ArchangelMadzz said:
Your assumption has to be that there is a necessary being. That is literally the only way the cosmological argument works unless you can prove there was a necessary being. |
That's because it's a philosophical argument. Both sides have an assumption and reason towards it. The Cosmological Argument needs a necessary being. That's it's whole argument. Proof is provided in the model of the Principle of Sufficiënt reason. It's the closest you can argue for or against God.
I'm going to state again. It's scientifically impossible to say anything about a necessary being. If it exists, it would encompass all knowledge and all qualities of all beings and objects, past, present and future. Since it's essence is of a limitless quantity, the being itself is the ONLY ONE that can understand his own essence. We can understand parts of it's essence through revelation (theology) or reason (philosophy). Thus, in most cases, and certainly here. This is a philosophical debate first and foremost. And if it didn't exist, we wouldn't know.
