A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-01-2015, 04:25 AM
A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
Sorry for bothering you again guys, but i'm arguing with some tenacious christian (who absolutely wants to prove me that god exist) who gave me a few days: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf

This a variation of the cosmological/psr argument which can be resume like this:

1. There are contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
2. If there are contingent facts or situations, then there is a fact or situation
which is the sun of all contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
3. (Hence) there is a fact or situation C which is the sum of all contingent
facts or situations.
4. C is a wholly contingent fact or situation. (Premise)5
5. Every wholly contingent fact or situation normally has a cause. (Premise)
6. (Hence) C has a cause. (From 4, 5)
7. Causes and effects must not overlap. (Premise)
8. (Hence) C has a cause which is a necessary fact or situation. (From 6, 7,
definition of ‘wholly contingent’).

Sorry for asking you this but, could you help me to refute this argument please?

I am a little lost because he answered the few atheistic objections I know in his paper (same link as above http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf from page 13, sorry for the length :/ ), so I am searching some good objections but I don't find any. Sorry for asking you this like an egoïstical brat, but I really need someone who could help me (or take the challenge) Bowing

PS: Again: sorry for my bad english.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 04:35 AM
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
(11-01-2015 04:25 AM)PxlSyndrom Wrote:  Sorry for bothering you again guys, but i'm arguing with some tenacious christian (who absolutely wants to prove me that god exist) who gave me a few days: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf

This a variation of the cosmological/psr argument which can be resume like this:

1. There are contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
2. If there are contingent facts or situations, then there is a fact or situation
which is the sun of all contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
3. (Hence) there is a fact or situation C which is the sum of all contingent
facts or situations.
4. C is a wholly contingent fact or situation. (Premise)5
5. Every wholly contingent fact or situation normally has a cause. (Premise)
6. (Hence) C has a cause. (From 4, 5)
7. Causes and effects must not overlap. (Premise)
8. (Hence) C has a cause which is a necessary fact or situation. (From 6, 7,
definition of ‘wholly contingent’).

Sorry for asking you this but, could you help me to refute this argument please?

I am a little lost because he answered the few atheistic objections I know in his paper (same link as above http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf from page 13, sorry for the length :/ ), so I am searching some good objections but I don't find any. Sorry for asking you this like an egoïstical brat, but I really need someone who could help me (or take the challenge) Bowing

PS: Again: sorry for my bad english.

He has merely asserted, (and in no way proven or demonstrated) premise 2,3 and 4. Maybe the situation he's describing in 5 is abnormal. 6, 7, and 8 are assertions and not proven in any way.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-01-2015, 05:15 AM
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
here's a video pf craig's version debunked and the one you encounter is no different, the only real difference is the one you posted uses more jargon





and as far as I know the word "necessary" is special pleading
he babbles on about how everything needs a cause and "necessary" cause simply means it doesn't have a cause
the only purpose it serves here is to avoid an infinite regression

he has done nothing to demonstrate why his assertion has any validity to it other than mere say so
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
11-01-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
Casimir Effect




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
(11-01-2015 04:25 AM)PxlSyndrom Wrote:  Sorry for bothering you again guys, but i'm arguing with some tenacious christian (who absolutely wants to prove me that god exist) who gave me a few days: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf

This a variation of the cosmological/psr argument which can be resume like this:

1. There are contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
2. If there are contingent facts or situations, then there is a fact or situation
which is the sun of all contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
3. (Hence) there is a fact or situation C which is the sum of all contingent
facts or situations.
4. C is a wholly contingent fact or situation. (Premise)5
5. Every wholly contingent fact or situation normally has a cause. (Premise)
6. (Hence) C has a cause. (From 4, 5)
7. Causes and effects must not overlap. (Premise)
8. (Hence) C has a cause which is a necessary fact or situation. (From 6, 7,
definition of ‘wholly contingent’).

Sorry for asking you this but, could you help me to refute this argument please?

I am a little lost because he answered the few atheistic objections I know in his paper (same link as above http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf from page 13, sorry for the length :/ ), so I am searching some good objections but I don't find any. Sorry for asking you this like an egoïstical brat, but I really need someone who could help me (or take the challenge) Bowing

PS: Again: sorry for my bad english.

Great, he's just provided a proof for one of the characters on Jersey Shore.

[Image: grant_situationpeta_64011.jpg?w=450]

Maybe Snooky is the contingent fact.

Any cosmological argument, even if it was correct, does not imply any certain deity, just (a) deity.

So how does he know which one? Because bible says?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 07:16 AM
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
(11-01-2015 05:15 AM)Ace Wrote:  "necessary" is special pleading

Also means his god is subject to the structure of Reality, not it's master/creator.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
(11-01-2015 07:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-01-2015 05:15 AM)Ace Wrote:  "necessary" is special pleading

Also means his god is subject to the structure of Reality, not it's master/creator.

well their story book says there's nothing their sky fairy can't do so not getting a god that doesn't match their story book is not acceptable

which is ironic since the farther away they move from the biblical description the more coherently they can define god which would be considered a god that possibly could exist at least in a logically coherent sense

to these people even if a god did exist it wouldn't matter because if it didn't happen they way written in their story book then god or anything else couldn't exist in any other way
there are even idiots who think that if their story book isn't true then nothing is true and that they would go around hurting people because its fun Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
11-01-2015, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2015 11:28 AM by cactus.)
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
1. Wrote:There are contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
Some things are dependent upon other things.

2. Wrote:If there are contingent facts or situations, then there is a fact or situation which is the su[m] of all contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
The use of the word "sum" here is intentionally vague. It has a clear mathematical definition which is being misused.
I'm assuming he meant to say "there is one single thing that is the cause of everything else," which is not demonstrably true, and has no basis for its assertion.

3. Wrote:(Hence) there is a fact or situation C which is the sum of all contingent facts or situations.
If something is true in general, then it is true in a specific case.
Basically, #2 restated with algebraic jargon, in order to sound more legitimate than it actually is.

4. Wrote:C is a wholly contingent fact or situation. (Premise)
Another baseless assertion, which is contingent upon 2, another baseless and ill-defined assertion. You've already "summed" all the causes, so now you're going to have to break causality to say C is dependent on B, which depends on C. Maybe they're in a symbiotic relationship of mutual cause/effect. Sure, let's pretend that's a thing.

5. Wrote:Every wholly contingent fact or situation normally has a cause. (Premise)
The thing which you've inadequately defined "normally" has a cause, so it "sometimes has a cause, but not always." Good to know.

6. Wrote:(Hence) C has a cause. (From 4, 5)
You've dropped the word "normally." Maybe that was a typo?

7. Wrote:Causes and effects must not overlap. (Premise)
You can't break causality, though it sounds to me like #4 would "normally" do just that. So apparently C is not really the "sum" of all the things, just most of the things.

Premature Conclusion? Wrote:(Hence) C has a cause which is a necessary fact or situation. (From 6, 7, definition of ‘wholly contingent’).
Another baseless assertion. According to 6, C was supposed to be a "normal" occurrence, but then it just randomly became a "necessary" one (because reasons).

Addendum 1. Wrote:God created man in his image. (possibly three times? though maybe He was just repeating Himself for dramatic emphasis) (see Gen 1:27) (Premise)

Addendum 2. Wrote:God (the Judeo-Christian one) is C. (because reasons) (Premise)

Addendum 3. Wrote:(Hence) If God exists, then He must have existed without man. (See Addendum 1.)

