Simple existence - Cosmological argument leading to God

[Mystic]

The cosmological argument if sound is useful in establishing a first cause or unmoved mover or independent non-contigent agent.

It seems however that beyond that, it hasn't proven much. For example, it hasn't proven what is the first cause, if there is multiple agents as the first cause, what it's properties, etc...

When we think of what constitutes existence, we realize that it must be simple and not complex.

Whatever existed before everything else would be what constituted and defined existence. It too had to be simple.

Now two characteristics are known automatically:

1) It's powerful
2) It's intelligent

From intelligence, we can deduce it has knowledge.

Now something about this, is that it's intelligence and power cannot be two separate things, as that would contradict reality being simple.

Finite power is not finite intelligence. But it seems to be that Ultimate Power and Ultimate Intelligence both can transcend and be one.

When we think about what constitutes transcendent power, it seems ultimate will power is included. And Ultimate Strong will power seems to imply being Ultimate Goodness, for we know of strong will power is will to do good. And when we think of what transcends and is ultimate....we ultimately are remembering one reality which is the transcendent.

Ultimate Goodness in this instance is also Ultimate Love and Ultimate Grace.

And each of these, is Ultimately GREAT. But each of these are each other. Thus independant reality is one and God.

[hoppimike]

Erm, isn't the biggest question how and why the laws of physics allowed for the eventual clustering of inorganic material into organic resulting in life and the eventual evolution of the brain? I don't understand why any of the original simple matter had to be "intelligent". We are intelligent because we have brains. A little cluster of atoms or whatever is not "intelligent" at least not in the sense that we are, it's very basic.

Apologies if there's something I'm missing here o.O

[Jackalope]

The cosmological argument if sound [...]

Hold on.

Stop. Right. There.

First of all, you didn't state which cosmological argument you're referring to. There are several forms. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume you're referring to the Craig's version of the Kalam cosmological argument (KCA), as it seems to be the version currently in vogue:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The Universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Note that Craig formulated this version of the KCA in light of the evidence of inflationary cosmology.

The KCA is a valid argument - the conclusion (C1) logically follows from it's premises (P1, P2).

You've further asserted that if the argument is sound an additional conclusion can be deduced:

C2. The cause is both powerful and intelligent.

Here's a few problems with the KCA and your additional conclusion.

P1. This is an unsupported assertion. While it may seem intuitively obvious, there are observed phenomenon that appear to violate the assumed principle of causality. Two examples I can think of off the top of my head are virtual particles and beta decay.

P2. This is also an unsupported assertion. It is not known whether the universe began to exist. Using best explanation that we have (big bang theory), it is thought that prior to inflation, the universe existed as a singularity. The question posed by P2 is not properly related to what caused inflation, but rather to what caused the singularity - about which nothing is known. It has not been shown that it necessarily needs a cause.

Note that if you don't accept mainstream cosmology, then you're going to run into other problems with P2, particularly a lack of supporting evidence.

As P1 and P2 are (as of yet) unsupported, the argument is not sound, and the conclusion C1 does not have a known truth value.

Even if the original argument were sound, your added conclusion C2 is wholly unsupported as you haven't offered an argument as to why it must necessarily follow from the premises.

[Cato]

Erm, isn't the biggest question how and why the laws of physics allowed for the eventual clustering of inorganic material into organic resulting in life and the eventual evolution of the brain? I don't understand why any of the original simple matter had to be "intelligent". We are intelligent because we have brains. A little cluster of atoms or whatever is not "intelligent" at least not in the sense that we are, it's very basic.

Apologies if there's something I'm missing here o.O

Oh do go fuck yourself. Of course your religion considers masturbation a sin, so my demand will be unrealised.

You are a creatard, pure and simple. Don't reply and feign a 'I am a simple person wanting to know the way of the master routine'. Fuck off.

'I don't understand why any of the simple matter had to be "intelligent". An atheist that also agrees with the fact of evolution would never state that an ultimate outcome of evolution was "intelligence". You betray yourself. Don't at this point respond with some faux doe eyed 'I am just trying to understand' bullshit.

You obviously have a big issue with the concept of abiogenesis, particularly the bit where it has NOTHING to do with evolution. Only a fucktard (sorry, I meant creotard...I keep fucking this up don't I?), will equivocate abiogenesis and evolution.

The part of your routine that still has me in stiches is when you claim that "we are intelligent because we have brains". You aren't aruging that just because an animal has a brain that it's also intelligent, are you? Please say yes, only because then I can go straight from being in stiches to pissing myself.

OK, I admit. For the last four or five paragraphs I was amusing myself at your expense. In short, and in no uncertain terms....

Fuck off! At the very best you are nothing more than an unimaginitive troll.

[cratehorus]

Cosmological argument leading to Quetzalcoatl?

[genkaus]

The cosmological argument if sound is useful in establishing a first cause or unmoved mover or independent non-contigent agent.

It seems however that beyond that, it hasn't proven much. For example, it hasn't proven what is the first cause, if there is multiple agents as the first cause, what it's properties, etc...

When we think of what constitutes existence, we realize that it must be simple and not complex.

Whatever existed before everything else would be what constituted and defined existence. It too had to be simple.

Now two characteristics are known automatically:

1) It's powerful
2) It's intelligent

From intelligence, we can deduce it has knowledge.

Now something about this, is that it's intelligence and power cannot be two separate things, as that would contradict reality being simple.

Finite power is not finite intelligence. But it seems to be that Ultimate Power and Ultimate Intelligence both can transcend and be one.

When we think about what constitutes transcendent power, it seems ultimate will power is included. And Ultimate Strong will power seems to imply being Ultimate Goodness, for we know of strong will power is will to do good. And when we think of what transcends and is ultimate....we ultimately are remembering one reality which is the transcendent.

Ultimate Goodness in this instance is also Ultimate Love and Ultimate Grace.

And each of these, is Ultimately GREAT. But each of these are each other. Thus independant reality is one and God.

Lot's of usage of logical fallacies here.

1. Whether or not reality is simple is a subjective evaluation. Ergo, your statement that the prime mover has to be intelligent and powerful at once is not logical.

2. As we see in reality, both power and intelligence require extremely complex mechanisms behind them. Ergo, if your "argument from simplicity" is true, then the simplest explanation would be that the first cause is neither powerful, nor intelligent.

3. Tyrants throughout the history are proof of the fact that with great power does not come great goodness.