The cosmological argument really needs to die already.

[Freedom of thought]

Deja vu. It's almost like we had this thread already. . .

http://atheistforums.org/search.php?acti...order=desc


Or that there were already literally hundreds of posts mentioning it. . .

http://atheistforums.org/search.php?acti...order=desc


Maybe you should have contributed to one of those threads, where this response to Kalam would actually have been responsding to something?

To be fair, there hasn't been a thread about this recently, the last post in one of those threads was: 19th September 2013 13:47, which was over 3 months ago. And it's about more than just trying to refute it, I'm also talking about why the entire argument should be abandoned. This argument is really past it's expiry date.

---

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:

Yes, virtual particles spontaneously come into existence. And the entire universe could be destroyed instantaneously at any time if the standard model is correct: We could be in what's called a 'false vacuum' of a bubble universe, at any time due to instability, a 'true vacuum' could appear and spread faster than the speed of light, destroying everything in the universe instantaneously. Again: Some design!

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

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm not arguing that material doesn't cause other material to 'begin existing', if fact I would agree with the first premise if it was "every material has a material cause". In fact a material cause is much more supported by what we understand about the universe. I just don't think it's reasonable to therefore extrapolate that to all the material itself having a cause. It's going into unknown territory which we don't know much about, and the things we know about that DO come into existence (virtual particles) have no cause.

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

That could very well be the case, I don't have a clue, and neither do you.

If you really want to argue for;

- an unintended,

Why does ANYTHING have to be intended? The wind is not intended, it's purely a feature of nature, but the universe is not unintended either. It simply is here because this is just how nature has accumulated, it simply 'happened'.

- uncaused,

Just because I disagree with the argument doesn't mean I think the universe could never possibly have a cause. Scientists could very well discover the 'cause' of the universe, whatever that may be.

- past-eternal,

I don't think the universe is past eternal, but the evidence shows it has a beginning. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I am frightened, and try to avoid a beginning. In fact, I think it's the most highly probably scenario. Because the universe came into existence, does it mean there is a god? Obviously not. A beginning to the universe means a beginning to the universe.

- perpetual motion,
- unguided

You talk about these things like it's a bad thing, and you're simply appealing to emotion with the 'unguided' part. "Oh, I don't want to be living in a universe without a magical sky daddy to wipe my ass, boohoo!". Really, get over it, emotion should have no bearing on what is to be thought of as true.

Universe…

- where nothing new is ever ‘created’,

I've already said this, just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I cannot think the universe had a beginning.

- and which isn’t really expanding, because there is no “nothingness” into which it can expand,

This is wrong on so many levels, you treat nothingness like it's something. If there is no 'nothingness', then that perfectly describes what nothing is! Once you define the word 'nothing', you're already describing it, when nothing should really have no description at all.

And second of all, it's actually quite silly: The idea that the universe shouldn't be able to expand into where there was previously no area. Because nothingness is simply the absence of anything, as soon as the universe expands out, it's creating new space for particles to enter.

- and where everything that can happen HAS already happened over and over an infinite number of times, (think Groundhog Day movie multiplied by infinity)

Are you talking about the multiverse now? Oh, don't you like the idea that things are repeating over and over again, and will continue to be in the future, due to the vast amounts of universes? Too bad, current scientific evidence says otherwise, your emotional response should have no bearing on what is thought to be true. I care about what is true, I'm not a weak willed individual that needs a comfort blanket (like religion).

…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.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There was an origin of life, and what's wrong with multiple big bangs? Does the idea frighten you that our universe is not the only one?

*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.

You're simply throwing around your own emotional turmoils, mistaking them for actual arguments. If you're going to complain about how you don't like certain science ideas, I think there's plenty of religious fundamentalist forums you can complain on. We atheists care about what is true, not what makes you feel good or bad, we don't care. If you're going to be like that, there's the door. We actually want an intellectual discussion, not based on petty emotions.