An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:08 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In order to deny premise one you have to accept that things can just pop into existence uncaused! Thumbsup
Quantum Fluctuations.

What about them?
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 07:10 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You can purchase volume 12, #8 of Management Sciencewhich contains the following research article entitled:


The Principle of Causation as a Basis of Scientific Method
M. Regopoulos
Management Science
Vol. 12, No. 8, Series C, Bulletin (Apr., 1966), pp. C135-C139
Published by: INFORMS
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2627756


You see my friend, the metaphysical principle of causality is the very driving force behind the whole pursuit of science itself.
I am not going to spend cash to read a book in order to understand your claim.
I doubt this book even supports your claim.

Does this book tackle the specific case of "begins to exist" events?

What does it claim as a cause for energy beginning to exist?
Is it always the same cause or are there multiple causes for that specific type of event?

I have a strong feeling that you are a Liar for Jesus.

Please provide a link or a quote from a scientific reference supporting your claim for premise 1.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
23-03-2014, 07:12 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Quantum Fluctuations.

What about them?
Please pick a different topic for debate. One that doesn't involve science.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
23-03-2014, 07:15 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 07:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What about them?
Please pick a different topic for debate. One that doesn't involve science.

If you would like to close the debate then do so. I will not close it. If you want it closed then just close it.
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 08:30 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 07:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you would like to close the debate then do so. I will not close it. If you want it closed then just close it.
Let's try a different approach.

If we go by the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed then how can Jeremy assert that there is a cause for the creation of energy?
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
24-03-2014, 04:49 AM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 08:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 07:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you would like to close the debate then do so. I will not close it. If you want it closed then just close it.
Let's try a different approach.

If we go by the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed then how can Jeremy assert that there is a cause for the creation of energy?

You cannot attack the conclusion of this syllogism unless you show at least one or both of the premises to be false. If the premises are more plausible than their negations, then the conclusion follows necessarily and inescapably by the rules of logic.

Since your question is relevant to neither of the two premises, it is irrelevant and can be dismissed.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-03-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 04:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You cannot attack the conclusion of this syllogism unless you show at least one or both of the premises to be false. If the premises are more plausible than their negations, then the conclusion follows necessarily and inescapably by the rules of logic.

Since your question is relevant to neither of the two premises, it is irrelevant and can be dismissed.
We have been talking about premise 1 for two pages of this thread. You were the one that stated premise 1, but just incase you forgot what it is let me remind you.
Quote:Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

I will post my question again
The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed so how can Jeremy assert (in premise 1) that there is a cause for the creation of energy?

NOTE: You do realise that only energy "began to exist" everything else in existence is merely a reconfiguration of already existing energy.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
24-03-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 11:56 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 04:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You cannot attack the conclusion of this syllogism unless you show at least one or both of the premises to be false. If the premises are more plausible than their negations, then the conclusion follows necessarily and inescapably by the rules of logic.

Since your question is relevant to neither of the two premises, it is irrelevant and can be dismissed.
We have been talking about premise 1 for two pages of this thread. You were the one that stated premise 1, but just incase you forgot what it is let me remind you.
Quote:Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

I will post my question again
The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed so how can Jeremy assert (in premise 1) that there is a cause for the creation of energy?

NOTE: You do realise that only energy "began to exist" everything else in existence is merely a reconfiguration of already existing energy.

The law you speak of is a natural law which pertains to what takes place within an isolated system (the universe). It does not govern what takes place in the absence of that which is natural. That is why cosmologists who affirm big bang cosmology are not troubled by the first law. The law obtains for every moment in the universe since its inception, not of the inception of the universe itself. For there were no natural state of affairs prior to the big bang. They recognize it to be applicable only to what takes place within the universe where natural laws are applicable. So your inference is faulty. You essentially state that because energy can neither be created or destroyed (the natural law you reference) that therefore, there can be no cause of the universe. You conveniently left out the qualifier "isolated system", which tells you very clearly that this pertains only to what takes place within the universe, not the inception or cause of the universe.

This objection or rather, question, would actually be more aptly directed and disproving premise two, not one.

In fact, if cosmologists used your reasoning, they would not search for an explanation as to how the universe began at all! They recognize the difference between a natural law i.e. the law of the conservation of energy, and a metaphysical principle i.e. the causal principle. The two are not contradictory.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-03-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
My closing statement:

(24-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The law you speak of is a natural law which pertains to what takes place within an isolated system (the universe).

Given that we live within our universe and are subject to the "natural laws" of our universe and given that we have no ability to observe, test or discover the "laws" pertaining to outside of our universe, then how can you assert that energy began to exist, that for energy to begin to exist it requires a cause?
What epistemology have you based premise 1 on?

Premise 1.
"Everything that begins to exist, has a cause."
In this instance energy is the only thing that can be postulated as to having a beginning for its existence.
(As I have stated before everything else that exists within our universe is merely a configuration of energy.)

