This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SnowBlack · 22-25, F
Behnamhb1999m · 22-25, M
@SnowBlack It actually traces back to a first cause which does not depend on anything else to exist.
This is the meaning of cosmos I found in the dictionary "the universe seen as a well-ordered whole".
Cosmos is made up of parts. Isn't it? The whole existence of cosmos is dependant on the existence of its parts, the same way as the existence of our phyisical bodies as a whole is dependant on the existence of our hearts, livers, brains, muscles, skeletons etc. So, you can say our physical body is a contingent phenomenon , dependant on other things to exist. If cosmos has parts, again it's a contingent phenomenon dependant on other things to exist. That first cause must have no parts to suit the conclusion of this argument.
So, I can be sure that the cosmos is not the answer.
This is the meaning of cosmos I found in the dictionary "the universe seen as a well-ordered whole".
Cosmos is made up of parts. Isn't it? The whole existence of cosmos is dependant on the existence of its parts, the same way as the existence of our phyisical bodies as a whole is dependant on the existence of our hearts, livers, brains, muscles, skeletons etc. So, you can say our physical body is a contingent phenomenon , dependant on other things to exist. If cosmos has parts, again it's a contingent phenomenon dependant on other things to exist. That first cause must have no parts to suit the conclusion of this argument.
So, I can be sure that the cosmos is not the answer.
SnowBlack · 22-25, F
@Behnamhb1999m God is also said to have parts, so I don't see any strength to your argument.
Behnamhb1999m · 22-25, M
@SnowBlack Well, I didn't really get who you are talking about. If you are talking about how Christians look at God, I've got to say I am not a Christian,and I do not believe in Trinity. Because Trinity is so stupid. And I'm sure you get what I mean.
I'm not a much religious person, but I've been raised in a Muslim family,and as far as I know Islam rejects trinity and says prophet Jesus was only a human being, whom god had chosen as a prophet.
I'm not a much religious person, but I've been raised in a Muslim family,and as far as I know Islam rejects trinity and says prophet Jesus was only a human being, whom god had chosen as a prophet.
SnowBlack · 22-25, F
@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.
Behnamhb1999m · 22-25, M
@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.
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.
SnowBlack · 22-25, F
@Behnamhb1999m Do you believe in a God incapable of thought or action? I'm finding it difficult to see reasonableness in your conclusions.