[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]
No, it’s not. There is a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition. Neither is an assumption. The universe either does have a cause, or it does not. There is no inbetween, no third option. One maxim is right and one is wrong.
Because the proposition is correct or incorrect it cannot be an assumption. There is no leap of faith, no probably, kinda maybe, it’s either right or it’s wrong.
Again, you cannot merely blurt out words without qualification and expect that to be a claim.
The only assumption here is ‘the universe’. Once you cross the line and accept that it exists, then what you say about it are not assumptions.
[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]
No, it’s not. There is a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition. Neither is an assumption. The universe either does have a cause, or it does not. There is no inbetween, no third option. One maxim is right and one is wrong.
Because the proposition is correct or incorrect it cannot be an assumption. There is no leap of faith, no probably, kinda maybe, it’s either right or it’s wrong.
Again, you cannot merely blurt out words without qualification and expect that to be a claim.
The only assumption here is ‘the universe’. Once you cross the line and accept that it exists, then what you say about it are not assumptions.[/quote]
Are you kidding, Pat? Of course it can be an assumption. That there is an answer does not mean that we know and can prove the answer; if we don’t know it, or can’t know it, and choose one way or another as best we can, then our choice is an assumption.
But lets cut right to it. Can you formulate an a priori negation of ~[the universe must have a cause] that is neither fallacious nor assumptive? The last one committed the ex nihilo blunder. I await a new one. But know that there is a great reason that Craig dodges it. It’s just that he’s not honest enough to own up to that reason.
Edit: And I’m sure you understand that when I call it an assumption, I’m not calling it untrue. It is an assumption. Maybe it’s correct. Maybe it isn’t. There is an answer–but nobody’s come within a ten miles of offering that answer in this debate.
[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.[/quote]
If you can indeed disprove ~[the universe must have a cause], then I am interested to see it.
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]
I seem to have missed the entire first thread’s worth of discussion on the topic. If you want to bring up the part about quantum effects (either in a quote or paraphrase) I would be more then happy to give my input. Anyway, things are calming down now that the wife and I are settled in and picking up the language so I will be posting more (I also remember exactly where we left off in our e-mails too). I did bring the Camaro with me, but my work on it has stalled for now with the move. My wife got herself one of those new Teslas that is actually pretty amazing, so I might get me one too.
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]
I seem to have missed the entire first thread’s worth of discussion on the topic. If you want to bring up the part about quantum effects (either in a quote or paraphrase) I would be more then happy to give my input. Anyway, things are calming down now that the wife and I are settled in and picking up the language so I will be posting more (I also remember exactly where we left off in our e-mails too). I did bring the Camaro with me, but my work on it has stalled for now with the move. My wife got herself one of those new Teslas that is actually pretty amazing, so I might get me one too.
[/quote]
I will give a quick summation. I was actually wondering, while it was happening, what your input might be.
I argued that there are interpretations of QM wherein intrinsically random events are said to happen at the quantum level, and these call into question Pat’s notion of causality, because if an event is intrinsically random and no hidden variables exist, then that event’s happening was not precisely and necessarily (i.e., mechanically) prefigured in the conditions of its happening.
To elaborate: For a macro event described by Newtonian physics, event X happens under conditions A, B, C, D, and E. Given A, B, C, D, and E, X must happen, and a computer with the correct capacity to analyze will observe A, B, C, D, and E, and predict X every single time.
Alternatively, an intrinsically random event at the quantum level is one for which A, B, C, D, and E did not necessarily have to give rise to event X, and, if no hidden variables exist, then either X as a whole, or some aspect of X, flies in the face of causality. The computer–even the most powerful computer imaginable–even Laplace’s demon–would be dumbfounded and silent.
I will note that this is a sort of aside to my main argument, which is simply that Pat’s “proofs” are assumptive and/or fallacious at their most fundamental levels.
[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]
No, it’s not. There is a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition. Neither is an assumption. The universe either does have a cause, or it does not. There is no inbetween, no third option. One maxim is right and one is wrong.
Because the proposition is correct or incorrect it cannot be an assumption. There is no leap of faith, no probably, kinda maybe, it’s either right or it’s wrong.
Again, you cannot merely blurt out words without qualification and expect that to be a claim.
The only assumption here is ‘the universe’. Once you cross the line and accept that it exists, then what you say about it are not assumptions.[/quote]
Are you kidding, Pat? Of course it can be an assumption. That there is an answer does not mean that we know and can prove the answer; if we don’t know it, or can’t know it, and choose one way or another as best we can, then our choice is an assumption.
But lets cut right to it. Can you formulate an a priori negation of ~[the universe must have a cause] that is neither fallacious nor assumptive? The last one committed the ex nihilo blunder. I await a new one. But know that there is a great reason that Craig dodges it. It’s just that he’s not honest enough to own up to that reason.
Edit: And I’m sure you understand that when I call it an assumption, I’m not calling it untrue. It is an assumption. Maybe it’s correct. Maybe it isn’t. There is an answer–but nobody’s come within a ten miles of offering that answer in this debate.[/quote]
If you can prove the universe exists, deductively, then I could prove it is not an assumption. If you’re starting with the assumption that the universe exists. If you take the assumption that the universe exists as true, then the maxims with in that are not assumptions within the construct “The universe exists”. I never made that claim. The weight of empirical evidence strongly suggests a universe exists, but this is inductive, I.E. can only be know through our faculties which may or may not interpret physical reality correctly. In fact I would argue that reality is different than our perception of it.
I never posited this. You brought the universe into it. I said something exists. That is cartesian logic based on the fact that you have to abandon your faculties and only rely on what you can know for certain.
When you do that you can know two things, that something exists and that something we can be deductively certain exists is a contingent something. The antithesis to this is that nothing exists. That cannot be determined because nothing doesn’t exist. And though my entire understanding and reality may be illusory, it’s still a something and not a nothing. Further, that which I can determine exists deductively is not something that exists as a factor of itself nor exists contingently. For one can reasonably ask the the questions, what is this something, where did it come from, and why is it exist. Descartes determine that what he could determine exists is himself, hence the famous statment, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ I am not so convinced of his self possession of the ‘it’, but he was able to determine most definitely and concretely something exists, sans assumption. Something exists. To understand more about what it is and why it is necessarily true, you can either read Descarte yourself, or take the Cartesian plunge and do the exercise yourself.
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]
I seem to have missed the entire first thread’s worth of discussion on the topic. If you want to bring up the part about quantum effects (either in a quote or paraphrase) I would be more then happy to give my input. Anyway, things are calming down now that the wife and I are settled in and picking up the language so I will be posting more (I also remember exactly where we left off in our e-mails too). I did bring the Camaro with me, but my work on it has stalled for now with the move. My wife got herself one of those new Teslas that is actually pretty amazing, so I might get me one too.
[/quote]
Well there was no way of recounting the whole discussion but is was based on quantum randomness vs. true philosophical randomness. Where the quantum randomness I argued was a problem of space-time and localities. I.E. particles popping in and out of existence in a spatial vacuum, the EPR effect, wave-particle theory with respect to the double-slit experiment and the seeming randomness in which a photon will choose a slit, etc. The argument was basically quantum randomness was quantum events happening for no reason, vs. them happening for a reason irregardless of the fact that the appearance of events in the temporal spatial plane being weird.
Which does lead me to a question though. In your studies, have you run into a ‘barrier’ for lack of a better word, in ‘smallness’ where past that point space-time essentially no longer has meaning? It certainly seems that quantum particles have no regard for space-time where particle many light years away can affect other particle many light years away.
[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.[/quote]
If you can indeed disprove ~[the universe must have a cause], then I am interested to see it.[/quote]
Are you reading my responses? It seems that you aren’t. You aren’t addressing them, you are not answering the questions. You circle back around to ‘it’s an assumption’ and further introduce the universe to force the issue of assumption, seems to me to be absurd. I didn’t introduce the universe, though I do believe by a strong induction the universe exists. Nobody can be prove physical reality absolutely.
If you aren’t reading them or am I wasting my time writing them?
[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]
True, but I don’t think we are any closer to having a true consensus right now than we were back then either. The arguments made in this thread by both sides are quite old and I still feel as if I have rarely if ever been in one of these debates where people change sides based on an argument.
Doesn’t mean it isn’t enlightening by any means to discuss.
[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]
True, but I don’t think we are any closer to having a true consensus right now than we were back then either. The arguments made in this thread by both sides are quite old and I still feel as if I have rarely if ever been in one of these debates where people change sides based on an argument.
Doesn’t mean it isn’t enlightening by any means to discuss. [/quote]
Well, in one sense it doesn’t matter. There are arguments where the premises are true and the conclusion follows directly from the premises to the exclusion of all other possibilities and is therefore true. One need not agree for the argument to be correct. But then you have to prove that argument incorrect, if you wish to disagree and be correct. The good and the bad news is there are right answers.
[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.[/quote]
If you can indeed disprove ~[the universe must have a cause], then I am interested to see it.[/quote]
Are you reading my responses? It seems that you aren’t. You aren’t addressing them, you are not answering the questions. You circle back around to ‘it’s an assumption’ and further introduce the universe to force the issue of assumption, seems to me to be absurd. I didn’t introduce the universe, though I do believe by a strong induction the universe exists. Nobody can be prove physical reality absolutely.
If you aren’t reading them or am I wasting my time writing them?[/quote]
Of course I am reading them. I admit, though, that the parts that are not lucid, I am not responding to. Your response to my critique of the ex nihilo premise was not lucid at all–I could be to blame, if you did not understand–and that critique is now the crux of our discussion.
I am responding, in other words, to what furthers our argument.
You said that you were going to formulate or find an argument of the sort I’ve challenged you to produce–a denial of ~[What exists must have a cause] that does not use ex nihilo. I am waiting for this to happen. This is the next logical step, because, again, you keep and keep and keep and keep bailing as soon as I pick to pieces an argument that you offer. Which is making this very difficult, because our whole point of contention rests on whether or not you can give me an actually decent, not assumptive, not fallacious argument. So far, I have shown every single one to be one or more of these things.
Related to what I just said about lucidity: I suggest that from now on, terms must be chosen for their precision and phrases must be thought out well. Take, for example, this sentence of yours: “The physical universe is the factor of the stuff in it.”
What?
“A factor of”–again, this phrase is meaningless. Caused by? The cause of? Contingent upon? Precision is important.
Also:
“The laws that govern the are eternal and they are not the Uncaused-causing entities either.”
Again, laws are things we say to describe, not extant things with causal power in themselves. This is the unequivocally dominant view of the philosophy of science. If you want to prove otherwise, you’ve just got even more work ahead of you.
[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.[/quote]
If you can indeed disprove ~[the universe must have a cause], then I am interested to see it.[/quote]
Are you reading my responses? It seems that you aren’t. You aren’t addressing them, you are not answering the questions. You circle back around to ‘it’s an assumption’ and further introduce the universe to force the issue of assumption, seems to me to be absurd. I didn’t introduce the universe, though I do believe by a strong induction the universe exists. Nobody can be prove physical reality absolutely.
If you aren’t reading them or am I wasting my time writing them?[/quote]
Of course I am reading them. I admit, though, that the parts that are not lucid, I am not responding to. Your response to my critique of the ex nihilo premise was not lucid at all–I could be to blame, if you did not understand–and that critique is now the crux of our discussion.
[/quote]
Well I don’t understand what you don’t get. If you need clarification of a point, you can ask.
As you keep moving the target around I cannot say you are being terribly lucid either. As is, shall I recap or do you not understand? You have introduced: assumption, all arguments are circular, the hidden variable theory, the refutation of hidden variable theory (which one I still don’t know), the universe, ex nihilo, etc. So what do you want to talk about? because you keep tossing things at me seemingly randomly, for some end to which I can only assume you perhaps are trying to draw up an opus magnum response? Pick something and stick with it, quit moving the target.
No, that doesn’t sound arrogant at all.
It may further your agenda, it does not further ‘our argument’ in that we haven’t made an argument together. You keep moving the target around. You ask question, move the target and ask another. I am quite lost.
[quote]
You said that you were going to formulate or find an argument of the sort I’ve challenged you to produce–a denial of ~[What exists must have a cause] that does not use ex nihilo. I am waiting for this to happen. This is the next logical step, because, again, you keep and keep and keep and keep bailing as soon as I pick to pieces an argument that you offer. Which is making this very difficult, because our whole point of contention rests on whether or not you can give me an actually decent, not assumptive, not fallacious argument. So far, I have shown every single one to be one or more of these things.
Again, I await the argument.[/quote]
You wanted to me to prove that the universe has a cause without using assumptions based on the assumption that the universe exists? Something I never claimed.
I also never claimed ‘What exists, must be caused’ because by necessity one thing cannot be caused. And I have explained both, if you don’t understand it, well I can’t help that. You can ask for clarification, but arrogant dismissal I cannot take seriously. “Bullshit” is not a counter argument.
Why the hell would I put forth an argument or counter argument for a claim I didn’t make, nor believe?
You have tried to show particular arguments wrong or fallacious, committing heinous logical errors doing so. You seriously believe that you proved that all deductive logic is circular? Seriously, you think you somehow succeeded at that?
Now what are you interested in knowing? Causation? Then I put forth this:
“I thus first tried whether Hume’s objection might not be represented generally, and I soon found that the concept of the connection of cause and effect is far from being the only one by which the understanding thinks connections of things a priori; rather, metaphysics consists wholly and completely of them. I sought to secure their number, and since this succeeded as desired, namely, from a single principle, I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding.”
And further discussion regarding the Principle of Sufficient reason.
Proving or disproving God, gods, or whatever is ridiculous since no side will win. What the real argument should be (and for most is) is which belief system, if any, is right.
[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.[/quote]
If you can indeed disprove ~[the universe must have a cause], then I am interested to see it.[/quote]
Are you reading my responses? It seems that you aren’t. You aren’t addressing them, you are not answering the questions. You circle back around to ‘it’s an assumption’ and further introduce the universe to force the issue of assumption, seems to me to be absurd. I didn’t introduce the universe, though I do believe by a strong induction the universe exists. Nobody can be prove physical reality absolutely.
If you aren’t reading them or am I wasting my time writing them?[/quote]
Of course I am reading them. I admit, though, that the parts that are not lucid, I am not responding to. Your response to my critique of the ex nihilo premise was not lucid at all–I could be to blame, if you did not understand–and that critique is now the crux of our discussion.
[/quote]
Well I don’t understand what you don’t get. If you need clarification of a point, you can ask.
As you keep moving the target around I cannot say you are being terribly lucid either. As is, shall I recap or do you not understand? You have introduced: assumption, all arguments are circular, the hidden variable theory, the refutation of hidden variable theory (which one I still don’t know), the universe, ex nihilo, etc. So what do you want to talk about? because you keep tossing things at me seemingly randomly, for some end to which I can only assume you perhaps are trying to draw up an opus magnum response? Pick something and stick with it, quit moving the target.
No, that doesn’t sound arrogant at all.
It may further your agenda, it does not further ‘our argument’ in that we haven’t made an argument together. You keep moving the target around. You ask question, move the target and ask another. I am quite lost.
First of all, the only arrogance on inordinate display in this thread is found in the pen of he who claims to be able to prove that God exists. This is an utterly ridiculous notion, and everyone who’s ever believed it has done so in total hubris and manifest error. That you think you hold some key that is provably correct and yet people who do this for a living and study it for a lifetime disagree with you–come on, man.
Now, to lessen the tension: I am enjoying this, and appreciate it, and consider it one of the better, if more frustrating, I’ve had in a while.
Now, there have confused and blended about a thousand separate threads of this discussion into one formless mess. I’m going to simplify it. Call this arrogance or whatever, but I’m not dealing in walls of text that don’t have any discernible meaning. Here is my proposition, modified for nitpicks:
~[What is, and is not God, must have a cause.]
I can’t prove it. But I don’t think I can. I think you can’t disprove it without fallacy and assumption. I have made this claim repeatedly, and you’ve tried twice. Both times, you have hit a brick wall by taking your conclusion in your premises. I have documented these fallacies clearly and simply. Now, I invite you to try to disprove my proposition. Note that when I say that I invite you to try again, I mean that I invite you to make an actual argument. If you don’t want to, then I’ll consider the debate settled. If you do, please be careful to be precise–e.g., if the concept of “to cause” appears more than once, please use the same term each time, rather than mixing “cause” with “be a factor of” and “come from,” etc.
[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.[/quote]
If you can indeed disprove ~[the universe must have a cause], then I am interested to see it.[/quote]
Are you reading my responses? It seems that you aren’t. You aren’t addressing them, you are not answering the questions. You circle back around to ‘it’s an assumption’ and further introduce the universe to force the issue of assumption, seems to me to be absurd. I didn’t introduce the universe, though I do believe by a strong induction the universe exists. Nobody can be prove physical reality absolutely.
If you aren’t reading them or am I wasting my time writing them?[/quote]
Of course I am reading them. I admit, though, that the parts that are not lucid, I am not responding to. Your response to my critique of the ex nihilo premise was not lucid at all–I could be to blame, if you did not understand–and that critique is now the crux of our discussion.
[/quote]
Well I don’t understand what you don’t get. If you need clarification of a point, you can ask.
As you keep moving the target around I cannot say you are being terribly lucid either. As is, shall I recap or do you not understand? You have introduced: assumption, all arguments are circular, the hidden variable theory, the refutation of hidden variable theory (which one I still don’t know), the universe, ex nihilo, etc. So what do you want to talk about? because you keep tossing things at me seemingly randomly, for some end to which I can only assume you perhaps are trying to draw up an opus magnum response? Pick something and stick with it, quit moving the target.
No, that doesn’t sound arrogant at all.
It may further your agenda, it does not further ‘our argument’ in that we haven’t made an argument together. You keep moving the target around. You ask question, move the target and ask another. I am quite lost.
First of all, the only arrogance on inordinate display in this thread is found in the pen of he who claims to be able to prove that God exists. This is an utterly ridiculous notion, and everyone who’s ever believed it has done so in total hubris and manifest error. That you think you hold some key that is provably correct and yet people who do this for a living and study it for a lifetime disagree with you–come on, man.[/b]
[/quote]
These are not ‘my arguments’ I merely defend them. It’s fine to disagree, but that is not enough. You must prove them wrong, something you haven’t even offered at. Certainly many have tried, nobody has succeeded. It’s not the failure to prove it wrong that makes it right though. It’s that the premises are sound, the conclusion follows from them to the exception of others. Shouting out words like ‘assumption’ does not make it so.
The contingency argument is sound and you have offered no counter which only leads me to assume you don’t have one.
Ok, defend it. This is not a cosmological claim. A cosmological claim would lead to something Uncaused.
As for a formless mess? You asked a question, I answered in detail. By calling it walls of text leads me to the notion that you did not read it. In fact I know you haven’t because a lot of what you were asking for was in there. If I can discern what you are asking for I will try to answer the best I can. But you must not be vague and you must not continually move the target. I feel as if you are leading me and I detest being led. Get to the point. Make your point, we’ll deal with said points and move on.
Trying to lead me into a trap only pisses me off and I won’t let it happen, hence you demand an argument for whatever, I am not happy to oblige unless I know what end you are trying to achieve.
