the cosmological argument is nonsense.

[kevin]

lol

unkle E, its all one topic.

[kevin]

This reasoning always seems to lead to the next step, when theism says, obviously the universe had to have a cause (it can't be eternal), and obviously God does not need a cause, being eternal.

And...we're.....back.....where.....we..... started

the whole thing boils down to whether or not an infinite regress is possible. all the cosmological formulations are pointed towards asserting that it is not, because if an infinite regress is impossible, then all things in the universe can be argued to depend on some sort of original force.

if an infinite regress is possible, as i assert, then there ate two possibilities, and one of them is that the original force is unnecessary.

[Kiahanie]

••••

I agree with you, I too think we need to look holistically. That in fact is the topic of the new discussion I plan to start. I just didn't want to go too far off topic.

I also would be interested in discussing a holistic non-Newtonian approach.

[kevin]

well shoot

here it is

https://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,64815.msg885175.html#msg885175

[kevin]

2. The formal statement of an argument is just the bare bones. A good philosopher wouldn't make assumptions, though the bare bones might give that impression. But having stated the argument, the philsopher would then try to justify each premise from evidence and reason. Apparently Aquinas has hundreds of pages where he supports his arguments, though I don't know how much he supports the matter you object to. So you'd have to read all of that if you want to continue to say he assumes. I don't think it's worth the effort. I think we should accept what Edward Feser says at this point, but you may wish to read a whole bunch of Aquinas!

i dont need to read hundreds of pages of aquinas to see that his logic is unsound. its crystal clear. he already believed in a finite universe, and considers a proof superfluous. but it doesnt work that way. in deductive logic, your premises support your conclusions, or they do not.

aquinas is not a good source for sound logic, and believing him based on his reputation is the classic error in the rhetorical argument from authority.

aquinas was NOT an authority in this matter. he was simply wrong.

[Francis]

Sorry for the late response. I've been busy with moving... plus I've been sick the last few days.

And Thirdly, even the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem supports and proves that the universe is finite and not eternal. This theorem was developed by three leading and well respected cosmologists (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).

"Proves," you say?

Yes. The theorem proves what the theorem set out to test/theorize. It proved that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Indeed, as Vilenkin (an agnostic theoretical physicist) has said, the theorem is so simple, that it does not use anything beyond high school mathematics.
[Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), pp.174-76.]

If there is nothing beyond that boundary, then that is the beginning of the universe... but if there is something on the other side of that boundary, then that will be something that has yet to be discovered in quantum gravity... and if discovered, then that would be the beginning of the universe.  No matter what, the universe has a beginning.

Well this is news because just doing a simple google search on the matter they all say "they don't know."

-what words did you use in the simple google search?
-who is "they all"?
-and what is it that they don't know?

I would gently suggest that the confusion stems from detractors not really understanding what the theorem was proving to start with.

We've had this discussion before.  If the past is eternal... without beginning... then we wouldn't have reached OCE at all, let alone today.

The fact is we exist.

And I think that fact proves that the past is not eternal/infinite.

How that came to be is a mystery.

I respectfully suggest that the God theory is the best explanation and answer to that mystery.

However, regarding this time frame, time scale...

At the time 1CE scheme was devised in 525CE, the christian monk who devised the new scheme thought the universe was only a few thousand years old.

He had absolutely no clue of the true age of the universe and yet he managed to designate 1AD, which we still use today regardless of our current knowledge that the christian was off almost 14 billion years. .

It simply does not matter how far back you set the time since 1AD is A FIXED POINT. It will never change even if the universe started 6000 years ago, 1 million, 14 billion, 200 trilliion or infinity.

See how that works?

No. I respectfully suggest that you missed the point entirely.  You still don't explain how can any fixed point be arrived at if the past was infinite.

Seriously, I would like to hear your explanation. I'm genuinely curious to know what your reasoning is.

But I'm using your logic and reasoning and examples.

You were the one who repeatedly mentions this:

"whether you are or are not a brain in a vat or an avatar on a space aliens' laptop"

Yes, and that above statement of mine logically follows from your claim in post #162 that: "so long as the probability isn't zero then chance/luck are just as valid an explanation".

So using your logic and reasoning, I said in Post #168: "so long as the probability isn't zero then chance/luck are just as valid an explanation"... can't we say the same about whether you exist... and whether you are or are not a brain in a vat or an avatar on a space aliens' laptop?  As long as the probability isn't zero that you are a brain in a vat or an avatar,  then isn't the chance of you being an avatar or a brain in a vat, a valid explanation for your existence?"

That was the whole point and reason for the sentence of mine that you quoted above.

Like I said, you're free to imagine anything and even believe them to be true if you wish.

You said that in Post #183.. which is why I said in Post #188 that I was doing nothing more than simply using your logic and reasoning and examples.

but on answering the tough intellectual question of what best explains and makes best sense of the evidence of the world and the universe....

The evidence is still limited or lacking, therefore to conclude that you are correct in your preference for your god is premature to say the least.

But that doesn't mean a rational reasonable opinion/belief can't be reached. You don't need absolute certainty in order to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

We've gone through this before. I'm respectfully suggesting that theism is a far more reasonable explanation and inference from all the available evidence before each of us.

You disagree with me, and I disagree with you. But contrary opinions can't be equally correct... and an example of that is that we both agree that while it is logically possible that you are a brain in a vat (the probability isn't zero after all), no one thinks that possibility is as valid and reasonable as the idea that you are a real biological person.   Hence this forum and this discussion.

I'm not trying to prove i'm right. Instead, I'm here to understand other people's opinions and to make friends and relationships.

Hope you and your family are doing well.




IMPORTANT:

8livesleft, I don't think you're having fun with this discussion.  It's kinda dragging and draining. What I'm really interested in is understanding how you think a fixed point in history can arrive in history if the past was infinite.  You never explain how that is logically possible.  I see the arrival of fixed point in history as proof that the past is not infinite and has a beginning.  You say otherwise.  Can you pretend i'm a 7 year old and explain it to me?

Thanks in advance.

[Kiahanie]

Logic is really only useful if it is tied to reality. When logic is applied to unrealities it reproduces the nonsense it began with.

[kevin]

if a number line extends infinitely to the negative, and infinitely to the positive, how can there ever be a number four?

[Kiahanie]

if a number line extends infinitely to the negative, and infinitely to the positive, how can there ever be a number four?

There really is not a "number 4". That is merely a convention representing this 🌎🌎🌎🌎 many.

Choose a reference point as 0. Then count that 🌎🌎🌎🌎 many.

[Maria-Juana]

Logic is really only useful if it is tied to reality. When logic is applied to unrealities it reproduces the nonsense it began with.

Pardon me for interrupting, but this is so true!

May I borrow it?
Please.

[unkleE]

leibinz's argument fails, just as aquinas's did. buts its just a restatement of tbe old premise, anything that exists began to exist . . .

Hi Kevin,

I don't want to sound like a cracked record, but "begins to exist" is not the same as "reason for existence". You may disbelieve in both propositions but they are still not the same.

Even if the universe has always existed, which I doubt for reasons that I have given (entropy and counting) and I don't believe have been rebutted yet, it is still reasonable, natural and human to ask why it exists. Explaining things is really the basis for science as well as detective work, history, etc.

So I still say, not being able to give a reason for the universe makes the "no-God" or "don't know" hypothesis less likely than the "God" hypothesis.

so both aquinas and lebeinze fail in tbeir argument, by assuming first movers or causes in order to prove first movers or causes.

But they don't ASSUME first movers. The premise is "Anything which exists has an explanation of its existence in the necessity of its nature or in an external cause." sometimes known as "The Principle of Sufficient Reason". So they have to show why they believe that premise to be true and you have to show why you don't.

The Principle can't be proven or disproven, so it is a matter of probabilities. The argument supporting the Principle is that everything we know of in the universe as a reason for its existence. Even a quantum event exists because there is a fluctuation in a quantum field. So it isn't unreasonable to argue that the universe as a whole has a reason for its existence also. Especially as scientists believe that the universal properties are the same everywhere, and this is confirmed so far by observation. You say the Principle may not apply to the whle universe, but have you any reason to think that? I can't think of any beyond uncertainty. So surely it is at least somewhat more likely that the Principle is true than that it isn't?

similarly, the idea that because everything we see at our small scale appears to have a cause then everything in tbe universe must behave similarly is not proven or even justified.

So again, surely the fact that EVERYTHING else that we know conforms to the Principle of Sufficient reason makes it more justifed than denying it? Remember, all I am affirming is probability.

[Kiahanie]

Logic is really only useful if it is tied to reality. When logic is applied to unrealities it reproduces the nonsense it began with.

Pardon me for interrupting, but this is so true!

May I borrow it?
Please.

Sure. No licensing fee for IGI folk. Feel free to improve it.

[8livesleft]

What I'm really interested in is understanding how you think a fixed point in history can arrive in history if the past was infinite.  You never explain how that is logically possible.  I see the arrival of fixed point in history as proof that the past is not infinite and has a beginning.  You say otherwise.  Can you pretend i'm a 7 year old and explain it to me?

I'm looking at this from a practical and fact-based standpoint. And the facts are that; 

1. we don't know when exactly the beginning of the universe is. it is all speculation at this point. 

2. we do know that year 1 of this era was proposed in 525 CE and was accepted by mankind as the starting point.

3. to get to any year prior or past year one, you simply add or deduct the years to year 1

4. you are 7 years old, so you were born 2016 years after year 1 CE. 

[Maria-Juana]

Logic is really only useful if it is tied to reality. When logic is applied to unrealities it reproduces the nonsense it began with.

Pardon me for interrupting, but this is so true!

May I borrow it?
Please.

Sure. No licensing fee for IGI folk. Feel free to improve it.

"Logic is really only useful if it is tied to reality. When logic is applied to unrealities it reproduces the nonsense it began with."

[Francis]

What I'm really interested in is understanding how you think a fixed point in history can arrive in history if the past was infinite.  You never explain how that is logically possible.  I see the arrival of fixed point in history as proof that the past is not infinite and has a beginning.  You say otherwise.  Can you pretend i'm a 7 year old and explain it to me?

I'm looking at this from a practical and fact-based standpoint. And the facts are that;

1. we don't know when exactly the beginning of the universe is. it is all speculation at this point.

2. we do know that year 1 of this era was proposed in 525 CE and was accepted by mankind as the starting point.

3. to get to any year prior or past year one, you simply add or deduct the years to year 1

4. you are 7 years old, so you were born 2016 years after year 1 CE.

I'm still not seeing it.  How does your above explanation and facts logically prove that the past is infinite?  If the past was infinite, how did we arrive at 525CE to begin with?  How did we arrive at any year prior or after 525CE?  How did we arrive at 2016 if the past was infinite?  How did you become born if the past was infinite?   how could your parents have ever existed and met and created you if the past was infinite?  How did we arrive at year 1CE if the past was infinite?

Your explanation does nothing  to prove that the past is infinite.

I apologize for being dense.

Hope you and your family are doing well

[Francis]

Logic is really only useful if it is tied to reality. When logic is applied to unrealities it reproduces the nonsense it began with.

And I think an infinite past is one of those unrealities and which is why 8livesleft seems unable to use logic to prove that the past is infinite.

8liveslefts seems to believe that an infinite past is a reality, and so I will continue to respectfully wait for 8liveslefts' logical argumentation that will logically prove that the past is infinite.

Hope you and your family are doing well

[Francis]

if a number line extends infinitely to the negative, and infinitely to the positive, how can there ever be a number four?

Hi Kevin,

How does a number 4 on a number line logically prove that the number line extends infinitely to the negative in actual reality... beyond and outside of the imagination of a human brain?

8livesleft's apparent premise and belief is that time has an actual infinite past.  Sorry for being dense, but your example appears to beg the question... because how do you logically prove that the kind of number line you cite, exists in reality, to begin with?

I think another part of the difficulty with the example you give, is the relationship between the object (concept, idea, time, number line) and the person.  a person is outside of a number line and can imagine a number line as if they are outside of it.  But to bring your example closer to the example/concept of time in discussion... which is that we humans are physically in time... we then would have to be "in" or on the number line physically... so maybe think of it this way.  Let's suppose you stand on the number 4.  Now, if the number line extends infinitely into the negative or the past... how would we ever reach 4 (you) if there is no beginning... but we wanted to start at beginning?   Sorry for not being a wordsmith.

Hope you and your family are doing well

[kevin]

How does a number 4 on a number line logically prove that the number line extends infinitely to the negative in actual reality... beyond and outside of the imagination of a human brain?

hi francis.

it does not. number lines are infinite, by definition.

if you take the number 4 as corresponding to present time-- today-- then by your argument the number 4 cannot exist.

all natural numbers are generated by adding 1 to the previous number.  because the number line extends infinitely back, by definition, you are asserting that any particular number is impossible.

the number 4, for example, corresponding to today.

Now, if the number line extends infinitely into the negative or the past... how would we ever reach 4 (you) if there is no beginning... but we wanted to start at beginning?

you would do so by assuming a beginning, like aquinas and lebeinz.

[Kiahanie]

Logic is really only useful if it is tied to reality. When logic is applied to unrealities it reproduces the nonsense it began with.

And I think an infinite past is one of those unrealities and which is why 8livesleft seems unable to use logic to prove that the past is infinite.

8liveslefts seems to believe that an infinite past is a reality, and so I will continue to respectfully wait for 8liveslefts' logical argumentation that will logically prove that the past is infinite.

Hope you and your family are doing well

Why do you not believe in an infinite past? When was your god before the BigBang?

[Shnozzola]

For those that think we can't have an infinite past, do you think we can have an infinite future, and ways (definitions) that could happen?

[kevin]

For those that think we can't have an infinite past, do you think we can have an infinite future, and ways (definitions) that could happen?

 yes. remember the argument on this with gilgamesh, schnozz? you were in that.

he denied the first but accepted the second. you can make tbe cosmological argument work in just that way by re-fini g movers/changers/causes etc.

[8livesleft]

For those that think we can't have an infinite past, do you think we can have an infinite future, and ways (definitions) that could happen?

Damn good question

Interestingly, those here who can't accept an infinite past are perfectly fine with an infinite future.

The fuzzy logic is, all things MUST have a beginning.

Well, I'll add another fuzzy thought: All beginnings MUST come to an end. 

[8livesleft]

How does your above explanation and facts logically prove that the past is infinite?

I'm not out to prove anything. I'm supposedly talking to a 7 year old on how "today" (time, date, year) came to be based on the only facts we know and it's got nothing to do with what happened prior to 1CE. 

How did we arrive at year 1CE if the past was infinite?

Because a monk that existed at 525CE said "hey, let's designate 525 years ago as year 1." And everyone apparently agreed.

Again, it has nothing to do with what occurred prior, although at the time, the monk likely believed the universe was just a few thousand years old. 

Now, that doesn't say if there was or wasn't a specific universal beginning. I'm just telling you what actually did happen.




Since you're interested:

"Moreover, they pinpoint the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years old--give or take 200 million years"

So, I ask, what difference would it make to today if the universe was 200 million years younger or older?

Or say, 500 million, 1 billion, trillion, 5000 trillion years older?

[unkleE]

For those that think we can't have an infinite past, do you think we can have an infinite future, and ways (definitions) that could happen?

I don't think we can ever have an infinite future, because no matter how long it goes on for, it will always be finite. To me, your question demonstrates why we couldn't have an infinite past.

Why do you not believe in an infinite past? When was your god before the BigBang?

The logic of the Cosmological argument is that there are only two possibilities for the reason the universe exists. (1) There is no reason and no cause. (2) There was a cause but it was not non-material and non-temporal.

The universe, i.e. anything physical, is material and temporal so can't be the explanation. Neither could a material or temporal God. QED, God must not be temporal. Thus the question "when was he/she" is meaningless - worth asking but not meaningful - because God isn't in time, but transcends time.

[kevin]

hi unkle E

leibinz's argument fails, just as aquinas's did. buts its just a restatement of tbe old premise, anything that exists began to exist . . .

Hi Kevin,

I don't want to sound like a cracked record, but "begins to exist" is not the same as "reason for existence". You may disbelieve in both propositions but they are still not the same.

Even if the universe has always existed, which I doubt for reasons that I have given (entropy and counting) and I don't believe have been rebutted yet, it is still reasonable, natural and human to ask why it exists. Explaining things is really the basis for science as well as detective work, history, etc.

its hard for me to keep up with multi-thread-conversations, unkle E. i work 10 to 12 hours per day, and too many questions at once mean that stuff gets skipped. im way behind you here.

So I still say, not being able to give a reason for the universe makes the "no-God" or "don't know" hypothesis less likely than the "God" hypothesis.

so both aquinas and lebeinze fail in tbeir argument, by assuming first movers or causes in order to prove first movers or causes.

But they don't ASSUME first movers. The premise is "Anything which exists has an explanation of its existence in the necessity of its nature or in an external cause." sometimes known as "The Principle of Sufficient Reason". So they have to show why they believe that premise to be true and you have to show why you don't.

here is where leibinz assumes a finite universe, unkle E:

But Aquinas' and Leinbiz's arguments don't depend on a beginning (and I don't think they necessarily thought the universe had a beginning). Leibniz's argument is:  (1) The universe exists. (2) Anything which exists has an explanation of its existence in the necessity of its nature or in an external cause. (3) Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence. (4) If the universe has an explanation, that explanation must be God. (5) Therefore God exists and is the explanation. I have discussed these premises in The Cosmological Argument (about a third down the page).

notice that while lebinz uses the word "explanation," he makes it clear that he is equating explanaton with cause." that is what he says. he doesnt use the word "explnaton" as a term describing "ustification." he uses it as a term describing an active agent that applies a force to "cause" something to exist. th ecause is the explantion for the existence--not the rationale, not the philosophy underlying it, but the unmoved mover that applies a motive force to make something exist where it did not so exist without the application of the motive force.

now i dont know what language leibinz wrote in, and how much has been lost in translation, but anytime someone says something has been "caused," they are dividing the subject into before-caused and after-caused. not necessarilly in time, but certainly in th esense of a finiite series as we are discussing here.

by using the word "cause" leibinz has assumed a finite system with a beginning in the argument you quoted.

maybe he meant something else? but leibinz was a sloppy thinker, as i will point out in th enext post, so its hard to tell.

The Principle can't be proven or disproven, so it is a matter of probabilities. The argument supporting the Principle is that everything we know of in the universe as a reason for its existence. Even a quantum event exists because there is a fluctuation in a quantum field. So it isn't unreasonable to argue that the universe as a whole has a reason for its existence also. Especially as scientists believe that the universal properties are the same everywhere, and this is confirmed so far by observation. You say the Principle may not apply to the whle universe, but have you any reason to think that? I can't think of any beyond uncertainty. So surely it is at least somewhat more likely that the Principle is true than that it isn't?

no it isnt more likely. the best that can be said is that we dont know what the probabilities are, and therefore we cant say.

consider the metaphr of a jar of water, unkle E. water is a fluid, changes its shape to fit the container, is incompressible, has a certain boling and melting temperature, refracts light is a certain way, and so on. every particle of water we analyze in the jar shows exactly the same characteristics, over and over. it is a universally held truism that the water is a know quantity with known behaviours.

and what about the jar? is th ejar a fluid? does it have a malleable shape? are its melting and boiling points the same as the water it contain? isthere very much of anything that we can say about the jar by studying the water inside it?

i suggest that the answer i mostly no. knowing all about water tells you nothing about the jar that contains it. and similarly, knowing everything about the contents of the universe tells us very little about the unuverse itself. knowing that what w see in our own lives appears to have a cause tells us noting about the universe itself has a cause, and we're way out on a limb to think so.

that is my opinion, anyway.

similarly, the idea that because everything we see at our small scale appears to have a cause then everything in tbe universe must behave similarly is not proven or even justified.

So again, surely the fact that EVERYTHING else that we know conforms to the Principle of Sufficient reason makes it more justifed than denying it? Remember, all I am affirming is probability.

only if you are prepared to assert that the nature of water explains the nature of jars.

[kevin]

by the way, unkle E, here is leibinz himself issuing self contradictins in his priciple of sufficient reason:

32. And that of sufficient reason, by virtue of which we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise, although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us. (G VI, 612/L 646)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#:~:text=The%20Principle%20of%20Sufficient%20Reason,in%20the%20history%20of%20philosophy.

do you see the strange error in this statement?

leibinz states that we can find no true or existent fact etc without there being a sufficient reason . . .

wait for it . . .

 ". . . although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us."

in this strange assertion, leibinz states that his thesis is proven by evidence that does not exist.

so i ithink there is a hole in leibinz's argument., at least as presented here.

but i think this catches us up to entropy and counting?

[Kiahanie]

••••

Why do you not believe in an infinite past? When was your god before the BigBang?

The logic of the Cosmological argument is that there are only two possibilities for the reason the universe exists. (1) There is no reason and no cause. (2) There was a cause but it was not non-material and non-temporal.

I will assume your reason/cause includes the emergence of new processes from existing processes. I suggest in this context there is at a third possibility:
(3) the material and/or temporal composition of the omniverse (whatever "existed" "before" the BigBang) is unknown. Obviously.

So far I see no reason a theist could not do a cosmological argument in a universe that is primarily process.

But probably not this way.

The universe, i.e. anything physical, is material and temporal so can't be the explanation.

I assume you are using your previous all-inclusive definition of the universe, which I am calling the omniverse.

Unless you are postulating the omniverse to be material and temporal, this goes way beyond observation or logic and requires some supporting discussion, preferably reality-based.

The assertion "so can't be the explanation" does not follow and is unsupported. Is that an axiom? Postulate?

Neither could a material or temporal God.

That is not intuitively obvious. Is that another axiom?

QED, God must not be temporal.

Given the weak support for the postulates, the QED needs more support than the mere statement,

Thus the question "when was he/she" is meaningless - worth asking but not meaningful - because God isn't in time, but transcends time.

This sounds more like defining your god than discussing the properties of our universe or omniverse. Are you using a definition as a conclusion?

I dunno. Too many loose ends.

I do not mind at all if theists locate their god somehere/somewhen in the omniverse other than here. Would seem to qualify by your standards: the omniverse certainly transcends our time, and we do not know whether or where it is temporal and/or material or spatial, except here in our local universe.

Seems like having a god in another universe would be consistent with a process view of our reality.

[unkleE]

its hard for me to keep up with multi-thread-conversations, unkle E. i work 10 to 12 hours per day, and too many questions at once mean that stuff gets skipped. im way behind you here.

I'm retired and it's hard for me to keep track too! 

here is where leibinz assumes a finite universe, unkle E:

Look, I don't know what Leibniz assumed, but I'm told by philosphers that he didn't assume because it wasn't relevant. But let's leave that aside.

I DON'T ASSUME A NON-ETERNAL UNIVERSE.

My argument didn't mention a beginning. It refers to an explanation. I'll give you an example. Suppose a book has been stacked on another book for all eternity. (I don't think that is possible, but let's hypothesise because you currently think it is possible.) There never was a beginning for these two books. The top one is resting 4 cm above the desk. We can legitimately ask why is that book 4 cm above the desk and we can answer because it's resting on another book. There is an explanation, and one could argue there is a cause. BUT THERE IS NO BEGINNING.

So I think you have to stop saying that asking for a reason assumes a beginning.

So I go back to my fundamentals.

Something that has no explanation and explains nothing is a poorer hypothesis than something which does. Everything in this universe has a reason for its existence, so the proposition that the universe has a reason for its existence too is surely more likely (even if only a little more) than the idea that universe departs from all that. These "facts" make the cosmological argument effective in indicating that the God hypothesis is at least a little more probable than the no-God hypothesis.

I think those are the issues that I think need to be discussed.

[unkleE]

I suggest in this context there is at a third possibility:
(3) the material and/or temporal composition of the omniverse (whatever "existed" "before" the BigBang) is unknown. Obviously.

Hi Kiahanie,

Yes, it is unknown, since knowledge means certainty. None of us here can be absolutely certain either way, I think we all agree on that. So it is a matter of probability. What is more probable?

I assume you are using your previous all-inclusive definition of the universe, which I am calling the omniverse.
Unless you are postulating the omniverse to be material and temporal, this goes way beyond observation or logic and requires some supporting discussion, preferably reality-based.

Yes, I'll try to use your terminology here, sorry. Are you suggesting that the omniverse ISN'T material and temporal? I don't think you are, but let's just address it. Everything we know or think about the omniverse is either (1) what we know about our universe and (2) what theoretical physics has postulated. Both of those are based on both universe and omniverse being both material and temporal. I think that is sufficient basis.

The assertion "so can't be the explanation" does not follow and is unsupported. Is that an axiom? Postulate?

A conclusion, based on the definition of the omniverse as everything that is material and temporal. Unless something can cause itself and be the expanation of itself, then the omniverse can't logically be the cause of itself. (Philosophers define a class of objects that can be self-explanatory, and they call them necessary entities - they exist and they couldn't have not existed and couldn't have been different. But the omniverse, is generally considered not to be that, because it could have been different.)

That is not intuitively obvious. Is that another axiom?

If nothing temporal can explain the omniverse, then a temporal God cannot. But if you wanted to suggest that it could, I'd be quite happy! 

Given the weak support for the postulates, the QED needs more support than the mere statement,

I think infinity in time is an erroneous idea. Consider.

(1) We could start counting now and we'd never count to infinity, because counting always produces a finite number. (You can never go from zillion^zillion to Zillion^zillion + 1 to infinity, only to zillion^zillion +2, etc.)
(2) If you can't count from any finite number to infinity, then neither can you count back from infinity to a finite number, or from a finte number to negative infinity.
(3) Therefore infinite time is impossible.
(4) Therefore the only way something can have always existed is for it to be timeless.
(5) The omniverse isn't timeless, so it couldn't have always existed.
(6) It seems reasonable to postulate that a timeless God has always existed as a necessary being, and is the only possible explanation for the universe. Nothing else makes sense, so unlikely and unpalatable as it may be, this is the only explanation on offer.

I don't think that the Cosmological argument "proves God", but I think it shows that other explanations have enough problems to make them improbable.

[Novice]

I don't think we can ever have an infinite future, because no matter how long it goes on for, it will always be finite.

What is the reason for this? When God is assumed, can't human beings be eternal as well? Will God discard human beings once their usefulness is over?