So your premise 1 is exactly equivalent to
"All energy begins to exist and these "beginning to exist" events have a cause"

Premise 2
"The universe began to exist."
When you speak of "the universe" what you mean is that the energy that makes up our universe (because if you take away all the energy then you are left with nothing so universe = all energy within our universe).
Since your definition of universe no doubt isn't limited to just our big bang but includes all of material existence, then using a bounding word such as universe is superfluous to requirements. In your belief system "all energy in existence" = universe.
So Premise 2 is exactly equivalent to
"All energy began to exist"

Conclusion
"Therefore, the universe has a cause"
Remembering that "all energy in existence = universe then your conclusion is exactly equivalent to
"Therefore, there is a cause for energy to begin to exist"

Putting this all together into a logical syllogism this becomes
1. All energy begins to exist and these "beginning to exist" events have a cause
2. All energy began to exist
3. Therefore, there is a cause for energy to begin to exist


Revealing the fallacies of the premises and syllogism presented

Premise 1 is flawed because there is no reason to believe that energy began to exist and there is no reason to believe that there is a cause for a "begins to exist" event.
(As you have admitted, outside of our universe we cannot assume "natural laws" apply, so from where can we base any reasoning as to whether something is more plausible than its negation?)
You presented supporting evidence of premise 1 as "the law of causality" but you have now stated that these "natural laws" do not necessarily apply outside of the universe thus cannot be referred to with regards to the "beginning of the universe".
With regards to "the law of causality" you also fall for the logical fallacy of "equivocation" because you are equivocating the cause and effect pertaining to change events with the cause and effect pertaining to "begins to exist" events.
All science books are full of verified empirical statements about change events but only some speculate regarding "begins to exist" events.

Premise 2 is merely a truncation of the assertion in premise 1 thus it is redundant and can be omitted.

When we remove premise 2 the syllogism becomes
1. All energy begins to exist and these "beginning to exist" events have a cause
2. Therefore, there is a cause for energy to begin to exist
This isn't a syllogism because you only have one proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Quote:syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions
Not only is this not a syllogism, your conclusion is merely a rewrite of your assumption in premise 1. This is the fallacy traditionally called "begging the question"

Your version of the KCA fails on all its premises, its conclusion fails and it fails to be a syllogism.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
24-03-2014, 04:27 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 03:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My closing statement:

(24-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The law you speak of is a natural law which pertains to what takes place within an isolated system (the universe).

Given that we live within our universe and are subject to the "natural laws" of our universe and given that we have no ability to observe, test or discover the "laws" pertaining to outside of our universe, then how can you assert that energy began to exist, that for energy to begin to exist it requires a cause?
What epistemology have you based premise 1 on?

Premise 1.
"Everything that begins to exist, has a cause."
In this instance energy is the only thing that can be postulated as to having a beginning for its existence.
(As I have stated before everything else that exists within our universe is merely a configuration of energy.)

So your premise 1 is exactly equivalent to
"All energy begins to exist and these "beginning to exist" events have a cause"

Premise 2
"The universe began to exist."
When you speak of "the universe" what you mean is that the energy that makes up our universe (because if you take away all the energy then you are left with nothing so universe = all energy within our universe).
Since your definition of universe no doubt isn't limited to just our big bang but includes all of material existence, then using a bounding word such as universe is superfluous to requirements. In your belief system "all energy in existence" = universe.
So Premise 2 is exactly equivalent to
"All energy began to exist"

Conclusion
"Therefore, the universe has a cause"
Remembering that "all energy in existence = universe then your conclusion is exactly equivalent to
"Therefore, there is a cause for energy to begin to exist"

Putting this all together into a logical syllogism this becomes
1. All energy begins to exist and these "beginning to exist" events have a cause
2. All energy began to exist
3. Therefore, there is a cause for energy to begin to exist


Revealing the fallacies of the premises and syllogism presented

Premise 1 is flawed because there is no reason to believe that energy began to exist and there is no reason to believe that there is a cause for a "begins to exist" event.
(As you have admitted, outside of our universe we cannot assume "natural laws" apply, so from where can we base any reasoning as to whether something is more plausible than its negation?)
You presented supporting evidence of premise 1 as "the law of causality" but you have now stated that these "natural laws" do not necessarily apply outside of the universe thus cannot be referred to with regards to the "beginning of the universe".
With regards to "the law of causality" you also fall for the logical fallacy of "equivocation" because you are equivocating the cause and effect pertaining to change events with the cause and effect pertaining to "begins to exist" events.
All science books are full of verified empirical statements about change events but only some speculate regarding "begins to exist" events.

Premise 2 is merely a truncation of the assertion in premise 1 thus it is redundant and can be omitted.

When we remove premise 2 the syllogism becomes
1. All energy begins to exist and these "beginning to exist" events have a cause
2. Therefore, there is a cause for energy to begin to exist
This isn't a syllogism because you only have one proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Quote:syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions
Not only is this not a syllogism, your conclusion is merely a rewrite of your assumption in premise 1. This is the fallacy traditionally called "begging the question"

Your version of the KCA fails on all its premises, its conclusion fails and it fails to be a syllogism.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: