Talk:Cosmological argument/Archive 1

message: Would it make sense to say that God is just another name for the property of existence?
:That's correct.  --Eequor 19:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, I think it should be moved to Origin belief unless someone can give a reason why it is here. Bothar 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And also: B, C, and D need not all refer to a single, common entity.  --Eequor 19:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It concerns me that so much work is being done on this article, but no one bothers to refer to sources.
If I knew anything about the topic I would have helped. 
Please, if you attributed to the article, come back and put in your references that you used to make additions. Bothar 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No sources

message: This article may need some work, but it doesn't seem to need major copy-editing per se.  I've removed the notice.  If you object, let me know.  Thanks,  Zensufi 16:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing? 

message: One of the most glaring omissions is the lip service it gives to the infinite regress objection--mentioning it once outside the criticisms section and barely even alluding to it in the criticisms section.  We know a lot more about math than we did in Aquinas's day and infinite series are well known.  The idea that a casual chain can't stretch back infinitely far isn't considered logical by modern understanding.
: I noticed that there is no mention of one of the most common arguments against infinite regress that I've heard: "If the universe is infinitely old, why hasn't everything happened yet?" Rozencrantz 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: Everything from "Premise 2" onwards in the section "Other counter-arguments" on the teleological argument page is the same as this one. I think it should be merged here (or simply edited out of teleological argument as it is beyond the scope of that argument). --Ben 02:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from teleological argument

message: The claim that it is a "mistake" to assume that quantum physics allows for the creation of something out of nothing is incorrect. Indeed when a quantum particle tunnels out of the vacuum, it is indeed a case of something coming from nothing -- quite literally.
The claim that "nothingness" isn't really "nothing" when it involves vacuum energy fluctuations is also a limited POV. In general, nothing means absense of all forms of waveparticle energy (naked spacetime). There is no way to get rid of the metric and so the philosophical claim that the vacuum energy density is not really "nothing" is without empirical test and therefore a metaphysical POV.
--Joshuaschroeder 22:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that the quantum vacuum is not literal nothingness but a sea of fluctuating energy.  To say "it is indeed a case of something coming from nothing -- quite literally" cannot be correct because the particles come about via fluctuations in vacuum energy.  Vacuum energy is not literal nothingness; if anything it is the opposite.  If one says that the particles come from "nothing" and neglects to mention the energy fluctuations that are responsible for their creation, such a claim can be rather misleading to say the least.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By your definition there is no such thing in existence in the universe as a literal nothing. If such a thing doesn't exist, then the statement is meaningless from an empirical standpoint. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mistakenly" and "nothingness"

message: The paragraph
:Some proponents of String Theory state that there are more dimensions than the ones we experience. In this argument, two universes existed outside of time, our fourth dimension. They collided with each other and dropped down into the lower four dimensions, x, y, z, and time. The universes in the other dimensions both existed forever and never existed, as they are not fettered by time and thus require no "first cause".
appears questionable as physics.  For one thing, it claims that the two universes existed "out of time", but then says that they "collided" i.e. an event happened in time.  It was also added by an anon 24.14.237.188 with a very short edit record, who added nonsense to the Pi page (that the irrationality of Pi is an open question).  When I removed it pending verification, User:Infinity0 added it back, saying "I can't be bothered finding a source right now, but I've heard of this and it's not fictional vandalism."  I don't think "hearing of" something outlandish is sufficient sourcing to put something in Wikipedia. --Macrakis 18:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: / They could be two different people you know, 15 days between the edits you mentioned, and IPs are variable. Infinity0 21:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  In which case the string theory comment was put in by someone with no editing record at all, which suggests that he/she might not be familiar with Wikipedia standards, or just someone who forgot to log in.  In any case, a solid reference would clarify the matter. --Macrakis 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: An article about an argument should have both sides included. Or do you suggest making a "Objections to the teleological argument" article, and for every article about an argument? If you think the criticism section is too long, go over it and make it more concise. That will help readers, as long as you don't delete the key points. Infinity0 talk 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: String theory argument

