Cosmological argument

The thread went 404 when I tried to post this:
>>8751555
>Could you rephrase your reasoning behind this? I don't understand it.
Because a "cause" is a change whose extension we call "effect", both cause and effect are actually contiguous parts of the same process, the moment one begins the other ceases. Also because of this, every cause is necessarily an event, temporal. An entity is not a cause, the processes that happen in it are, only by simplifying language can we say that "this ball is the cause of the movement of that ball", what we are actually saying here is "that ball was moved by a collision with this ball".

>Not necessarily. You could also argue that God is, in fact, infinite but ceased to interact with our universe entirely after the moment of creation.
No, if God is a cause in the strict sense he can't be infinite and has to be part of a process, as I said above. If he is a cause in the wide sense, like ball x is the "cause" of ball y movement, then he has to undergo changes, like ball x was moving itself until it collided with ball y. We could say he is "infinite" but just as something composed of an infinity of finite processes, and that would be more like another universe than like "God". Also, if God were such a thing, then we could not attribute him things like omnipresence, omniscience, "absoluteness". And the universe would not be a part of it, for an effect cannot be a part of its cause.

>>8751600
>Your leap in logic for God to be finite doesnt work. By definition something that exists outside of time is infinite, has no beginning ir end or else it wasnt the first cause. Things with beginnings OR endings are specifically removed from the argument.
The problem is that there can't be such a thing as a cause outside time. Read what I wrote above.

I think that atheists should grow a neuron and explore in search of God instead of requesting evidences of ever growing intensity.

>>2516488
I agree that atheists demanding an evidence for God are missing the point of the cosmological argument. But still cosmological arguments are flawed to me, not because they don't give a material evidence, but because they're based on misunderstandings about causality.

>>2516488
>requesting evidences of ever growing intensity
>ever growing intensity
please explain

>>2516529
>missing the point of the cosmological argumen
atheist here.
what is the point? I dont understand how, at the end of "train of causes" you must invoke God or how God logically follows. If you want a place for God in your reasoning, why not at the very beginning?

>>2516543
I was talking about those atheists that can only talk about "evidence", "falsiability", that is, those that don't really think about what they are saying. I'm an atheist too, but more in the vein of Hume and Schopenhauer than in that of Hitchens and Dawkins. That is, my critique of theist arguments is more about their making no sense than about their being unfalsifiable or needing concrete evidence.
If you read what I wrote, I said there is no need to invoke "God".

>>2516534
In times of old a miracle was enough and the atheist would stfu, not in our days where I have heard bullshit like: "Miracles only prove that the miracle is possible".
Simply put a modern "atheist" is a person who goes to the internet to win "internet fights" without any regard for whatever may be true, they log into their forum account, start a thread about religion and expect people to register and come to them with intellectual work of high level just to dismiss it doing the least effort, its intellectual lazyness summed to instant gratification.
The "opposing force" is supposed by them to be doing laboratory work that they will reject on false premises they imagined as science, its kind of a new game where you vampirize the psyche of others by requesting lots of mental work that will be dismissed by a simpleton grade answer, ever notice how atheists are always playing dumb in a pseudoscientific attitude?

>>2516616
So what doesn't make sense to you?

>>2516664
The idea of an eternal and infinite cause.
My argument in another thread was:
>We can talk about cause in the strict sense, as a change or process that extends itself in its effects (that is, it does not "create" the effect, but is, along with it, a moment of a process).
>We can talk about cause in the wide sense, as something causing another thing, like a mother being the cause of her son
>Causality in the wide sense can be translated to causality in the strict sense: it is not the mother that caused the son, but biological processes in the mother produced biological processes that are part of another living being (which is itself a process).
>Now, the cause of a process can only be another process; for, as I said, "cause" and "effect" in the strict sense are processes that are different moments of the same process.
>And a cause in the strict sense ceases to be at the moment its effect begins (like a part of a line stops at the moment the part contiguous to it starts).
>So a first cause, in the strict sense, is necessarily a temporal process or event, that ceased to be the moment the first effect started. If we call this first cause "God", then not only God is not eternal, but also ceased to be.
>However, if we speak about a first cause in the wide sense, then "God" can only be understood as a sum of processes (like a living organism is a sum of biological processes).
This argument of mine is specifically addressed to what scholastics call "accidentally ordered causes": that is, we can't deduce "God" from such a series. As for the essentially ordered causes, I can't make sense of it.

>>2516543
The easy version is, there's an archaic definition of "cause" that, because the Cosmological Argument was invented by Medieval and Renaissance Scholastics, is the definition used in the argument. The older definition is... not intuitive imo, but the most important bit is that it's not chronological. God isn't the First Cause in the sense of being the cause that happened first, but in the sense of being the most fundamental cause. The Quantum Cause, if you will.

>>2516728
I thought you meant doctrinally, I personally believe that it is better evidence to just show you the real world, every religion is filled of lunatic child rapists that teach people to hate their very human nature and their very self.
This is a good indicative of a guiding dark power like the demiurge, just look at what they do and what they hate.

>>2516946
As for the idea of God I'm more fond of (neo)platonic and oriental views on it, but "God" is an extremely inadequate way of calling the One/Brahma. Actually, calling it anything is inadequate.

>>2516735
>the most fundamental cause. The Quantum Cause, if you will.
Why still call it God tho? He (it?) is now outcast to the edge (in space ánd time) of the universe (i.e. creation)

Is this still the God of the Garden of Eden, of Mozes and Abraham? Or is this the Deist creator who doesn't get involved?

>>2517329
I don't know that, for example, quark interactions are at the edge of space and time.
The easiest way for a non-believer to think about it is probably with a metaphor like: There are actually 5 fundamental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, and God.