An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  There are three individual arguments used to support premise 1:

1. the causal premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.
2. Second, if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing.
3. Finally, the first premise is constantly confirmed in our experience, which provides atheists who are scientific naturalists with the strongest of motivations to accept it.
1.
The causal principle is an unsupported hint.
It assumes intuition to be correct however the scientific method thankfully does not make this poor assumption. Time and time again have many scientific hypothesis based on the the intuitions of the scientist author been falsified.
Newton's laws for example are intuitive given the human perspective of the observable universe. Who would have intuitively realised that the speed of light is absolute and that time and distance are relative? Thankfully Einstein came along and enlightened us. Although GR makes sense in the macro context it fails miserably in the quantum world. Quantum is non intuitive. If you maintain your position that reality must be intuitive then you never grasp quantum mechanics. If you believe that your god designed the quantum realm then unfortunately you will never be able to explore and admire your god's creation until you can accept that reality is non intuitive.

2.
You are guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation.
The only thing that is being conjectured has having having come into existence uncaused from nothing is energy. Science has proven without a reasonable doubt how energy forms atoms and particles, how stars and galaxies form out of atoms, how heavier atoms from from Stars, how planets form, how life evolves. It is only for a few fundamentalist religous folk whom believe the universe came to being (much as it is seen today) fully formed.
To support your own premise you need to show:
a. That energy is not eternal
b. That energy did not come into existence uncaused.

3.
You are guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation again. Are you being disingenuous?
There is no precedent for a "begins to exist" event. It would violate the Conservation of Energy law which governs our observable universe. The Causal Principle has not been confirmed ever and never will be confirmed regarding a "begins to exist" event. It is willfully dishonest to say that "Everything that begins to exist, has a cause"

(27-03-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've dismantled this by explaining why the causality principle isn't a scientific law (it isn't falsifiable)

So what its not a scientific law. I never stated it was. It is a metaphysical principle. The causal principle is falsifiable, in fact you claim in your very next point to have falsified it by alluding to quantum physics!!!WeepingFacepalm
Maybe you have problems understanding English and/or basic Science.
What I said was
(25-03-2014 10:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The "Causal principle" has thus far failed to lead scientists to discover any cause for radioactive decay or for quantum tunneling.

This is not to say that there are no causes for these events, but it clearly screams that it is disingenuous to claim there is a cause for these events let alone a cause for all events.
Especially with regards to a speculative "begins to exist" event, an event which has never been observed and which would violate the conservation of energy law.
Either retract premise 1 or directly address my challenge to it.
The burdon of proof is not on me to falsify "Causal principle" (it offers no falsifiable criteria). The burdon of proof is on you to show that the "Causal principle" holds with regards to all "begins to exist" events should such an event even be possible.

Here is a fantastic quote that I found on the internet regarding premises
Quote:How to evaluate Premise of a syllogism
We need information and evidence to determine whether the premises in an argument are true. We get information from observing the world around us and then drawing general conclusions from them (enter science, philosophy, epistemology, etc. etc.)
Please provide some details of the "begins to exist" observation that you are drawing your evidence from.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
28-03-2014, 07:24 AM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
You began to exist x number of years ago. Here the x would represent your age. This is an example.
Find all posts by this user
28-03-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(28-03-2014 07:24 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You began to exist x number of years ago. Here the x would represent your age. This is an example.
I came to be via the process of embryology. It's a process of existing matter being rearranged.
As you have previously state in post 7 of this thread, you believe that the universe came to exist literally from nothing.
(23-03-2014 06:08 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  There was no change of form when the universe came into existence. It came into existence literally out of nothing. There was nothing existing prior to the universe that it could have changed from. This is as I have stated twice, supported by several different lines of evidence, philosophic as well as evidence from contemporary cosmology.
If you educate yourself on the process of embryology you will see that there is no concept of coming into existence literally out of nothing. I hope that you don't believe the universe came to be via the process of embryology.

Comparing these two things as if they are similar is Equivocation which is a logical fallacy. For your argument to hold, the form of your syllogism must be logically valid and its premises must be supported by observation and logic. This means that you need to avoid logical fallacies.

Your first premise is "Everything that begins to exist, has a cause"
It's important to avoid equivocation because I assume you do want your argument to be logically valid.

to the ends of finding logical consistency it would be a worthwhile exercise for you to evaluate some items which qualify as "begins to exist" in the context of "It came into existence literally out of nothing". This way when you say there is supporting evidence for these things then you are avoiding logical fallacies (such as equivocation) and hence strengthening your own argument. Of course this will only prove that "somethings that begin to exist have a cause", but at least this is a start.

Exercise 1.
Just come with maybe 10 items, along with supporting observation based evidence that they came into existence literally from nothing as well as the supporting observation based evidence that shows that they had a cause.

Once you have completed this Exercise 1 then we need to work out how we can go from "some things..." to "everything..."
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like Stevil's post
03-04-2014, 11:22 AM
RE: An invitation to debate Stevil on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread closed, debate seems finished since Jeremy left.


Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: