Heh. Heck no. I’m only now trying to pick up a foreign language while in university.
German. And it’s taking up a lot more of my study time than I thought it would.[/quote]
Languages always do, I am learning Norwegian right now and am on a steep learning curve (I need to start lecturing in Norwegian so that my students can understand me better). German is a good language to learn if you are majoring in any of the hard sciences.[/quote]
Are you near to any of the stave churches? Fantastic things to visit. Some of the most remarkable buildings in the world, even up against Gothic cathedrals.[/quote]
The Haltdalen is in the Sverresborg Museum here in Trondheim. Also, while not a Stave Church, the Nidaros Cathedral is here and is amazing.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I would also like to add that, of course, there are nuances throughout the above that can be debated. It can be claimed that the universe’s existence is an assumption, etc. But those kinds of tangents will be resolved by simply altering (and greatly complicating) the language of the discussion, so let’s stick to what matters re: causality.[/quote]
This was a very well done and concise criticism of causation. That not that which exists is caused necessarily. Therefore, necessarily in your example the universe is assumed to be a brute fact. Science tells us it’s not. But I am not going to take that tactic. I am not going to take on your example because I understand your point so I am going to discuss your point. That causation is an assumed brute fact of existence.
So assuming something exists uncaused what must that be by the fact it exists and must be uncaused.
First lets eliminate one potential claim, that an uncaused-noncausal entity does exist. Such a thing cannot be known. It cannot even be discussed. The reason is that once you acknowledge something like that can or does exist, it becomes causal. In that it caused us to be aware of it’s existence. It’s impossible for that to exist by implication. We cannot even ponder such a thing exists because to do so would be lending it causal properties, it then ceases to be non-causal. It cannot exist because we can postulate that it does. This very act takes away it’s potential to be non-causal and therefore cannot exist. Once we have participated in the act of acknowledging it, it has caused something to happen, which makes it causal and therefore not non-causal. Not sure that makes sense, but I not terribly interested in it, just wanted to get it out of the way.
Now to address your point, that causation is assumed and attached to existence. To answer this, we must get to the heart of what a uncased-causal entity must be to be what it is. First it must be necessarily eternal. And by eternal, I am not just talking in a temporal sense. I am talking in a multidimensional sense, be that infinite if it must. Such a thing is necessary because an uncause-causal entity cannot be constrained. Constraints are necessarily causal and therefore not applicable to an Ucaused-causal entity. This also makes it necessarily transcendent. This last part is interesting, at least to me.
An uncaused-causal entity must also be able to cause without being compelled. Meaning, that nothing as a property of itself, i.e. it being what it is, and nothing external can compel it to cause. It must cause by an act of something like a will. It has to cause without being compelled to cause or it would cease to be an uncaused entity.
So in summation for an uncaused-causal entity to be what it is, it must be eternal, transcendent, unconstrained and cause without being caused. For that reason also, only one thing can exist that is this. For there to be more than one would necessarily cause constraint on both, which would put causal forces on the other in terms of constraint or conflict which are compelling and therefore causal forces and hence rendering them to be caused. So there can only be one.
Anything else that exists, must exist for a reason, is the result of another causal force, whether that causal property be one of constraint, as the universe is constrained by the laws of nature and cannot act outside of that. It has no a demonstrative will, it follows it’s laws. Or whether the causal property is one of begetting, i.e. brought into existence by the result of a cause or series of causes. Or whether the causation is one of definition, where by if missing something of that which defines it, it cannot be what it is. It’s also why nothing physical can fit the definition of being uncaused. Physical entities have limits, and they follow their rules without breaking them. They cannot willfully break the rules. They are constrained and limited which are causal.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
When did this argument pop up again? Anyway, I like logic so I will join in. I am assuming that you are using first-order logic, which is what the cosmological argument uses. If I am mistaken, then please let me know because if you are using higher order logical arguments, then my post needs some tweaking. First, the logic of the argument is infinitely regressive. For example, assuming that 1 and 2 are true, this implies that 3 is true, but this implies that the cause of 1 exists and by 1 must itself has a cause. Only by claiming that something exists un-caused can stop the infinite regression, but this invalidates 1 and 2 and thus the entire argument is invalid.
[/quote]
Not really because the initial premises one and two establish the existence of contingent entities. It doesn’t say that ‘if it exists, it must be contingent’ Then it would contradict the conclusion of the argument. The fact that contingent entities do exist and must be the result of something else does not invalidate the point that something can be noncontingent. The whole point of the argument is to show that something noncontingent must exist.
[quote]
Now, how could 1 ever be considered a valid proposition? Because until the last hundred years or so it was, and could be proven with a strong inductive argument using what is now referred to as naive set theory. Here is a basic sketch of how such a proof would go: let A be the set of all natural numbers ( A = {1,2,3,…}) with 1 representing any event at a certain time and each successive natural number representing the cause of the event before it (this is allowable under naive set theory using first order logic but not higher order axiomatic set theories for reasons that I will explain in a moment). This can be shown by observation to hold (at the macroscopic level we have yet to find an event that cannot be contributed to a specific cause. This does not hold true for some events on sub-atomic scales). Thus by the principle of strong induction it must hold true for every event. It was arguments like this that led to the discovery of the Burali-Forti paradox (basically, this states that since a set, Q, containing all ordinal numbers, allowable under first-order naive set theory, then it has all the properties of an ordinal number and thus Q+1 is defined and is an ordinal number but this leads to the contradiction that Q+1 must already be in Q, and thus Q<Q+1 and Q+1<Q.) This was one of the catalysts that led to the development of higher order logic systems and axiomatic set theories.
*edited for translation errors.[/quote]
It’s only a problem of space and time is it not, at least as initially stated? Not a problem of contingency. Q represents a set of ordinal numbers correct? Therefore Q is defined by the ordinal set of numbers, where if one were missing, then Q would not exist.
I missed you Dr. Matt! We could have used you a while back in our discussion to clear up our weak understanding of the quantum world.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
When did this argument pop up again? Anyway, I like logic so I will join in. I am assuming that you are using first-order logic, which is what the cosmological argument uses. If I am mistaken, then please let me know because if you are using higher order logical arguments, then my post needs some tweaking. First, the logic of the argument is infinitely regressive. For example, assuming that 1 and 2 are true, this implies that 3 is true, but this implies that the cause of 1 exists and by 1 must itself has a cause. Only by claiming that something exists un-caused can stop the infinite regression, but this invalidates 1 and 2 and thus the entire argument is invalid.
Now, how could 1 ever be considered a valid proposition? Because until the last hundred years or so it was, and could be proven with a strong inductive argument using what is now referred to as naive set theory. Here is a basic sketch of how such a proof would go: let A be the set of all natural numbers ( A = {1,2,3,…}) with 1 representing any event at a certain time and each successive natural number representing the cause of the event before it (this is allowable under naive set theory using first order logic but not higher order axiomatic set theories for reasons that I will explain in a moment). This can be shown by observation to hold (at the macroscopic level we have yet to find an event that cannot be contributed to a specific cause. This does not hold true for some events on sub-atomic scales). Thus by the principle of strong induction it must hold true for every event. It was arguments like this that led to the discovery of the Burali-Forti paradox (basically, this states that since a set, Q, containing all ordinal numbers, allowable under first-order naive set theory, then it has all the properties of an ordinal number and thus Q+1 is defined and is an ordinal number but this leads to the contradiction that Q+1 must already be in Q, and thus Q<Q+1 and Q+1<Q.) This was one of the catalysts that led to the development of higher order logic systems and axiomatic set theories.
*edited for translation errors.[/quote]
I hate to be that guy, Matt, and it could be that if I look at this when the workload is not crushing me that I will understand it, but as of right now, I don’t follow in the slightest.[/quote]
Sorry, let me try to be more clear. Most of my post was explaining that the cosmological argument is based off of the premises of first order logic and naive set theory, which are known to be insufficient for this kind of argument since their proof is based on strong induction, which until recently was thought to have been proven for all first order logic (in fact, it is still taught as such in introductory logic courses) but it was shown to fail under certain conditions.
[/quote]
Limiting factors, i.e. reducing things to conditions is in itself causal.
That’s not true at all. The argument does argue for specific cause. Entities can have a specific cause, or not. The cause need not be specific. A constraint or any actant is causal.
The argument attempts to establish that contingent entities do in fact exist, not to the elimination of the noncontingent. That would be a foolish construction of a cosmological argument. I have seen this kind of thing before. It looks like a particular construction of the argument in such a way that it could be refuted, but that in essence is a strawman in that it’s not actually doing that. Dawkins did that shit in an attempt to refute it. He put up some halfassed construction of a cosmological argument that looked similar and then preceeded to dissect his own strawman.
Do you beleive that contingent entities exist or do not exist? And if not, how?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I was going to say that I don’t think 1. is necessarily a premise of most cosmological arguments.
It would’ve never gotten by “then what caused God?”
The argument does NOT rest on the premise that “Everything has a cause.”
Lots of people–probably most people who have an opinion on the matter–think that the cosmological argument goes like this: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists. They then have no trouble at all poking holes in it. If everything has a cause, then what caused God? Why assume in the first place that everything has to have a cause? Why assume the cause is God? Etc.
Here’s the funny thing, though. People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from. They never quote anyone defending it. There’s a reason for that. The reason is that none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. (Your Pastor Bob doesn’t count. I mean no one among prominent philosophers.) And yet it is constantly presented, not only by popular writers but even by some professional philosophers, as if it were “the” “basic” version of the cosmological argument, and as if every other version were essentially just a variation on it.
Don?t take my word for it. The atheist Robin Le Poidevin, in his book Arguing for Atheism (which my critic Jason Rosenhouse thinks is pretty hot stuff) begins his critique of the cosmological argument by attacking a variation of the silly argument given above–though he admits that “no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form”! So what’s the point of attacking it? Why not start instead with what some prominent defender of the cosmological argument has actually said?[/quote]
That’s fine: Substitute his preference–Everything that comes into existence has a cause–and everything is stands perfectly well. It’s just that then, the theist must also prove that the universe came into existence.
[/quote]
The theist, in this instance need only to rely on scientific cosmology which does posit a temporal beginning of the universe. We’re ‘assuming’ the universe does indeed exist, which is only evident through our potentially errant perception. And even if the universe were ‘eternal’ in a temporal sense, it does not mean uncaused, in that the fact that it is governed by the laws of nature is constrained by entropy means that it has causal factors involved and if there is even one, it cannot be uncaused.
[quote]
Edit: And the first of my propositions, that the universe must have a cause, is the big one, and is a necessary premise of the Cosmological Proof. The later everything must have a cause can be exchanged with Feser’s preferred premise, which is really just a way to allow God into the equation. But it doesn’t matter: The objection is unchanged.[/quote]
It isn’t necessary for the universe to exist for cosmology to be true.
Ah, ok. Thanks for translating. I can’t say I’m anything less than very relieved to know that you are taking the same general position, at least here, as I am.
I did try the If God exists and is uncaused then the uncaused exists line in the last thread, but it got lost in the muck.[/quote]
Yeah, sorry about that. Since I moved I haven’t been speaking English hardly at all so my skills are fading a it.[/quote]
Did you take the Camaro with you? Are you still going to fix it up?
[quote]pat wrote:
The theist, in this instance need only to rely on scientific cosmology which does posit a temporal beginning of the universe. We’re ‘assuming’ the universe does indeed exist, which is only evident through our potentially errant perception. And even if the universe were ‘eternal’ in a temporal sense, it does not mean uncaused, in that the fact that it is governed by the laws of nature is constrained by entropy means that it has causal factors involved and if there is even one, it cannot be uncaused.
[/quote]
The emboldened portion is unfounded. From the true proposition that things seem to be caused within the universe and now, it does not follow that the universe must have been caused.
More importantly: The universe must have a cause. This is where we left off, and it very much is the crux of the argument. Your proof hinged on a variation of ex nihilo nihil fit, which, for the reasons I laid out in my first post, does not address the issue, because it attacks the strawman (and, you’re right, nonsensical) proposition that [nothing] caused the universe.
The proposition against which you must do battle is not [nothing] caused the universe, but instead that the universe does not have a cause–and this latter proposition is not bothered by [nothing] and its inability to be a cause of [anything]–because it denies that that [anything] requires a cause in the first place.
In other words, ex nihilo nihil fit actually means to say nothing causes nothing, and is thus not a defense of the principle of causality, because it assumes the principle of causality.
If you can formulate an argument against ~[the universe must have a cause] which doesn’t suppose its conclusion in the way that ex nihilo does, I am very interested to see it.
By the way, it should be noted that when Craig comes to this point in the debate, he simply jumps ship. “At this point, the objection to the causal principle is no longer to be taken seriously,” or some other such piffle. But if he were truly able to do what he, in error, believes that he can do, then he wouldn’t need to resort to knocking over the chess pieces.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it should be noted that when Craig comes to this point in the debate, he simply jumps ship. “At this point, the objection to the causal principle is no longer to be taken seriously,” or some other such piffle. But if he were truly able to do what he, in error, believes that he can do, then he wouldn’t need to resort to knocking over the chess pieces.[/quote]
Interesting observation. Even as a non believer I enjoy this thread because I learn stuff from both sides about the arguments. What we are arguing about in 2014 was argued about in 1914, 1814, 1714, etc. And we still don’t have definitive proof of either side!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it should be noted that when Craig comes to this point in the debate, he simply jumps ship. “At this point, the objection to the causal principle is no longer to be taken seriously,” or some other such piffle. But if he were truly able to do what he, in error, believes that he can do, then he wouldn’t need to resort to knocking over the chess pieces.[/quote]
Interesting observation. Even as a non believer I enjoy this thread because I learn stuff from both sides about the arguments. What we are arguing about in 2014 was argued about in 1914, 1814, 1714, etc. And we still don’t have definitive proof of either side! [/quote]
Yeah man it really is the eternal question. Been on my mind for a very long time.
[quote]pat wrote:
The theist, in this instance need only to rely on scientific cosmology which does posit a temporal beginning of the universe. We’re ‘assuming’ the universe does indeed exist, which is only evident through our potentially errant perception. And even if the universe were ‘eternal’ in a temporal sense, it does not mean uncaused, in that the fact that it is governed by the laws of nature is constrained by entropy means that it has causal factors involved and if there is even one, it cannot be uncaused.
[/quote]
The emboldened portion is unfounded. From the true proposition that things seem to be caused within the universe and now, it does not follow that the universe must have been caused.
[/quote]
If something follows a governing principle that principle or law is a governing factor and therefore causal. I hope we don’t have to belabor the point as to what causation is and is not.
No, lets be clear that you brought up the universe. I have always maintained that the universe need not exist for cosmology to be true. And whether the universe exists eternally, or has a finite beginning (which is the primary thought), it cannot exist for no reason. The universe as we know it is rife with causation. If the universe’s existence be true and what we see and can reason about it is true causation is everywhere. The universe does function on the basis of natural law it’s the only way we can make sense out of it. But again, if the universe exists eternally, that does not beget it exists for no reason.
I thought we just covered that?? Why are you asking again? The universe does not definitionally fit in what an uncaused-causing entity must be. It itself, is subjective to the laws that govern it. The is empirically evident by what is known about the universe.
The universe does have a cause, the cause of it need not be God directly, but existence itself does need an Uncaused-causer.
It’s by necessity an Uncaused-causer must be, the universe does not fit that definition. It follows natural law. That itself is causal.
[quote]
In other words, ex nihilo nihil fit actually means to say nothing causes nothing, and is thus not a defense of the principle of causality, because it assumes the principle of causality.
If you can formulate an argument against ~[the universe must have a cause] which doesn’t suppose its conclusion in the way that ex nihilo does, I am very interested to see it.[/quote]
I’ll dig one up from google if you’d like. I don’t feel like reinventing the wheel. Feel free to present an argument that the universe is a brute fact that requires no cause.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it should be noted that when Craig comes to this point in the debate, he simply jumps ship. “At this point, the objection to the causal principle is no longer to be taken seriously,” or some other such piffle. But if he were truly able to do what he, in error, believes that he can do, then he wouldn’t need to resort to knocking over the chess pieces.[/quote]
Well, I have seen him do both, it depends on the debate he is having as to whether he will qualify it. He has a point in that causation is largely agreed upon by all sides of these arguments. What it is and that nothing that exists lacks possession of it save for the Uncaused-cause itself. It’s because of what an uncaused-causing entity must be all else exists for a reason.
The reason for that is because at the level in which he speaks, these are elementary principles that is taught and learned very early on in the discipline.
[quote]pat wrote:
I’ll dig one up from google if you’d like. I don’t feel like reinventing the wheel. Feel free to present an argument that the universe is a brute fact that requires no cause. [/quote]
I will wait for the argument.
More importantly: As I have said many, many, many times, I am not arguing the proposition that the universe does not have a cause. I am arguing that the proposition that the universe does not have a cause is an assumption, exactly like its negation, and cannot be disproved without fallacy and/or assumptive maxims, and have thus far been correct in that it absolutely has not been disproved.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it should be noted that when Craig comes to this point in the debate, he simply jumps ship. “At this point, the objection to the causal principle is no longer to be taken seriously,” or some other such piffle. But if he were truly able to do what he, in error, believes that he can do, then he wouldn’t need to resort to knocking over the chess pieces.[/quote]
Well, I have seen him do both, it depends on the debate he is having as to whether he will qualify it. He has a point in that causation is largely agreed upon by all sides of these arguments. What it is and that nothing that exists lacks possession of it save for the Uncaused-cause itself. It’s because of what an uncaused-causing entity must be all else exists for a reason.
The reason for that is because at the level in which he speaks, these are elementary principles that is taught and learned very early on in the discipline. [/quote]
You are simply talking in circles. Argument by assertion is far, far too rife in this debate. If Craig or anybody else has ever proved that the universe must have a cause, then please, by all means, show me. He only ever jumps ship when he’s challenged–not because it’s too simple, but because he simply can’t go any further.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it should be noted that when Craig comes to this point in the debate, he simply jumps ship. “At this point, the objection to the causal principle is no longer to be taken seriously,” or some other such piffle. But if he were truly able to do what he, in error, believes that he can do, then he wouldn’t need to resort to knocking over the chess pieces.[/quote]
Interesting observation. Even as a non believer I enjoy this thread because I learn stuff from both sides about the arguments. What we are arguing about in 2014 was argued about in 1914, 1814, 1714, etc. And we still don’t have definitive proof of either side! [/quote]
Yeah man it really is the eternal question. Been on my mind for a very long time.[/quote]
Doesn’t mean you don’t ask them. Doesn’t mean we don’t have an answer. We actually do have answers, we don’t have consensus and that is different.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it should be noted that when Craig comes to this point in the debate, he simply jumps ship. “At this point, the objection to the causal principle is no longer to be taken seriously,” or some other such piffle. But if he were truly able to do what he, in error, believes that he can do, then he wouldn’t need to resort to knocking over the chess pieces.[/quote]
Well, I have seen him do both, it depends on the debate he is having as to whether he will qualify it. He has a point in that causation is largely agreed upon by all sides of these arguments. What it is and that nothing that exists lacks possession of it save for the Uncaused-cause itself. It’s because of what an uncaused-causing entity must be all else exists for a reason.
The reason for that is because at the level in which he speaks, these are elementary principles that is taught and learned very early on in the discipline. [/quote]
You are simply talking in circles. Argument by assertion is far, far too rife in this debate. If Craig or anybody else has ever proved that the universe must have a cause, then please, by all means, show me. He only ever jumps ship when he’s challenged–not because it’s too simple, but because he simply can’t go any further.
[/quote]
The universe, which you not me, brought up is a factor of the conditions that make it up. That is conditional that is causal.
The physical universe is the factor of the stuff in it. That is not an ex nihilo existence. The laws that govern the are eternal and they are not the Uncaused-causing entities either.
The universe is governed and hence caused. It doesn’t do whatever it wants. It follows the rules to the exact letter.