothesis]

@SPR4GOD

Well you said the resurrection could be "tested". In what sense is reading what other people wrote "testing" it? What's wrong with the gospels? They were written by people! Human anecdote is the lowest form of evidence in science- for good reason. Humans are just terrible at reporting things accurately. They lie, are susceptible to delusion or could simply misinterpet what has happened. And the gospels were written decades later (not that it makes much difference).

[SPR4GOD]

@GodTheHypothesis "genesis was wrong if taken literally."

Maybe, but then again you haven't met every Christian. For example, I expressed the ability for neutral genetic mutations that increase DNA coding, which would then evolve to a YEC (he wasn't too happy), so it's not like we are not around.

What is wrong with the gospels? They are the first accounts of Christian beliefs in contemporary settings.

[GodTheHypothesis]

@SPR4GOD

Well I applaud your pastor then. Although I wasn't necessarily talking about inconsequential stories- I mean main ideas that might make people question the bible. The vast majority of the church of england for example, believe in evolution. Yet I've very rarely heard any of them admit to fellow christians that genesis was wrong if taken literally. Hold on, how can the historicity of the resurrection be tested? Last time I checked, it was only mentioned in the gospels.