Addendum 4. Wrote:Either man's existence and God's existence are mutually dependent, or God does not exist. (See 4)

Conclusion Wrote:(Hence) God does not exist. (See 7, Addendum 3, Addendum 4)

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cactus's post
11-01-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: A recent revival of the cosmological argument: koons
(11-01-2015 04:25 AM)PxlSyndrom Wrote:  Sorry for bothering you again guys, but i'm arguing with some tenacious christian (who absolutely wants to prove me that god exist) who gave me a few days: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf

This a variation of the cosmological/psr argument which can be resume like this:

1. There are contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
2. If there are contingent facts or situations, then there is a fact or situation
which is the sun of all contingent facts or situations. (Premise)
3. (Hence) there is a fact or situation C which is the sum of all contingent
facts or situations.
4. C is a wholly contingent fact or situation. (Premise)5
5. Every wholly contingent fact or situation normally has a cause. (Premise)
6. (Hence) C has a cause. (From 4, 5)
7. Causes and effects must not overlap. (Premise)
8. (Hence) C has a cause which is a necessary fact or situation. (From 6, 7,
definition of ‘wholly contingent’).

Sorry for asking you this but, could you help me to refute this argument please?

I am a little lost because he answered the few atheistic objections I know in his paper (same link as above http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/cosmo.pdf from page 13, sorry for the length :/ ), so I am searching some good objections but I don't find any. Sorry for asking you this like an egoïstical brat, but I really need someone who could help me (or take the challenge) Bowing

PS: Again: sorry for my bad english.

This argument has lots of problems. To illustrate one of them (infinite regress), I'll draw an analogy with mathematics.

Every integer has an integer which precedes it. For example, 6 is preceded by 5, 0 by -1, -278 by -279, and so forth. Analogously, we can think of this as effect and cause, respectively, with cause preceding effect. (This isn't a perfect metaphor, of course, but it will serve to illustrate a critical flaw.)

Let us then collect into a set all of the integers that are preceded by an integer. Does 1 million have an integer preceding it? Yes, 999,999 precedes it. Therefore, 1,000,000 is in the set. (We use commas to space apart the units, thousands, millions, etc sets, and dots to indicate that we are transferring into tenths, hundredths, thousandths, etc. My apologies if you're from a country that does it the other way around. Also, I'll try to avoid that whole billion/milliard business.) What about -1,000,000? Yes, it is preceded by -1,000,001, so it is also in the set. In this manner, EVERY integer should be in the set of integers that are preceded by integers. This set of integers is analogous to what your opponent is referring to as C.

Must there not, then, your opponent might ask, be some integer preceding the entirety of this set?

The answer is no, not at all. The principle that every integer has an integer preceding it applies only to integers, and NOT to collections of integers. It applies to each integer individually, but not to every integer collectively. This is one of the places where his logic breaks down. His model does not allow for an infinite history.

For another possibility, look at the typical 12 hour clock. Each hour has an hour which precedes it. The 2 o'clock hour is preceded by the 1 o'clock hour which is preceded by the 12 o'clock hour and so on. In this numbering system, the idea that every integer has an integer which precedes it still holds true. But collect all 12 of these integers into a set, and the principle does not hold true for the set as a whole. Each element within the set, yes. The set as a whole, no. His model does not account for the possibility of a cyclical history.

For that matter, the entire concept of contingency is ill-defined, untestable, and unusable. We have no mechanism for determining what might possibly be different under other contingencies. How deterministic is the universe? Are the laws of physics the only way things could be, or could they have been different? Without answers to these questions... without any way to answer these questions... contingency is less useful than a can without a can opener. (There are other ways to open cans, after all.) The usually-proposed solution that anything we can imagine being different counts as a contingency is literally incoherent, because humans are demonstrably capable of imagining the impossible, even the logically self-contradictory. How could we ever be certain that some imagining of ours ever fell into the "contingent" category rather than the "impossible" category. Also, if we can imagine a universe without a god, wouldn't this (already faulty) line of reasoning make the existence of a god contingent? Watch your opponent drop this argument like a hot potato the moment it gets turned against his cherished belief.

But in the end, let's say none of these flaws applied and the argument actually were valid. (It isn't, but let's pretend.) SO WHAT? It doesn't prove the existence of any sort of god. The initial non-contingent cause could just as easily be the singularity at the origin of the Big Bang. The entire business is a red herring.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: