Originally Posted by Schizophretard

I've heard the cosmological argument stated many different ways but this is my favorite. What do you think? Check it out here:

The Cosmological Argument

Originally Posted by Tonyamendola

I wonder if you can prove that God exists ?

I am sure no one here would deny the existance of Love

And we are told that "God is Love"

Originally Posted by Asimov

He creates a false dilemma in which he states that "If something always existed, then it does not have a cause that brought it into existence (if it did have a cause, then it did not always exist). If this something had no cause, it is uncaused. If it is uncaused, it is infinite in its existence."

You can say something has always existed without stating that only one thing has always existed. For instance, an infinite chain of finitely existing entities is not really an uncaused infinite thing.

Another issue is that he treats the Universe as an object, rather than a conglomeration of objects within a continuum of time and space.

Because his further premises of uncaused infinities rely on the fact that something always existing must be uncaused and infinite is false, his statements that follow from it are false as well

"Since the attribute of infinity is inherent to always existing, if we can demonstrate that the universe does not have this attribute, then we have demonstrated that the universe does not fall into the category of "Always existed."

Originally Posted by Asimov

He doesn't really explain why it would be impossible to traverse an infinite set of finite events.

Originally Posted by G. Brady Lenardos

The above position is vulnerable when it claims that an infinite number of events have been completely traversed. In other words, all members of the set we can call `the past events' have been crossed, and there are no events that can be called `past events' that have not been crossed. The position also maintains that there is no beginning to the series, thus the claim that the series is infinite.

To show the problem let's try a little theoretical experiment. Let's say we can reverse the logical order of events. So, we would begin going backward, crossing all events in the logical order except reversed.

The infinite universe models say that all past events have been traversed coming forward. So, we should be able to transverse all events going backwards. After all, there are no more events going backward, than are coming forward; there are the exact same number of events. But, if we can transverse all past events going backwards, we will have come to a point when there are no more events to cross. Thus, all events would be traversed. If all events have been traversed going backwards, and no events remain to be traversed, then we will have come to an end. If we come to an end, then the series is finite.You see, an end going backward would be a beginning coming forward, and if it had a beginning it must be finite. If it is finite it is not infinite.

What if we never get to an end going backwards? It would mean that all past events could not be traversed; and if all past events cannot be traversed going backwards, then they could not be traversed coming forwards. The same number of events are involved. If the series of events could not be traversed coming forward, then we would never be able to get to the current event we are experiencing right now. Yet, we are at the present event. Therefore, there are not an infinite number of events.

To summarize: If all past events could be traversed, then the past is not infinite. If the past is infinite then all past events could not be traversed to get us to the present event. Since the latter is patently false (we are at the current event), and the former denies the main premise of the infinite universe, which makes the proposition false, we can conclude that the two options that maintain an infinite series of past events are both false.

Originally Posted by Asimov

I can't remember the exact fallacy with this thinking, but it's like stating that I can't count from 1-2 because there are an infinite set of numbers between them. Of course this is false, I can traverse an infinite set because I can count.

Originally Posted by Asimov

There is no lower limit of numbers, yet I can count backwards to my hearts content. There is no upper limit of numbers, yet I can count forwards to my hearts content. I am traversing an infinite set.

Originally Posted by Asimov

In his conclusion, he commits to a equivocational fallacy by stating:

"Although minimally so, isn't the term 'God' consistent with what we mean when we talk about an infinite, uncaused, always existent, that is transcendent to our finite, derived (created) universe?"

Of course, if you define God as that then yes, but God is ambiguously defined and arbitrarily defined. It could be that God is this transcendent thing, but he almost automatically rules out anything else and concludes that God exists based on circumstance.

Originally Posted by Schizophretard

That is not traversing an infinite set. Of course there is no limit and you can count to your hearts content because you can't traverse an infinite set. If you tried to count to negative infinity or positive infinity you would never get to either because you can't count to infinity. You would be counting forever. You would never get there. That is his point. He is basically saying that if it is logically possible for there to be an infinite past then it is logically possible to count to infinity.

Originally Posted by Asimov

So? You can't count to infinity in a finite amount of time, but if you had an infinite amount of time, you could keep on counting. What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Schizophretard

The problem is you would never get to infinity. No matter how long you count there is always an infinite amount of numbers left to count.

Originally Posted by Asimov

The problem with this argument that I'm trying to express very badly comes two-fold.

1) The point of an infinite series of events, or an infinite set of events is that no ONE thing is traversing the infinite set. It is a series of different finite things within time that traverse time finitely. In no way is this a contradictory aspect to infinite sets. An infinite continuous series is not the same thing as an infinite number of things.

Originally Posted by Asimov

IOW, we didn't get here by traversing all past events.

Originally Posted by Asimov

Let's take his argument and switch it around. He's essentially saying that there can't be an infinite future because we'll never be able to traverse all future events.

Originally Posted by Asimov

2) I'm curious as to how you are going to deal with the fact that God, a being who himself is involved in action, can avoid the very same issue. Simply making a case of special pleading doesn't solve the issue.

Originally Posted by Asimov

So? Why is that a problem?