no - you are missing the point - and you have issues with how argument works:

My Premise - theism is reasonable
you - why
Me - Cosmological argument
you - I/others disagree with the cosmological argument therefor you are unreasonable
me - that fails - i hold to my premise

This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you.
— Rank Amateur

If, as you state, you are a believe in reason, this last part should give you pause. — Rank Amateur

The argument has ben flawed for a few hundred years, it's not that it hasn't been able to be disproved, it's not proven anything else than a "first mover" to begin with. Attributing the cosmological argument to anything more than what it is, is ignoring the hundreds of years it hasn't been able to prove anything of what theists propose. If it hade been able to prove the existence of god through logic, it would have been a done deal. It's like saying that the cosmological argument proved the existence of god, but people are just too stupid to realize it. No, people just don't see the logic behind combining that conclusion with the notion that any god exist and theists haven't provided any answer to combine the conclusion of the argument the the conclusion that god exists. It's nonsense really.

Well, come on. Reincarnation? If your metaphysics leads to reincarnation, don't you think that that says more about your metaphysics than anything outside of it? Don't you think that that's a sign that you've gone wrong somewhere along the line?

Unless it's some kind of trick where you're actually talking about something much less controversial than what you appear to be talking about.

You know, something a bit like this:

Person A: "God exists".

Person B: "Say what?"

Person A: "Yeah, God exists. God exists as a concept".

Person B: "Motherfuuu..."

you - I/others disagree with the cosmological argument therefor you are unreasonable
me - that fails - i hold to my premise — Rank Amateur

The cosmological argument does not have any valid conclusion in favour of the existence of god. It's not about disagreement, there's no logical conclusion, case closed. What you write here just points to you ignoring the inconsistencies about the argument in support of a god. Nothing binds the conclusion of the cosmological argument to the conclusion that god exists, that's just a wild connection with no basis in logic. The first mover is not god, there's nothing to bind those together, case closed (and has been for a long time).

I agree with you on your points to Rank Amateur, there is no connecting tissue betweeen the first mover and sny theistic god that I know of and in fact many great philosophers have tried and failed to bridge that gap. If Rank Amateur knows the argument, he should know that as well.

Appeal to ignorance is fine, while keeping in mind that not just anything goes.
People have vivid imaginations and can, and have, come up with a lot of ignorance.

In real life, childrens' heads are filled up with that, and that has real life consequences, both for them and for others.
I don't recall having heard of any pujaris priests imams etc ending their sessions with "oh, by the way, we don't know", though that would seem the moral thing to do.
Some folk are out to learn more about whatever is indeed the case, which involves a conscious effort to minimize all the known tedious shortcomings.

So, yes, it matters.

And it doesn't mean the cosmological argument is invalid, it's just not an argument for the existence of god, but an argument that is very interesting for scientists. How do we tackle this mystery of what started the deterministic universe, the mind blowing conclusion of the argument is more interesting than any kind of claim that it proves the existence of god.

all do respect, you are missing the point, your opinion on the the validity of the Cosmological argument has nothing at all to do with disproving my premise that it is reasonable to believe it. There are 2 ways, and only 2 ways to do this. 1. prove there is no God as a matter of fact. or 2. Prove that in all possible cases the conclusion is false.

whether of not there are valid challenges to the argument are outside the point of my premise that - it is reasonable to believe that it it true.

If you, as him, think believing in the cosmological argument is an unreasonable position - i would be interested in the argument.

You and Christoffer want to argue the point you want to argue and not argue against the premise. The premise is NOT the Cosmological argument is true, the premise is that it is reasonable

Im made no comment in the reasonableness of the argument, you are simply mis-applying it. It is an argument about a first cause or mover. It is a reasonable, imo, argument for first mover/cuase. Theism, take your pick, does NOT follow from it.

Im made no comment in the reasonableness of the argument, you are simply mis-applying it. It is an argument about a first cause or mover. It is a reasonable, imo, argument for first mover/cuase. Theism, take your pick, does NOT follow from it. — DingoJones

Can there be an un-moved mover, an un-created creator, a non contingent being that is would be unreasonable to call "God"

Is the basis of what we hold as true based on science in 2018, any different than what was held as true based on science in 1718, 1818, 1918?

The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth. — Rank Amateur

In the 18th century, Mikhail Lomonosov discovered the atmosphere of Venus and the law of conservation of mass in chemical reactions.

In the 19th century, you had Ohm's Law, the Doppler effect, and electromagnetic induction.

In the 20th century, there was the third law of thermodynamics and the discovery that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies.

Don't we still have this today, in the 21st century? What was incorrect about this? What have these things been surpassed by?

It would depend on what you mean by god, but I think I see what you are getting at. You would be describing a deistic position by calling it god, not a theistic position. Theism defines god over and above a first cause/mover, it assigns one or more attributes/characteristics in addition to being the first mover.
Deism is the term to describe what I think you have in mind in this discussion, deism is what the cosmological argument does a decent job of making a case for.

Oops, firgot to tag you in that last post.

”What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
No, that's not what I meant, and I don't think that asking why there is this physical universe is a sensible or appropriate question. It's a loaded question.

.
Translation: It’s a question that S. can’t answer :D
.
Though S. believes in the “objective” existence of a physical universe that is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes—he can’t say why there is that physical universe.
.
So, “Let’s not ask why it is. It just is.” That’s called posting a brute-fact.

.

I meant that I wouldn't consider it to be a brute fact that physicalism is the case, which is to say that everything is physical, or supervenes on the physical

.
Not considering that to be a brute-fact doesn’t make it not be a brute-fact.
.

, which I thought was clear from the context where I went into detail about how I'd go about thinking about physicalism: a way which contrasts with the kind of thinking behind brute facts, where things can't be broken down or considered as thoroughly, and you just kind of go, "Everything is physical! Just because!".

.
Talking about atoms doesn’t explain your Materialist world as other than a brute-fact. Idealists don’t deny that matter is made of atoms, as I fully discussed in the earlier posts that you’re referring to.
.

”Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Yes, I do claim that. It is objectively real, existent, and actual, although I'm not sure whether that's in some way that the "hypothetical logical system" that you've described isn't, because, with due respect, I don't really understand much of what you were banging on about for that wordy first part of your reply - experience story, hypothetical this, hypothetical that, wave mechanics - which I haven't addressed because I don't even know where to begin.

.
Don’t worry about it. I assure you that you’ve said enough :D
.

The meaning of those terms - "objective", "real", "existent", "actual" - can be found in dictionaries and understood in contrast with their antonyms, so you should be capable of understanding my meaning without me having to explain it.

.
Then maybe S. should look those words up in a dictionary, so that he’ll know what he means. :D
.
As for the dictionary definitions of those words:
.
They’re all in one of two or three categories:
.
Some of them refer to attributes possessed by the hypothetical logical systems that I refer to.
.
Maybe, with some generous interpretation, some of them could be taken to indicate unspecified difference from those logical systems. That wouldn’t answer my question, because I’d asked, “Specifically, what attribute do those words connote that isn’t possessed by the logical systems that I’ve mentioned?” So, indicating unspecified difference from those systems wouldn’t answer my question.
.
Some of them refer to eachother.
.
In other words, none of the dictionary definitions answers my question. So, even if you meant one or more of those definitions, you haven’t answered the question (…but there’s no need for you to keep trying. As I said, you’ve said enough.)
.
Conversation concluded.
.
Michael Ossipoff

You also assume that morals cannot be established by non-religious people, which is a prejudice against any kind of moral system that doesn't rely on religious belief.

This is the usual "atheists are immoral" argument that fails over and over. — Christoffer

Quite an intrepretation! I truly don't have any grudge against atheists, but it seems you just assume that. I really don't know where you got the idea that I think atheists are immoral.

Anyway, I think you get my point when you agree that "philosophy is key to figuring out morals". Philosophy? Yes definately! Philosophical reasoning is very recommendable. It can be rational, perhaps even rigorously logical, but it's still philosophy. Science? Referring just to science in these matters can easily slide into scientism. To claim science as the only or primary source of human values, a traditional domain of ethics, is de facto scientism.

Perhaps my point can be confused when just thinking about religions from viewpoint of the various "Genesis" stories religions make and how science refutes that nonsense. This idea of God and deities being an invented answer to things in reality that we don't understand naturally has collided with scientific knowledge later.

