The cosmological argument really needs to die already.

[Lion IRC]

You can evaluate the Cosmological Argument premises in terms of how plausible is the NEGATION of those premises.

What are the possible negations of the first premise and how plausible are they in comparison?

*That things/substance DO sometimes spontaneously come into existence. (And logically, therefore, do also sometimes spontaneously cease to exist) hock:

*That no substance (matter/energy/information/biology/consciousness/space/time) ever comes into existence.

*That there is no such thing as “nothing” or “non-existence”.

If you really want to argue for;

- an unintended,
- uncaused,
- past-eternal,
- perpetual motion,
- unguided

Universe…

- where nothing new is ever ‘created’,
- and which isn’t really expanding, because there is no “nothingness” into which it can expand,
- and where everything that can happen HAS already happened over and over an infinite number of times, (think Groundhog Day movie multiplied by infinity)

…knock yourself out.

---

And while you’re at it you can throw away all those now-meaningless concepts such as;

*Singularity – the big bang happens repeatedly and inevitably. Yawn.
*Abiogenesis – biology is an illusion and there never was an “origin” or genesis.
*Sentience – Relax, it’s just the chemicals in your brain just doing what they always do.
*Evolution – Nope. We haven’t come from anywhere and we aren’t going anywhere.