Timeline for How does this version of a "cosmological counterargument" compare to traditional/established versions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2022 at 5:17 | comment | added | Gab Daud | "For example, there are an infinite amount of integers preceding the integer 1" Don't mix tomatoes and bananas together, a best try would have been "there is an infinite amount of divisible space between two points, does this mean that the point is unreachable?" but I would discard it nonetheless, mostly thanks to Plank. | |
| Nov 11, 2022 at 4:20 | comment | added | Gab Daud | "figure an infinite straight line, wherever we are on the line there is an infinite length both behind and after us, but we are at a point on the line nonetheless" Let me explain you where my premise come from: In an infinite timeline without a start, nothing can happen if it didn't happened an infinite amount of time before, otherwise you could only answer to the question "when did this happened for the first/second/etc... time?" with the answer after an infinite amount of time which leads to the conclusion that it would then never happen. Nothing new can happen in such a timeline. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 23:54 | comment | added | armand | C1 to C4 is just the old "who made God?" argument, which believers have been countering by special pleading "God is the only being who can make itself". C6 does not follow, figure an infinite straight line, wherever we are on the line there is an infinite length both behind and after us, but we are at a point on the line nonetheless. Then there is the usual special pleading "God is out of time". Believers are essentially playing Calvin ball, the rules bends when they need. you can't win on their own field. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 21:27 | comment | added | Him | "after an infinite amount of time, meaning never" - Do you have some basis for the implication that "after an infinite amount <-> never"? For example, there are an infinite amount of integers preceding the integer 1. Does this imply that 1 isn't real? | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 19:38 | answer | added | Dcleve | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 18:34 | comment | added | Dcleve | Welcome to philosophy stack exchange! It is very helpful for new members to visit our help forum to learn how to write good questions, good answers, and have conversations in comments. philosophy.stackexchange.com/help | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 15:21 | comment | added | J Kusin | There’s a Christian theologian JC Beall who says God is contradictory and exists. I think you’re relying on classical logic which is not going to put much leverage on something godlike ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-contradictory-christ | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 12:27 | comment | added | Gab Daud | As I initially asked "I may have found something interesting from a rational point of view, I'd like to know what I should do about this if anything." I really don't know what to do with that. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 12:21 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | So what kind of answer is the OP expecting? "Yes, you're right, I'm an atheist now because of this argument"? Or, "Yes, the argument is formally valid"? The latter seems within site parameters, to be fair (though whether the argument is valid when formalized will take more effort to show). Unfortunately, given the tone of the OP/comments, there is a risk that the question is eliciting opinions, however... | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 11:07 | history | edited | Kristian Berry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved post title modulo site parameters
|
| Nov 10, 2022 at 11:07 | comment | added | Gab Daud | I don't really understand your argument about the name God, it seems irrelevant, you can call him how you want. I'm refuting his characteristics. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 10:56 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 27, 2022 at 3:01 | |||||
| Nov 10, 2022 at 10:53 | comment | added | Gab Daud | I assume there is a creator to disprove it. Reducto ad absurdum. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 10:45 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Yes, if you assume that if the world has an origin, then there is a creator, this seems reasonable, but we do not know IF the world has an origin (maybe not) and you assume that the purported creator is God, but you are entitled only to assume that if there is a creator than we name it God (maybe it is Superman). | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 10:41 | comment | added | Gab Daud | @MauroALLEGRANZA the fact that God as the creator of our world exists implies the world have an origin. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 10:37 | comment | added | Gab Daud | Your both C10 are beyond logic, time doesn't goes backward, only the present exists and God creating himself is insane. I'm only discussing the logic possibilities here. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 10:32 | comment | added | RodolfoAP | A lot of arbitrary assumptions (not only P). More can be added: C.10. Time for God goes backwards, and God exists because it'll raise at the end of times, or C.10 God is such thing because God can create itself recursively. | |
| Nov 10, 2022 at 10:32 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Premise (P) assumes that there is a God, because you name it, and that there is an origin of our world, because you assert it in both horns of the dilemma. Both implicit assumptions in the premise are debatable. | |
| S Nov 10, 2022 at 10:15 | review | First questions | |||
| Nov 10, 2022 at 19:46 | |||||
| S Nov 10, 2022 at 10:15 | history | asked | Gab Daud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |