What's your opinion about cosmological arguement?

@Behnamhb1999m I wasn't talking about a three part God. God would need to have functional parts in order to think and act... if nothing else. So God would necessarily be the sum of its parts: just as the cosmos is said to be.

@SnowBlack Again this does not suit the conclusion of this argument. Neither cosmos nor the God you describe can be that first cause.

We're talking about the conclusion made from cosmological argument. A first cause whose existence is not dependant on other things. Having parts automatically means to be dependant on those parts and thus having a reason for existance.

@Behnamhb1999m Do you believe in a God incapable of thought or action? I'm finding it difficult to see reasonableness in your conclusions.

@Behnamhb1999m So what caused the cause? Next, why can't the cause be applied to what was caused.

To simplify, if 'X' created the universe, what created 'X'?

@Sharon Nothing.

@Behnamhb1999m Great, no need to postulate a god then.

@hunkalove 😂😂😂😂

@Behnamhb1999m
I am thinking that the pillars of cosmological science are important to consider in our perception of reality.
For fifty years hawking and Penrose had many believe in it.

@Pfuzylogic Do you think that Big Bang was the origin of this universe?

@Behnamhb1999m
No, that came from A Catholic priest and later Hubble. It is very Copernican in POV. The CMB contradicted all of that silly stuff. Along with the big bang being bad theory that would also include the multiverse since our universe would have to be of finite size for that to be true.
Have you read the latest stuff?
It is so easy to be outdated in the arena of science.

@Pikachu Cosmological Arguement only talks about a first cause. And I am not asking if you believe in the existence of the God described in Abrahamic religions.This is my question: Do you believe that this first cause exists or not?

@Emosaur I see. Yes, cosmological argument only talks about a first cause.Then,how this argument is not sound?

@Behnamhb1999m


And yet it is almost universally deployed by theists trying to use it to prove that their personal god must exist. That's why i mentioned Craig and his application of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
In that way it's a non-sequitur.


It could be but i'm not convinced that it's necessary.
At its base, the cosmological argument is one of cause and effect...well if the dimension of time didn't exist then how can cause precede effect? Does such a relationship even remain coherent?
Maybe/ Maybe not.

@Behnamhb1999m I herby put the burden of proof on you as you are the one claiming metaphysical horseshit. As for my circular argument, well thank you very much!

@Fukfacewillie When did I even support it? You don't really need my opinion about it. I just want to know what people think about it. You said that's horseshit and I asked for a reason.

I never took a particular side to have the burden of proof on my shoulders.I never made any claim. I just asked a question.

@Behnamhb1999m Sorry, just my mood.

@Fukfacewillie If quantum physics can prove that a contingent being can come into existence out of nothing and without a cause, then yes, that's true.

@Fukfacewillie And if scientists abandon causality, they have to abandon all their theories, since all they have achieved to this day, is based on reasoning, and reasoning has no meaning without causality.

@Behnamhb1999m Quantum stuff…we shall see.