By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 11 September 2018
Edit Thread
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

Didn't we like have this conversation already where it was demonstrated that your version of the cosmological argument was in fact invalid?

And from what I've seen your arguments have in fact been responded to, repeatedly and in great detail.  When they are thoroughly responded to, you insist that people simply don't understand them, or don't understand logic.  So, again, practice some modesty and think about the possibility that your arguments are bad, or that you are not conveying them effectively.

Nothing was demonstrated. I had to repeat the argument five times because people kept assuming a second hidden argument I never stated to begin with.

And this is what you repeatedly do.   Any time someone responds to you, you claim they just didn't understand.  I assure you that I, and from what I can tell everyone else, are responding to the best of our understanding.  So, maybe you're not being clear.

But fine, let's recap. 

"1) Everything is caused and everything that causes is caused itself (these are contingent beings and events, who can cause and are caused).

2) These events of cause and effect happen in a chain (one is caused and causes further).

3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity.

4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself.

5) This necessary being is necessary since if the chain could not begin with a contingent being or event (since it cannot cause itself)

6) This necessary being is God."

Your deductive argument (labeled as deductive by the source that you referred me to), ends with a conclusion that is not proven, even if we assume the premises are true.  How is this not an invalid argument?

I'd also like to point out that premise 5 is actually not even a complete thought.  You propose an if without following up with a then.  So, that actually makes the argument invalid in and of itself, as it is presented.