ComestibleVenom

Bill,

I'm frankly suprised that you of all people would suggest that the argument is in valid logical form!

Note the conclusion:

A)Naturalism --> A problematic cosmological belief.

Now explain to me how the premises (Which simply assert the problematic cosmpological model which result in the consequent of the conditional) make the CONDITIONAL true?

That aside your objections to the premises are well put.

thomaq

the conclusion is not : A)Naturalism --> A problematic cosmological belief.

the conclusion is: it is irrational to believe that the universe began to exist from nothing

you can believe that my conclusion is false if you would like, but please show me how the argument is invalid.

ComestibleVenom

That's not what you said before: "3. therefore (if naturalism is true) non-existence or "nothingness" is logically prior to the universe. "

Secondly, as has been stated a number of times before, the theme that this model is irrational has nothing to do with atheism, since nobody here thinks it is an adequate cosmology.

thomaq

you are correct, i should have worded my conclusion better.

my conclusion still stands it is just not complete. 3 is necessarily implied by p1 and p2 leaving us with the conclusion that the universe coming from nothing is not even irrational but incoherent.

i am glad we all agree about that. somepeople on this thread dont seem to agree with that though. but if the majority do, then i will let it rest at that.

thomaq

i would still like to hear about this third option if someone could put it out there for me.

so option 1 from the first post on the thread is irrational, correct? what about option 2?
do we agree that it is irrational to believe that the universe has always existed based on my reasons given in the first post?
why or why not? i am eagerly awaiting this third option. or fourth or fifth, etc.

Just_An_Atheist

I'm just curious as to what you think *would* constitute a good cosmology? Is there any theory out there that you think is the best one out there?

thomaq

i dont know the answers, i cant prove anything as far as this topic. let me just say this, i'm always open, always seraching and i always try to approach things with a healthy skepticism. i'd like to examine naturalism/atheism to see if thats where i could end up.

Autonemesis

There may be more than three.

3. The universe did not have a beginning, and yet there has been no time when it did not exist.
4. The universe had a beginning, and yet has existed for all time.
5. It is silly to ask when the universe began, because this is asking when time began, and there can be no "begin" without time.

thomaq

the best, current, and most widely accepted cosmological theory is that the Big Bang occured and due to that, space, time, matter and energy came into existence. and that this happened approx. 40 billion years ago. does anyone have issue with this? did i get it wrong?

if we can trace the approximate age of the universe, by virtue of that we can trace the approximate age of time.

Just_An_Atheist

"the best, current, and most widely accepted cosmological theory is that the Big Bang occured and due to that, space, time, matter and energy came into existence. and that this happened approx. 40 billion years ago. does anyone have issue with this? did i get it wrong?"

There are many big bang theories, such as the inflationary model, or the hawking model as well. Just as a minor point, I think the big bang started 15 billion years ago, not 40.