However none of these has anything to do with god or religion, which claims moral truths without foundation for those claims. — Christoffer

Yet are the morals so totally different? The starting point is surely different, that we can agree. Is all religious moral thinking just plagiarized from common sense and earlier philosophy? Because should I point out that some religious thinkers have even been called philosophers. Just asking.

The cosmological argument does not have any valid conclusion in favour of the existence of god. It's not about disagreement, there's no logical conclusion, case closed. What you write here just points to you ignoring the inconsistencies about the argument in support of a god. Nothing binds the conclusion of the cosmological argument to the conclusion that god exists, that's just a wild connection with no basis in logic — Christoffer

One of the interesting facts about the state of current cosmology, is that many scientifically-inclined philosophers, or rather, scientists who philosophise, will say that one of the compelling arguments for the 'multiverse' is precisely to avoid the implications of the anthropic cosmological argument. In an article on the concept of the multiverse, George Ellis notes that this is one of the arguments frequently appealed to:

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere.

DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.

This argument is so much taken for granted that it is routinely invoked as a metaphysical argument against design, even though there can be no scientific - that is, falsifiable - evidence for it, one way or the other.

Now of course it is true that cosmological arguments don't provide any kind of empirical or scientific proof for the existence of a higher intelligence either - but to demand that kind of evidence, betrays a basic misunderstanding of the difference between metaphysics and empiricism in the first place. And that, in turn, is because a major part of Enlightenment philosophy comprises getting rid of metaphysics altogether - or at least, believing that it is possible to get rid of. But it's not, because 'no metaphysics' is actually a metaphysics - and a pretty poor one.

my knowledge that any deities the existence of which would entail a contradiction do not exist cannot rightly be called speculation about the unknown — S

The premise and conclusion from it are based on your own perspective. It is your interpretation which concludes for you that the existence of those deities would entail a contradiction. From my experience, nobody worships a dead god, which means those who believe in them have a contradicting argument.

You can't just assert that it's a choice, because that's begging the question. I don't even think that what we're talking about - obtaining belief - is something which can be chosen, so, for starters, you would need to explain why you think otherwise before moving on to more detailed talk of scientific hypotheses, probability, logic, religion, and so on. — S

The claims and statements that you express, which are based on your reason infer a choice. Reason does not just conduct itself arbitrarily. The fact that you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs in accordance with certain points of reference, especially now, when you have the capacity to understand and determine whatever actions to engage in, means you have made a choice.

Sorry, I'm not following. Can you break that down and explain it? — S

You cannot determine by logic how scientific hypothesis are much greater in probability than religious assertions when both reference points are unknown. That is, we don't know what the origin of everything is and our perspective of reality is insufficient. Also, both religion and science can be logical concerning this discussion.

What do you mean by that? How are you using the term "metaphysical"? — S

Metaphysical part of religion is the part not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically (primarily involving God).

if you happen to be the kind of person who doesn't want their beliefs exposed to scrutiny — S

I'm okay with scrutiny if it means a logical unbiased analysis not an attempt to impose personal bias on others.

And how do Gods fare with practical experience as a limiting factor? — ChatteringMonkey

Not Gods, but the human conception of Gods.

The real philosopher is the archenemy of priests and theologians. — ChatteringMonkey

No. The real philosopher studies facts in their right relation. There have been good religious philosophers in the past and the basic tenets of the major religions are good philosophical teachings. Right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool.

And how do Gods does God fare with practical experience as a limiting factor? — ChatteringMonkey

According to Christianity, by experiencing the very worst of it.

Those who seek fault find fault. If we judge the law according to miscreant law breakers or religion by the ignorant adherents, all we'll get will be flaws. Let's judge Christianity according to Jesus Christ, Islam according to Prophet Muhammad, Buddhism -> Gautama Buddha, Hinduism -> Lord Krishna, etc.

Those who seek fault find fault. — BrianW

Sorry if I hadn't made my point clear.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your personal view seems to be reminiscent of a sort of Naturalistic Evolutionary form of religion - at this point I would point you towards Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, which I find highly compelling. But I personally hold the Calvinist Foundationalist view of Sensus Divinitatus, whereby, even though it may seem organized religion is on the decline, even many of those not affiliated with any religion affirm some form of Spiritualism or Deism. It would seem deviant, by your standards then, to even affirm any form of Spiritualism, Deism, Atheism or Agnosticism, whereby it does not cohere with the group mentality of a certain society (should that be an Atheist in Rome or a Theist in China). It would then seem to me that a compulsion towards the divine, i.e. Sensus Divinitatus, is part of the human condition, whereby we seemed to be endowed with a "God tracker" of sorts within us - this may explain the phenomena of Spiritualism.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. — praxis

You might enjoy this review of Daniel Dennett's attempt to 'explain' religion in just these terms.

.
Translation: It’s a question that S. can’t answer :D
.
Though S. believes in the “objective” existence of a physical universe that is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes—he can’t say why there is that physical universe.
.
So, “Let’s not ask why it is. It just is.” That’s called posting a brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff

No, no, no. Not at all. This is a big misunderstanding on your end.

You're asking a loaded question which assumes that there's a "why" to begin with, which is controversial and needs to be justified before we go any further.

And no, please don't misrepresent my position. I haven't said that a physical universe is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes. Like I said, I don't claim to be a physicalist, I'm not convinced of physicalism, and I rarely even discuss, read up on, or consider the topic.

No. The real philosopher studies facts in their right relation. There have been good religious philosophers in the past and the basic tenets of the major religions are good philosophical teachings. Right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool. — BrianW

No they are not good philosophical teachings, with the possible exception maybe of Buddhism, they are revelation. Good philosophy starts with accurate description, not with proscription.

Those who seek fault find fault. If we judge the law according to miscreant law breakers or religion by the ignorant adherents, all we'll get will be flaws. Let's judge Christianity according to Jesus Christ, Islam according to Prophet Muhammad, Buddhism -> Gautama Buddha, Hinduism -> Lord Krishna, etc. — BrianW

Yeah sure let's not judge Christianity by how it's been practiced the last 2 millenia. Never mind that the church itself has never followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, but was build on some corrupted version by Paul.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your personal view seems to be reminiscent of a sort of Naturalistic Evolutionary form of religion - at this point I would point you towards Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, which I find highly compelling. — alsterling

An interesting and rich argument that, frankly, is beyond my depth, at least at a glance. It inspires a new thought for me though: that for theists there must be no kind of ultimate or nominal reality; what Buddha would call ‘emptiness’ or Nagal might call the ‘view from nowhere’. For the theist that conceptual space must be occupied by the mind of God, with its will and its purposes, forever beyond the comprehension of its creation, where happiness or salvation is only attained in total acceptance of this teleology. Unsurprisingly, dispite the discrepancy in metaphysics, Buddhist religion concludes with the same recommendation to achieve happiness: total acceptance.

It would seem deviant, by your standards then, to even affirm any form of Spiritualism, Deism, Atheism or Agnosticism, whereby it does not cohere with the group mentality of a certain society (should that be an Atheist in Rome or a Theist in China). — alsterling

It would not be deviant by my standards but that of the particular society.

I can’t tell from the review, being so thickly anti-Dennett.

This idea of God and deities being an invented answer to things in reality that we don't understand naturally has collided with scientific knowledge later. — ssu

William Blake's 'All Religions Are One' is a very great read.

And also William Blake's 'The Marriage Of Heaven And Hell' is extremely interesting with regard to this subject as, in the words Plato paraphrased, Poetry expresses truths of which are inaccessible to philosophy and incapable of being known and incorporated into wisdom or true knowing. Socrates, with these words, means to say that poetry has significant truths, although they are in that 'far out' mode... For a lack of better words.

The similarities between Freud and Jung with Blake is also I thinked seriously overlooked.

"The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, moutains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity. (Note: this sounds a lot like Freud's Totem and Taboo, where he discusses animism)
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of, & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounced that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.
(Reference to another work by Blake, "The true Man is the source, he being the Poetic Genius.")

Thus you have Jung.

I believe that belief in God is a poetic expression of Man's extraordinary, puzzling existence, which I think everyone is connected to an energy of life and phenomenality... And ego is an illusion. Btw

Dennett is a philosophaster. I can't stand his language.

He is a con artist of the genius who spoke of musicophilia.

RIP Oliver Sacks!