I can disprove that ‘God is caused’ by definition. The conclusion of the cosmological argument is that there must be an Uncaused-causer, or Necessary Being. Now, if we deal with the entire argument, premises and all then it it will be a wall of words because there is a lot to deal with in terms of dealing with each premise and why each premise is true, which is not done with another argument, but with explanation though that may contain further arguments, they don’t alone explain why ‘X’ is or must be true. For something to be an Uncaused-cause it is by definition not compelled by anything and therefore cannot be caused if it is to be true to it’s definition.
Now if we look at some of the arguments premises we can provide further proof that an Uncaused-cause cannot have a cause.
Now we have contingent entities that exist (not by assumption!). These entities are contingent on other entities for their existence. This is true by definition, for a contingent entity to be what it is, it must be contingent on other things or entities. Which must be contingent on others and so on.
They are contingent so long it is reasonable to ask what caused ‘X’, and then what caused what caused ‘X’.
So that is is a necessary, be definition explanation as to why contingent entities are contingent. And so begins the regress.
A regression is a process of reduction by which the cause is determined from it’s effect, or an entity from what it’s contingent by. This leads to a regressive series of events.
The second premise is that an infinite regress cannot exist. And infinite regress is a logicl fallacy for two reasons, it begs the question i.e. and it can do it in two ways. One way is to say that ‘X’ is ‘X’ because it is ‘X’. The second way is that in an infinite set of premises will also necessarily include itself, since it is infinite itself will also be included since it will have to include about ‘X’ including itself.
The second reason an infinite regress is a logical fallacy is because if you have an infinite set of premises, you can never reach a conclusion. A conclusion is not possible with an infinite set of premises, you never get to the ‘therefore’. You can never reach the function that determines the conclusion from the premises.
Because you have contingent entities and their causal regression cannot be infinite, a conclusion must be drawn that fit these premises and ‘solve the problem’. The only conclusion that can be drawn from those premises is that of the existence of an Uncaused-cause.
The Uncaused-cause cannot be caused, by definition it’s uncaused. So we have to deal with it. Hence since we infer that God and Uncaused-cause are often interchangeably use the word ‘God’ for Uncaused-cause as we are in this case, God cannot be ‘caused’. The question ‘what caused God’ (what caused the Uncaused-cause) is not reasonable to ask, because by definition the Uncaused-cause is not caused. It cannot be caused by itself, or self caused, it’s not caused. That means it cannot be compelled, governed, manipulated, or any other causal language. It must exist without it to be what it is which is uncaused. I have already discussed in detail what some of the properties an Uncaused-cause must have to be what it is, which is an entity that causes without cause. In short why must there be an Uncaused-cause? It’s the only solution to the problem to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
Now if you want to discuss contingent entities and why they are entities why they are contingent we can drill down on that more deeply. For this question, ‘Does God have a cause?’, it’s not necessary.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s fine to disagree, but that is not enough. You must prove them wrong, something you haven’t even offered at.[/quote]
I have explained this many times, but here it is again. My claim is that they are assumptive, not that they are wrong. It cannot be put more plainly than this. You should do me the courtesy of absorbing this most fundamental feature of my argument.
Now, why would I prove them wrong, when I don’t think that can be done? I wouldn’t. What I can do is show you that, when you try to justify your premises, you descend into fallacy and further assumption. This I have done with a batting average of exactly a thousand: Twice you obliged me–only after much pleading on my part–and twice you offered the baldest fallacy that I can think of, which is question-begging. I documented this plainly and simply, and if you’d like you can go back and experience it all over again.
[quote]
Ok, defend it. This is not a cosmological claim. A cosmological claim would lead to something Uncaused.[/quote]
“Defend it.” Again–understand my position. My position is that this proposition can be neither proved nor disproved.
And this part is unfortunate, because you wrote a lot: You didn’t understand the premise. You wrote an essay about God having been uncaused–something I’ve never even begun to touch on.
~[What is, and is not God, must have a cause.] Read that sentence carefully, including the negation and including the commas. It has absolutely nothing to do with God’s cause. My proposition is that you cannot prove this wrong. I am interested to see you try to–with an actual argument, whose words are chosen with care. If you can’t, then fine.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s fine to disagree, but that is not enough. You must prove them wrong, something you haven’t even offered at.[/quote]
I have explained this many times, but here it is again. My claim is that they are assumptive, not that they are wrong. It cannot be put more plainly than this. You should do me the courtesy of absorbing this most fundamental feature of my argument.
Now, why would I prove them wrong, when I don’t think that can be done? I wouldn’t. What I can do is show you that, when you try to justify your premises, you descend into fallacy and further assumption. This I have done with a batting average of exactly a thousand: Twice you obliged me–only after much pleading on my part–and twice you offered the baldest fallacy that I can think of, which is question-begging. I documented this plainly and simply, and if you’d like you can go back and experience it all over again.
[/quote]
Okay, so we need to take it claim by claim. If you believe it is assumptive. Now in most cases of cosmology, you would be right in that the starting premise we must assume it exists. But not the case of contingency. The reason is that the initial premise is not assumptive. It claims 'something exists contingently, that cannot not exist. I will explain more further down. But that something exists is not assumptive because it must. Even if all this that I am doing is purely a figment of my imagination and not real in any tangible way, that’s still something.
[quote]
I wrote what an Uncaused-cause must be to be an Uncaused-cause. And it was to show what an uncaused-causing entity must be like by definition.
[quote] ~[What is, and is not God, must have a cause.] Read that sentence carefully, including the negation and including the commas. It has absolutely nothing to do with God’s cause. My proposition is that you cannot prove this wrong. I am interested to see you try to–with an actual argument, whose words are chosen with care. If you can’t, then fine.[/quote]
You’re right I missed the negation and I wouldn’t attempt to prove it wrong because it’s right. I cannot prove that wrong. I can prove it right, but I will start first with causal entities.
So the grand problem in philosophy and epistemology is that of sensory input. The way we obtain information through our senses is necessarily flawed. So if we say ‘This pencil exists’ or the ‘Universe’ exists and nobody else agrees, we cannot prove it. That is a proof only verifiable by consensus, that is other communicative ‘minds’ agreeing on a maxim. So what do we do? We have to abandon all of it and remove all interference and only deal with what we can absolutely know to be true to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
So if we remove all sensory input and all presuppositions we still know something exists, even if it’s all illusory and a figment of our imaginations, it’s still something.
The reason that is so, is because of awareness. I may be illusory and everything I know and think is illusory, but even if so, that is still something, not nothing. I cannot be aware of nothing, it doesn’t exist. And perhaps I am only aware of awareness, but that is still something. The fact that I can be aware of anything necessarily begets that something exists.
The reason this is not an assumption is that ‘something’ has to exist for me to even engage in the exercise. Nothing cannot do that. So to say that something exists is a brute fact, not an assumption. I cannot assume something exists because assumption is something as well.
1.I cannot trust my faculties to be an accurate perception of reality.
2.I have the ability to perceive.
3.Perception is not nothing
4.therefore something exists.
Now on the point of contingency. When I have drilled down to the point where I have become aware that something exists, even if it only my perception it is reasonable to ask: Where did it come from? Why does it exist?
Even if I do not have the answer I still, by necessity have to concede that it cannot exist as a factor of itself. It cannot have come from nothing.
So:
Something exists.
That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
That existence cannot not come from nothing.
Therefore, that existence is contingent.
Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Proving or disproving God, gods, or whatever is ridiculous since no side will win. What the real argument should be (and for most is) is which belief system, if any, is right. [/quote]
That’s a silly notion. Because questions are hard is no reason to avoid them. You cannot even broach the latter without dealing with the former. Which belief system is right depends first on whether there is a God in the first place.