message: I've added in the point about "before", "after", "caused" becoming meaningless idea in a timeless pre-Universe, and indirectly quoted Stephen Hawking - I can't remember his exact wording, nor can I find it.  Please modify that bit if I've got something wrong! Tyrhinis 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very impressive point to make! So simple, yet so forceful. Even if it wasn't Stephen Hawking who said it, it should still be in there! :D Infinity0 talk 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: [...] His witty way with words has both entertained the non-specialist public and helped them to understand complex questions. Asked recently (October 2005) to explain his assertion on the British daytime chat show Richard and Judy that the question, "What came before the big bang?" was meaningless, he compared it to asking, "What lies north of the north pole?"
Not sure how to add this encyclopaedically, so putting it here for someone more experienced than me to add. Thanks. Tyrhinis 23:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "North of the North Pole" 

message: Recent addition  moved to talk:
:But the assertion that quantum theory disproves the causal principle can be highly misleading. As Kanitsheider put it," The violent microstructure of the vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have attached to this legitimate speculations[sic.] far reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in highly misledaing language when they maintained the 'creation of the universe out of nothing.' From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic. It includes that weak sort of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process." John Gribbin notes that,"Tryon talked about a'vacuum fluctuation', implying that some form of spacetime metric existed before the Universe came into being,..."(Gribbin 1998;303). There do exist more radical models of the universe such as the Vilenkin model which posits the origin of the universe from 'literally nothing',but Guth notes that " From general relativity, Vilenkin took the idea that the geometry of space is not fixed, but instead that space is plastic and capable of distortion. There are many possible geometries, including the closed universe, the open universe, and many less symmetric contortions of space and time. Among all possible geometries is the totally empty geometry, a space that contains no points whatever."(Guth 1997;274) This seems to support John Post's assertion that,"In fact the nothing out of which the universe tunnels in this scenario is a space, even though it is not a space time with all the structure that that implies."
Infinity0 talk 19:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: :Re "Recently, newer, speculative theories have been offered by a number of theorists, but there is no scientific consensus as of yet on whether the universe necessarily began to exist or whether it is eternal (for example, "big bang," expansion of cosmos, then contraction, then "big crunch," then a "big bang" again, once every 30 or 40 billion years ad infinitum)."
:Support for a big crunch has significantly declined with the discovery of dark energy, and the increasing expansion of the universe.  (Dark energy works essentially in the opposite way as gravity -- while gravity decreases with the square of distance, dark energy increases with the square of distance).
:As a placeholder, the sentence added is good and represents a real issue, but it needs to be copy edited. Jim62sch 11:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Bang, Big Crunch

message: Has there been a counter-argument to this argument regarding physics OUTSIDE of our known universe? Because the law that there cannot be an infinite; or that there must be a first cause, may only apply to our universe. So outside of our universe; physics could be different; therefore, ther emay be infinite; and there doesn't necessarilly need to be a beginning to the universe; it can go on forever. I've brung this up before, but the only response I remember getting was "this isn't a notable argument (not popular), so we can't include it in the article". I wanted responses/debate/counter-arguments/etc. 24.23.51.27 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I don't think it's a very good counter-argument because you basically assume that there is physics outside our universe, which is just as bad as assuming there is a god. Also, yeah, I haven't heard of it before. If you could provide a link to a notable page where it's seriously considered, then it could probably be inserted. -- infinity0 15:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no physics outside of this universe; then there is no law that states there cannot be a infinite ammount of causes; therefore, there can be an infinite outside of the universe. 165.196.149.50 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we're actually in a theme park serving as an exhibition for some relatively large onlookers. This question of what is "beyond" the physical cosmos is a classic conceptual problem. Indeed one of the senses of supernatural is that it is not confined by the parameters of time-space.  And the infinite regress argument has been considered by a number of theorists -- it was bounced around quite a bit in the mid-eighties when these debates were coming to the fore among those familiar with astrophysics, and it does continue to come up.  The speculation of a possible infinite regress definitely gives rise to one method of criticism of the cosmological argument.  Since supernatural is by definition outside the bounds of time-space, why not an infinite regress.  But as Hawking put it, the question of what came before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. ... Kenosis 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say : It's nonsense to search a what occured before the big bang. So it's nonsense to say "maybe the universe is going on forever". The universe is not going on at all, it "IS", end of story. In order to have a beginnig, an end, a schedule of events, you must be confined into a spacetime. Events are occuring within the universe because the universe is a spacetime, but nothing may append for the universe as a whole, because of the lack of temporal reference. In other words, an event can occur to our universe as a whole only if our universe is confined into a spacetime of superior level.--Rudzaw 13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite & First Cause Theory 

message: I think that god exists because all the matter and energy in the univers follow the same laws. If god dose not exist and mater and energy in the univers follow the same laws then why is the univers not semetrical. Why didnt the antimatter in the univers counter out all the regular matter in the univers. The proprty of size can only be determind by comparing something to something else so why is the univers not infinitly filled with semetricle spheers of matter and energy evenly spaced apart. In string theory matter and energy are made out of tiny one dimentional stings but what are the stings made of. Why would difrent stings interact difrently with other stings. What force would cause them to act the way they do. Why are there only 3 dimentions and not 4 or 5. By definition existing defies the law of consevation of mass and energy becouse the universe came into existance without existing before. 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws of the Universe 

message: I have reverted changes made [ here] and [ here] These are attempting to counter the counterarguments and arrive at an independent personal conclusion regarding the counterarguments.  Perhaps there is some way to integrate these without interspersing the counterarguments with objections and further commentary as they're being presented? ... Kenosis 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted counter-counterarguments 

message: This article has had merits and de-merits.  Merits would be a very nice history of the argument.  De-merits would be much of the section on "Criticisms and objections".  The latter section in many respects could be re-titled "puissant little coffee-house reasons why I don't believe in God - gotchya! nany nany nany."  The objections don't appear to be serious philosophical objections but appear to be people's personal responses to an argument that they assume is trying to prove the existence of God, but which they don't in fact understand.
I took the liberty of putting a variety of clarifying comments in the Criticism/objections with a mind to helping people sort out legitimate philosophical objections to either (1) the cosmological argument itself or (2) the argument as it is applied/modified as a proof-case for theism, versus (3) objections that don't belong on this page because they are [reasons-why-I-personally-don't-believe-in-God], not legitimate objections or criticisms to the actual historical/philosophical formulation or assertions of the cosmological argument.
If you have an unsupressible urge to express your personal reasons for not believing in God, go ahead, please express yourself, but do so in an appropriate place, not here on this article - keep "objections" to the argument limited to those that object to this argument and remember: this argument is not ONLY about God, in fact it spent most of its history not being about God, so in objecting, you aren't necessarily objecting to the existence of God.
The so called "Criticisms" and "objections" in this article are so far off-base it's like this:
Argument: I believe people should stop their cars at stop-signs.
Objection 1: No, definitely not, if you can't climb mountains you'll never have a good view.
Objection 2: Right, you have to be able to climb mountains so you can escape floods.
Objection 3: Yes, and remember fires, fires too!  You have to be able to climb mountains to escape fires.
Objection 4: Sometimes too its good to climb mountains because we find natural resources there.
Before long, people become convinced they know what we're arguing about, but the actual effect is that we massacred the original meaning of the argument so badly no one is even talking about the same thing anymore.
And the whole thing above about "North of the North Pole"?  Come on.  Now, I suspect that Hawking knew what he was talking about when he said that.  It's basically saying: "Apples/oranges guys.  Once you get to the north pole, the notion of going further north doesn't mean anything anymore."
Which, when applied to the Big Bang, by the way: IS NOT AN OBJECTION TO THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.  It actually MAKES the cosmological argument (in its Kalam form) by stating that whatever instigated or brought about the Big Bang is of an entirely different nature (essence, substance, etc thank you Aristotle!) from the substance that came about as the result of the Big Bang.
That all said, I'm not an expert, just well enough versed to be able to tell when people are shooting from the seat of their pants rather than contributing genuine expertise.  It would be nice to see the whole article cleaned up by a dis-passionate expert. --Dcwood 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate the merit on the history. ... Kenosis 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: welcome ... --Dcwood 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional contribution would be nice 

message: From the article:
:Almost all physical cosmologists subscribe to a theory of universal origin that is effectively dualistic in nature and basically reflective of the Aristotlean reasoning underlying the original cosmological argument - they simply do so without making the jump to assume any spiritually supernatural qualities of a universe's dual source.
Really?  How do we know this?  Is there some survey of physical cosmologists that backs up this claim?
It looks more like this is the author's opinion of the views of physical cosmologists -- and I doubt that physical cosmologists would in general represent their own views in this way.  The author defines "dualism" in this context as a difference between present day natural conditions and past natural conditions.  Everyone agrees the present is different than the past, but the obvious implication is that the pr esent is fundamentally different than the past -- i.e., the big bang was governed by fundamentally different physical laws than the laws that govern the universe today.
I'm fairly certain this misrepresents the views of modern cosmologists.  It is true that physics doesn't have a fully developed theory of quantum gravity, i.e., a theory that can describe things that are simultaneously very small (quantum) and very massive (gravity).  Thus, there's no theory that can describe the big bang, when all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a tiny point.  However, physicists in general believe that if such a theory exists, it will apply to small and massive things in the present day universe (e.g., the singularity inside a black hole) as well as the big bang.  Moreover, they believe that it will apply to things that are small but not massive (although in that range it can be approximated by a known theory -- quantum mechanics) and to things which are massive but not small (although in that range it can be approximated by another known theory, general relativity). 
There's a huge difference between saying:
:(1) Physical cosmologists believe different laws applied in the early universe as apply today.
:(2) Physical cosmologists believe that the same laws hold for the universe today as in the past.  However, our current theories are just an approximation for these laws, which only works well in certain cases.  The early universe isn't one of these cases, nor are some things that exist today (like black hole singularities, and possibly other mysterious phenomena like dark matter and dark energy).
I think (2) is correct, but if the article is going to claim (1) it needs a cite to back it up.  Cite one cosmologist and change the wording to "At least one physical cosmologist", or else cite a poll that indicates a majority opinion.
If the same physical laws apply to the universe today as in the past, and it's just the actual state of the universe that's different, then calling this "dualistic" seems very misleading.  We could just as well say, "The universe used to have no stars, but after a while stars formed, so the universe has a dualistic nature."  It's an arbitrary distinction, equally applicable to anything which has ever changed.  Even if you consider "The universe isn't the same now as it once was" to be dualism, you need a citation to back up the claim that physical cosmologists share this opinion.
I consider this a pretty severe problem, because it's claiming scientific support for a certain philosophical point of view, without citing any references to back this up.
Also from the article:
:On careful consideration of the big bang, for example, some sort of dualistic "cause", itself presumably not caused, or at least not caused by the "natural" forces manifest by current conditions in our universe, appears prima facie to be inescapable.
This is in the same paragraph, so the article gives the impression that this too is the opinion of physical cosmologists.  Again, this claim needs to be backed up with a cite.  But I don't think it's true anyway -- as I said, it's not that cosmologists think the laws have changed, it's that our current understanding is an approximation to the true laws, and that approximation is only valid under certain conditions.  It's like how the special theory of relativity applies to all objects, but its effects can be ignored except for things that are moving at velocities close to the speed of light.  The approximation which ignores relativity works well for things that move slow, but these things aren't fundamentally different than things that move fast.
Also, I think this sentence is problematic anyway.  It's pretending to be an argument without actually making one.  If I said, for example, "On careful consideration of his policies, the conclusion that George Bush is a bad president seems inescapable," no one would buy this as a legitimate argument.  What policies? How is it inescapable?  The claim implies that anyone who disagrees just hasn't considered carefully enough.  That's not an argument -- it's meaningless rhetoric.  If you have a point to make, then make it, but I suspect the point is "If you accept the cosmological argument, then it is obvious that . . . . " -- Tim314 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I'm well aware that "quantum" doesn't literally mean "small", and so forth.  I'm trying to keep the science in laymans terms except where technical details are relevant. Please keep that in mind if you're going to nitpick. -- Tim314 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Almost all physical cosmologists..." 

message: I think that more could be said about contributions made by Arab philosophers to the cosmological argument, particularly the kalam variant.  My understanding is that Muslim thinkers got the idea from the Greeks and, being theists, were eager to use the argument to prove (or at least support) the existence of God.  al-Kindi and Averroes deserve more mention, I think. Jacob1207 00:10, 8 December 2006 
As the world wide web expands and as the world shrinks from global media coverage, we need to expand our educational horrizens.  But not only Arab thinkers and writers, but also Jewish, Indian, Japaneese, Chineese, and all peoples of the world have likewise made numerous contributions to our joint treasury of world wide wisdom.  Let all cultures participate to the maximum.  And when we come to better understand all cultures, we will respect each other as we should.  For fear is fear of the unknown.  Let all participate.  Jerry Weaver
ageoftheology.com  Jerryweaver 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab philosophers?

message: Should we mention J. Richard Gott and his paper on the universe creating itself in the article?  It would seem to contradict the assumption that "Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself," because his article is about a finite universe causing itself.  Also, is it just me, or does this assumption also assume that there is no time travel (because if there is time travel, there is a possibility of things creating themselves). Eds01 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: J. Richard Gott

message: I removed the following links from the see also section on the grounds that they are insufficiently linked to the cosmological argument:
* Day-Age Creationism
* Evolutionary Creationism
* Gap Creationism
* Young Earth Creationism
* Intelligent design
* Old Earth Creationism
Those topics, most of them pseudo-science, have little, if anything, to do with the metaphysical argument for a first cause.  Anyone agree/disagree? Jacob1207 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "See also" section

message: Isn't this thing supposed to be spelled "anankē" with an e?  63.249.110.32 (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling: Anake v. Ananke

message: A citation from C. Stephen Evans' Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith in the section entitled "Criticisms of counterarguments" has been added for the community to review.
Philip Monson (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C. Stephen Evans 

message: I'm a bit concerned about a number of edits I've recently seen in the article by one anonymous editor.  My main concern is that rather than rewriting paragraphs, the author is deleting certain portions (including one described as "self-contradictory", although it seems perfectly self-consistent to me) and inserting refutations immediately after presentation of a criticism of the argument.  In particular, one refutation describes the relevant criticism as "irrational", which seems to me a decidedly POV term.  The tone of the edits seems to me more reminiscent of original research than of encyclopedic summarization from secondary sources. The problem is serious enough in my mind that I've added the POV tag. -- MatthewDBA (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better now. And yes, I wasn't thinking of your edits at all but the ones by the other anon. I'd hardly qualify myself as an expert, but I'm searching for books to use as reliable sources.  I'll do my best on this one. --MatthewDBA (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in recent edits? 

message: energy cannot be created nor destroyed. 
what's this page about, really?
-MONITOR613  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.12.90 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate this "proof". There is no evidence that the big bang is not a periodic function of the universe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence is energy

message: Is it just me, or is this poorly expressed:
"...(merely logical) contingency of anything it does not logically follow that there must be some time at which – the merely logically (not empirically) contingent – things, like for example matter, in fact did not exist (in order to prove that matter did need to have a cause outside itself)."
Does the author wish merely to say: "The conclusion is false because, well, why should it have to be true?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RWZero (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Sequiter 

message: 98.149.104.138 (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incompleteness theorems (moved)

message: If we have established that the unmoved mover exists, have we established if it still exists or that it just existed? Any ideas on the arguements or counterarguements for this topic or where the arguements are at right now? (Simonapro 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already included in the article in the explanation of the difference between in esse and in fieri. ... Kenosis 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Beats me.  Offhand I'd say it's just another form of cosmological argument.  Now that we know (or at least think we know) that there was a Big Bang (a beginning), the issue still isn't settled.  It's also closely related to the difference between a theistic perspective and a deistic perspective on things. ... Kenosis 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.* Michio Kaku. Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.  It does not provide an explanation for the reason those molecules exist in the first place, though." (someone deal with this last sentence here, it's ambiguous what the first word 'it' there even refers to, and the statement is unrelated to the preceding stuff.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.162.169 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmover mover exists or unmoved mover existed? 

message: This article seems regularly trolled by people who want the cosmological argument to be proof to the validity of their own religious beliefs, thus try to rewrite or add to the page so that it evangelizes the 'validity' of believing in a God, while overemphasizing and sometimes just miscontruing 'errors' in refutations. In fact, entire sections seem dedicated to this, such as the redundant 'Criticisms of Counter-arguments' section, which I would be in favor of doing away with.
We need to rewrite large sections and present this philosophical concept cleanly and neutrally rather than let this article be reduced to religious cheerleading, criticizing all criticisms, undermining all alternatives while upholding the argument itself as dogma only a fool would question.--Primal Chaos 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your feeling of "criticisms of counter-arguments" and was actually thinking of "objections to criticisms of counter-arguments", viz. none of the counter-arguments listed before it have said anything about time being non-natural, and don't argue against a non-natural First Cause - the counter-arguments are: (non-)existence of a first cause (the past might be infinite, or, the Universe is the first cause), (non-)necessity of first cause (the universe may not be causal on all levels), (non-)identity of first cause (First Cause is not necessarily God/Yahweh/Allah, I can call It "Satan" or "Lord Amaterasu" or "Chuck Norris").  The section about "Aristotle and Dualism" is not clear and doesn't seem to be a counterargument either. 124.107.146.20 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, no doubt in my mind about that either. The arguments FOR are misrepresented and the arguments AGIANST aren't doing the article any favor either (Kaku, for instance, argued against a part of the first cause argument, not belief in God or the existence of any deities, which this article seems to suggest). Maybe this article needs a complete reworking for both "sides." Well, we aren't sopposed to take sides, but you know what I mean. I think. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelizing through this article 

message: I'm unsure what should be done about this, but there is an edit that was massive done by an anonymous person from 173.55.80.176.  Some of the edits are useful and probably should stay in, but I'm unsure what the protocol is for adding critiques to objections for one.  If we allow all such changes, this would become a debate and not a resource.  I will leave it up to someone more experienced with how best to deal with this issue.  It seems overbroad to totally undo all their edits, but extremely tedious to pick through all the edits to find which ones are appropriate. PoDuck (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The series of edits were partially reverted by myself, but given that 173.55.80.176 was edit warring to keep inserting blatantly fringe views which were rather incoherent on other articles, I've reverted these edits to the last good version as edited by 97.118.186.114 at 03:28, 9 December 2009. Please review the changes on a paragraph by paragraph basis, and redo those that are useful. That way we start with a clean slate, and only introduce changes that we're confident are suitable. Thanks for bringing this up, apologies to the IP's who tried to clean up the muddle a little, don't think we've lost any improvements from these edits. . . dave souza, talk 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive edits and what to do with them. 

message: "For Plato, the demiurge lacked the supernatural ability to create ex nihilo (out of nothing). It was only able to organize the ananke (necessity), the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony."
This statement contradicts Plato's cosmological argument which requires ex nihilo. If creatio ex materia is what Plato is illustrating in the Timaeus, the cosmological argument would require that the previoussly existing material was also made by his Demiurge, reverting to creatio ex nihilo. I've deleted the statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ex Nihilo

message: About a week ago, I added a caveat to the "Objections and counterarguments" section, observing that not all philosophers acknowledge (what that section asserted as a fact) that causality is dependent on time, and adducing the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as an example of a philosophical conception that implies the contrary. This appears to have been deleted without comment. I have now added it again; if the same person wishes to delete it again, I would be grateful if he or she would explain why, in a response to this comment, before doing so. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinitarian causation 

message: Someone cited this:
^ Matilal, Bimal K.. "A note on Śamkara's theodicy". Journal of Indian Philosophy. "There does not seem to be any real logical objection to infinite causal chains, accidental or not. The Indian version of the acceptable and provable infinite causal chain of seeds and sprouts seems to be harking back to a similar argument."
This makes no sense whatsoever. There's a million real logical objections, in fact, such an idea itself is illogical and doesn't make sense. If there is an infinite chain of events behind us, we wouldn't be here, because the infinite chain of events can not end. They're infinite! The fact that we do exist shows that there were a finite series of events prior to us. It's as simple as that. Nobody from the body of accepted scientists or mainstream science can back such a claim that seems clearly based on ancient Indian religious philosophy and not on our modern standards of logic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.199.23 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: infinite chain of events

message: In the initial introduction of the forms of arguments necessitating a "first" cause, the author originally wrote in esse (existence), but aren't essence and existence ESSENTIALLY and EXISTENTIALLY different? This renders the explanation of cosmological origination (in esse and in fiere) incoherent.  To say that light is essentially not light without a candle fails to grasp the essence of light on a functional level.  Whether or not candles ever exist does not affect the essential characteristics of light, same goes with the glass of water.  The pressure of the sides of the glass do not alter or provide water with its essential characteristics.  AS container, the walls of the glass DO accentuate a particular dimension of water's essential nature, but to remove the walls expresses another dimension of water's essence.  This explication of the the two arguments fundamentally obfuscates their coherence.
Aletheus (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed throughout this article 

message: If everyone would realize the big picture here for a moment, the only reason any of this is being said is because we haven't explored the Universe yet.
:Maybe. Think of it this way: the Cosmological Argument relies on the assumption that nothing can have absolute infinity. What about God? If God exists, surely he has a cause? And surely that cause has a cause, ad infinitem? Or maybe not:
:*Perhaps God did not begin to exist, but if he didn't, then why can't the Universe be an exception too?
:*Perhaps God can't be expressed in the same way as anything else can, and so he is exempt from causality. Again, perhaps the Universe is different too? It's not as if we know of anything else like the Universe.
:The Cosmological Argument is trying to fill a gap. It's really a very reasonable and intelligent argument, but then again, perhaps God shouldn't really be considered an exception to it. (BTW, please do not take offense at my argument, or at the fact I seem to keep on referring to God as a 'he'. I've never met God, so I wouldn't know, but maybe there isn't a God to meet. Or maybe there is. I love being agnostic.) I Enjoy Commenting 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have been able to deduce by reading articles on the beginning of time, the Universe never "began" to exist because a beginning implies a time before its existence.  Time did not exist at a point when the Universe did not exist, so it would be nonsensical to speak of a cause per say.  Likewise, a theoretical "god" could either have existed for all time, like the Universe, in which it would have been impossible for this being to have created the universe because it had no power at the (lack of) time at which the universe did not exist.  I think it should be pointed out that the entire cosmological argument should have a section on the disproval that the argument speaks of "before" the universe when most scientific evidence points to the conclusion that there is no "before" the universe.  129.67.39.207 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: User Aletheus has changed the English for 'in esse' to 'in essence' or 'essentiality' instead of 'in existence'. There seems no justification for this. The OED clearly has: "In med.L. phrase in esse, in actual existence; opposed to in posse, in potentiality. 
1592 Nobody & Some-b. 1299 Like a king in Esse..this night, Lets make a hostile uprore in the Court. 1597 HOWSON Serm. 31 Our spirituall preferments in esse and in posse. 1767 BLACKSTONE Comm. II. 169 Some one, that may by common possibility..be in esse at or before the particular estate determines. 1818 CRUISE Digest VI. 19 All natural persons who are in esse at the time when a will is made."
I think it should be changed back. Myrvin (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about the phrase 'in esse'. It always seems to mean 'existence'. The distinction seems to be between becoming and actually existing. Do you have citations where this is not so? Also, I cannot see where 'in causa' means 'causality'. Myrvin (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I direct you to the hyperlinks (which were the purpose of my edit) in the explication of the in esse/in fieri arguments for cosmological origination. I am not here to cause problems, and have no issues with the edit being reversed. I was just reading through the article, seeing the lack of clarity and attempting to cast light on the explication.
I wonder if the problem is with 'in esse' versus 'esse'. OED has for 'esse': "Essence, essential nature. 
1642 SIR E. DERING Sp. on Relig. 14 Dec. v. 16 The very esse of every Synod doth subsist in a double foundation. 1736 BAILEY, Esse [in the school philosophy] is used in the same sense with essence; principally for that which is actual, or actually existing. 1920 Life of Faith 23 June 619/2 The great missionary meeting on the Saturday morning..is not the esse of the movement. 1929 I. M. CLARK Hist. Ch. Discip. in Scot. 208 Some form of law will be necessary to regulate her [sc. the Church's] life and protect that distinctive character which is her esse." That sounds like your meaning. 
Now what did Aristotle and Aquinas use and mean? I am looking. Myrvin (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Maybe not. This book on Aquinas  has esse as existence all over the place.Myrvin (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, this  seems definitive and maybe where the article text came from. Myrvin (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I see your point. And in accordance with this being a collection of human knowledge, and NOT a forum for the actual "Truth" of the situation, have no problems correcting my edit.  That being said, this explication still does not get at the core of the formal grounds for either argument: the explication needs work per my critique of the problem above.
Aletheus (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  in esse 

message: I've removed a sentence which asserted that David Hume promoted the cosmological arguument.  He was, to the contrary, quite skeptical about the cosmological argument, especially in the ways that it was commonly put forward in his day.  He did, though, admit the following in a letter to a colleague. "But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (David Hume to John Stewart, Feb. 1754, in The Letters of David Hume, ed. J. Y. T. Greig, 2 vols. (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1932), 1:  187.  Similarly, Mackie:  "I myself find it hard to accept the notion of self–creation from nothing, even given unrestricted chance.  And how can this be given, if there really is nothing?"  (J. L. Mackie, Times Literary Supplement [5 February, 1982], p. 126).
... Kenosis 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean skeptical of ANY arguments for cosmological origination?  Being a hard-line empiricist would incline one to not speculate about anything, which would include cosmological origination arguments. There's more than one argument though, in face there are dozens of TYPES of arguments, and THOUSANDS of actual arguments, each adhering to or borrowing from one or several types, each etching out its own nuance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheus (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: David Hume

message: Primal Chaos said, "We need to rewrite large sections and present this philosophical concept cleanly and neutrally rather than let this article be reduced to religious cheerleading, criticizing all criticisms, undermining all alternatives while upholding the argument itself as dogma only a fool would question." I, for one, agree with him. I like this article, and I would love to see it flourish. Anyone want to lend a hand? 12.208.25.100 (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: You say: 
Here's what I've done so far:
# Spelling, grammar, flow, and concision.
# Internal links and citations.
# [...]
Please just find the work of Leibniz where he says or asks: " "Why is there something rather than nothing?" [See the article.]
This quote has been time and again reported as coming from Leibniz but without any link to any work from Leibniz, however see this link which I tend not to be so sure about:
[quote]http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/kirchberg.html
At the Kirchberg Wittgenstein conference where this paper was presented, Adolf Grünbaum discussed what he called the "primordial existential question," as formulated by Leibniz in 1714.
Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason (1714), Section 7:
"Why is there something rather than nothing? For nothing is simpler and easier than something. Furthermore, assuming that things must exist, we must be able to give a reason why they must exist in this way, and not otherwise."
(Leibniz, Philosophical Essays, Hackett, 1989, p. 210.)
[/quote]
112.198.79.4 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Pachomius 

message: Change always has a cause. That cause is motivation which can manifest itself in many forms. The basic and the first manifestation is the Universal Motivation originating from the ‘perfect centre’. Motivation. Universal Motivation is the reason why the whole of our reality is dynamic even though Universal Motivation itself is static and it does not change. ‘First cause’ Talk Cosmological argument. Human reality, which consists of three space times, those of matter, material world and the immaterial space time, is motivated from the perfect centre but at the same time that which was created by motivation remains in permanent imbalance. This manifests itself as the static difference which is not change. To observe difference the observer must compare the state of a static unit in two moments ‘now’, one ‘before’ and the other ‘after’ change. The change itself is not observed. The sum of static units of time ‘now’ adds up and it is manifested as flowing time resulting from differences. Change, contained in the gap between two ‘now’, has variable velocity and the variation is organized into converging spiral. At the largest ring of the spiral velocity of changes is slowest due to weak motivation from the perfect centre. Examples are long lives of galaxies or atoms. At the opposite end, in the centre of the spiral, velocity of changes is fastest and it applies to electromagnetism and units of gravity which exist for very short periods of time. Electromagnetism and gravity motivate in addition to the motivation from the perfect centre. Changes are in agreement with the laws of nature represented by the properties of the existing units which are beings motivated. Example of motivation by electromagnetism, where changes are directed by the laws of nature, is human body. KK (78.146.56.15 (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation for change.