An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2014, 07:59 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 04:22 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have yet to provide either a rebutting defeater or an undercutting defeater for the warrant of maintaining premise one or two to be more plausible than their negations.

False dichotomy.

And a false dichotomy contingent on the same overgeneralised invalid premises regardless.

(24-03-2014 04:22 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This is something you must do in order to avoid the conclusion of the argument.

Saying that the metaphysical principle applies only to events within the universe but not of the universe is unjustified question begging.

You do not understand the problem.

I am not sure how much point there is in restating a fact which seems inexplicably beyond your grasp. The natural laws of the universe can be extrapolated back to the point of the Big Bang and no further.

Any attempt to conceive of the present universe's origins in terms of "before" that, or "outside" that, are fundamentally incoherent.

You have now acknowledged that natural laws are, as a conceptual paradigm, limited in application to the post-Big Bang universe.

Your recourse is to "metaphysical" laws (of e.g. causality).

You have not coherently defined metaphysical. You have not demonstrated the existence of anything metaphysical. You have not provided any justification at all for this assertion. You have simply argued to your own naive feels. That is insufficient.

Please feel free to expand upon your fiat unsubstantiated assertions at any time.

(24-03-2014 04:22 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have yet to demonstrate premise two's negation is more plausible than its affirmation.

Reiterating a false dichotomy.

If I reject the parameters of a premise I also implicitly reject its contrary.

Do you understand this? It is an important logical concept. You have repeatedly failed to grasp it. This is either for rhetorical effect - and thus dishonest - or due to mere ignorance of logical principles.

(24-03-2014 04:22 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will no longer be engaging in tangent discussions that have no direct bearing on the two premises of the argument.

Good. You're the one who brought them all up.

You resorted to several extremely bizarre claims as to my not wanting to know; you went so far as to claim gaining new knowledge would bother me (or, indeed, all "atheists"). Not so. And although it is a strikingly dishonest non sequitur, I do know why you say it. It is because the next faulty leap in your worldview - "that cause must be GAAAAAAAAAWD!!" - is one which - though tragically flawed as well - is one which you are likewise completely unable to conceive of not holding.

I have said such knowledge is presently unavailable - your boldly declaring otherwise quite notwithstanding. I have provided for you examples of cosmological models within which structures like our universe might well be said to exist and even "begin", although in a strict sense (i.e., in accordance with naive macroscopic physical intuition) such words are not contextually meaningful. I am content to acknowledge the limits of my own knowledge. You would prefer to make unjustifiable declarations and pretend that believing them makes them true.

All you have presented through this discussion is a ludicrously myopic appeal to "self-evidence" in the form of two vacuously asserted premises, neither of which is at all justifiable. When pressed to substantiate anything, you completely failed to do so. Instead you fumbled around with irrelevancies and mischaracterisations, manufactured false choices, and made final recourse to the vaguest and most insufficient appeal of all, "but it's metaphysical, see, and therefore it is because I say so because I feel so because it just is and therefore it is".

It is an act either born of desperation - since you need the conclusion to be true! - or it is an act born of limitation - since you apparently will not and cannot be bothered to face a universe which contains matters to which your naive macroscopic physical intuition does not apply.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 9 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2014 08:43 AM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
I see you need help in staying focused and on track here so I am going to help you.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Why do you believe that the negation of the above proposition i.e. not everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence is more plausibly true than everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence?

If you need help, let me know.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-03-2014, 08:43 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 08:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Why do you believe that the negation of the above proposition i.e. not everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence is more plausible than everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence?

False choice.

I grant the premise (and have already told you I grant it) for observable interaction within the confines of the known, i.e. post-Big Bang, universe.

It cannot be assumed under any other conditions. That is facetious and inadequate. It cannot be generalised to any other conditions. That is shallow and fallacious.

You have not defined the premise. You have not substantiated the premise.

My not accepting your undefined, unsubstantiated premise is not equivalent to asserting its contrary.

Please learn to logic.

If the sum total of your positions is that they are asserted by fiat and defended by obfuscation, we have nothing to discuss.

(24-03-2014 08:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you need help, let me know.

Define your terms. That would help.

Substantiating a single one of of your empty baseless assertions in any way would also help.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 09:04 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 08:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I grant the premise (and have already told you I grant it) for observable interaction within the confines of the known, i.e. post-Big Bang, universe.

It cannot be assumed under any other conditions. That is facetious and inadequate. It cannot be generalised to any other conditions. That is shallow and fallacious.

Please learn to logic.

Your argument against premise one is that it obtains only with respect to events within the universe but once we get to the question of the universe itself, it is no longer applicable.

Why?
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-03-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 09:04 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 08:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I grant the premise (and have already told you I grant it) for observable interaction within the confines of the known, i.e. post-Big Bang, universe.

It cannot be assumed under any other conditions. That is facetious and inadequate. It cannot be generalised to any other conditions. That is shallow and fallacious.

Please learn to logic.

Your argument against premise one is that it obtains only with respect to events within the universe but once we get to the question of the universe itself, it is no longer applicable.

Why?

... because things aren't assumed true by default.

It is fundamentally incoherent to apply contingent properties outside their context. To do otherwise is to presuppose the natural laws of the universe to have an existence external to the universe itself.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 09:30 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 09:04 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Your argument against premise one is that it obtains only with respect to events within the universe but once we get to the question of the universe itself, it is no longer applicable.

Why?

... because things aren't assumed true by default.

It is fundamentally incoherent to apply contingent properties outside their context. To do otherwise is to presuppose the natural laws of the universe to have an existence external to the universe itself.

You are arguing in a circle. I asked why is the causal principle not applicable when it comes to the question of the universe's existence and you answered: it is fundamentally incoherent to apply the principle outside of its context.

All you have done is rephrased what you said earlier.

Why is it incoherent to maintain that the causal principle applies to the universe itself?

You have to answer this without arguing in a circle which you can't. You have no good reason for making the universe the exception to the principle besides the fact you beg the question that the universe is uncaused.

No you know why Schopenhauer labeled this reasoning as "the hack fallacy".
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-03-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You are arguing in a circle. I asked why is the causal principle not applicable when it comes to the question of the universe's existence and you answered: it is fundamentally incoherent to apply the principle outside of its context.

That's not circular. That's reality. Deal with it.

(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All you have done is rephrased what you said earlier.

Why is it incoherent to maintain that the causal principle applies to the universe itself?

You have no basis for claiming any knowledge beyond the confines of the known universe.

I find it baffling the lengths you go to to deny that that this is what you are doing.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can be:
You are the one claiming knowledge.

Do you deny this? If so, you are so dishonest that a genuine conversation is impossible.
(I'm leaning towards this hypothesis pretty strongly here; I dare you to prove me wrong)

Principles such as causality are extrapolated from interaction with the observable external universe. Do you understand what this means?

To apply them beyond the contexts in which they were constructed is an invalid induction. Do you understand why this is?

As much disingenuous evasion as you can manage will not alter that you are asserting a claim (the validity of your naive premises) and therefore you must substantiate the claim - which you have completely failed to do.

(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have to answer this without arguing in a circle which you can't. You have no good reason for making the universe the exception to the principle besides the fact you beg the question that the universe is uncaused.

You appear utterly incapable of grasping the distinction.

One cannot have an exception to a principle in contexts to which the principle does not apply. If I say to you, "all mammals have teeth", that is an observationally derived principle. If you reply, "but what about chickens?" then that is incoherent. Chickens are not an "exception" to a rule regarding mammals. Learn to logic.

...

You have completely failed to substantiate either of your premises. You have completely failed to even define your terms.

You have made a claim - "A is true in Y conditions".
This is an invalid generalisation of a claim which I have acknowledged as valid, "A is true in X conditions".

The only attempt you have provided, in attempting to justify extending X to Y is...
"I just think so".

This isn't a discussion. It's a farce.

If your conviction with the premises is predicated on your requirement for the conclusion, I can certainly understand why you so thoroughly refuse to even begin to examine them. But that admits of no discussion.

It is not "circular" to point out the limits of our present knowledge. Denying those limits does not magically make them disappear.

I remind you of the box example. You are asserting (for no reason beyond shallow naivete) that empirically derived physical principles (cf causality, time) exist independently of the known universe. That is one hell of a leap of faith, friendo.

Assertion is not proof. Naive macroscopic physical intuition is not substantiation.

You may recognize those as the very first statements I made. You have completely failed to address them. You have instead gone on a merry runaround of straw men, equivocation, false choices, and bizarre personal commentary.

(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No you know why Schopenhauer labeled this reasoning as "the hack fallacy".

Since you fundamentally misunderstand natural law, and since you fundamentally misunderstand logical principles, and since you fundamentally misunderstand cosmological scientific theories, and since you fundamentally misunderstand what constitutes a definite claim...

Yes. There certainly is a hack here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not circular. That's reality. Deal with it.

Using circular arguments is reality? Yes, I see for you it is. Thumbsup

(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All you have done is rephrased what you said earlier.

Why is it incoherent to maintain that the causal principle applies to the universe itself?

(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You have no basis for claiming any knowledge beyond the confines of the known universe.

And what basis do you have for claiming I have no basis for any knowledge beyond the confines of the known universe?

The basis is the self-evident, intuitive principle that something cannot come from nothing uncaused. This is a metaphysical priniciple which pertains to any event. Once again, changing your phrasing and wording is no less arguing in a circle. You beg the question that we can know nothing about what happens outside of the confines of the known universe. But why? Why can we not know anything about what has happened beyond the confines of the known universe?

(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Principles such as causality are extrapolated from interaction with the observable external universe. Do you understand what this means?

I have never advocated that the universe has a cause solely because every effect we observe in the universe has a cause.

(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  To apply them beyond the contexts in which they were constructed is an invalid induction. Do you understand why this is?

You are simply restating your circular argument again.

(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  One cannot have an exception to a principle in contexts to which the principle does not apply.

Once again, all you are doing is arguing in a circle. You say the principle does not apply unless it is utilized within the context of the universe because the principle does not apply outside of the confines of the universe.

The two statements are logically equivalent.


(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I remind you of the box example. You are asserting (for no reason beyond shallow naivete) that empirically derived physical principles (cf causality, time) exist independently of the known universe. That is one hell of a leap of faith, friendo.

Assertion is not proof. Naive macroscopic physical intuition is not substantiation.

You may recognize those as the very first statements I made. You have completely failed to address them. You have instead gone on a merry runaround of straw men, equivocation, false choices, and bizarre personal commentary.

(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No you know why Schopenhauer labeled this reasoning as "the hack fallacy".

Since you fundamentally misunderstand natural law, and since you fundamentally misunderstand logical principles, and since you fundamentally misunderstand cosmological scientific theories, and since you fundamentally misunderstand what constitutes a definite claim...

Yes. There certainly is a hack here.

You appear to be rambling for want of good argument. You have yet to disprove either of the two premises. Circular reasoning does not count as a good rebuttal or undercutter for the warrant of premise one.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-03-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not circular. That's reality. Deal with it.

Using circular arguments is reality? Yes, I see for you it is. Thumbsup

You made unsupported assertions. I pointed out to you that those assertions are unsupported. You accused me of being circular and re-stated the assertions.

Hmm. That is pretty circular...

You do not understand what it is to accuse an argument of being "circular". You do not understand why questioning fiat declarations is not circular. This is problematic.

(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All you have done is rephrased what you said earlier.

Why is it incoherent to maintain that the causal principle applies to the universe itself?

Because properties of members of a set do not apply to the set itself as an object. This is a very simple idea. Do you understand it?

You are claiming that causality applies (in a very naive way) in an inappropriate and unjustified context. You have completely failed to substantiate this assertion beyond "it's self-evident".

Repeatedly bleating about how "it is self-evident" is not going to make it so.

That is nothing more than an argument from subjective personal experience - and worse, because it is subjective personal experience which cannot even be articulated.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You have no basis for claiming any knowledge beyond the confines of the known universe.

And what basis do you have for claiming I have no basis for any knowledge beyond the confines of the known universe?

The key is in the word known.

You are claiming to know something. You have completely failed to substantiate that assertion.

Let us enumerate what we do know and agree on:
Within the universe (ie the observable post-big bang universe), certain natural laws appear to apply.

Let us insert your additional truth claim:
Those natural laws apply "before/outside/without" the universe
[insofar as those words have any meaning in such a context, which you have not provided in any case]

It is incumbent on you to provide substantiation for this claim. The best you have managed is "it is self-evident". That is woefully inadequate. I cannot imagine how that would possibly convince anyone who did not already accept it. It is shallow and circular. You either do not understand these flaws, or you simply do not care, because to you, the truth of the premises is extraneous to the point of the exercise, which is to generate the conclusion.

It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. I remind you once again that if I reject your parameters I implicitly reject both your premise and its negation. Your facile "it's more self-evidently true than its converse" is strikingly irrelevant.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The basis is the self-evident, intuitive principle that something cannot come from nothing uncaused. This is a metaphysical priniciple which pertains to any event.

Asserting that "nothing" preceded the universe is introducing an additional premise. I make no comment as to conditions prior to the Big Bang. You are the one claiming knowledge of such conditions. Therefore it is up to you to provide justification for such claims. Notwithstanding that you have not defined "nothing". And we here recall that you never defined "metaphysical", either.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Once again, changing your phrasing and wording is no less arguing in a circle.

No. I am rephrasing my statements in the endlessly futile hope that putting things a different way will cause you to understand the extremely elementary matters I am sharing with you.

What is claimed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

"But it's SELF-EVIDENT LOL" is not evidence.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You beg the question that we can know nothing about what happens outside of the confines of the known universe. But why? Why can we not know anything about what has happened beyond the confines of the known universe?

No. It doesn't work like that.

You are the one claiming to know something in your given premises.

You must substantiate that claim.

If you cannot provide any substantiation beyond repeated recourse to "it's self-evident [in my personal subjective experience]", you have nothing to present, and no discussion is possible.

I am saying that I don't know, and that I am unconvinced that you do either, because one cannot apply contingent properties (ie causality) outside the context in which they are derived (ie the universe).

It is, however, quite circular, in that all you have done is repeatedly assert the same mindless vagaries, and ignore any and all response from me.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Principles such as causality are extrapolated from interaction with the observable external universe. Do you understand what this means?

I have never advocated that the universe has a cause solely because every effect we observe in the universe has a cause.

You are doing nothing but.

I invite you to consider what you've written:
(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The basis is the self-evident, intuitive principle...

Why is this self-evident?

Why is this intuitive?

Are you able to answer those questions?

I submit that this feels self-evident to you because it is an internalised understanding predicated on a lifetime of interaction with the observable universe.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  To apply them beyond the contexts in which they were constructed is an invalid induction. Do you understand why this is?

You are simply restating your circular argument again.

That is not circular.

You do not understand what 'circular' arguments are.

Let me be nice and plain for you:
You are making a claim.
I am questioning that claim.
Your response is to frame your claim as a default position.

Sorry, bro. That's a laughably transparent dodge. It is either dishonest or stupid. Which is it?

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  One cannot have an exception to a principle in contexts to which the principle does not apply.

Once again, all you are doing is arguing in a circle. You say the principle does not apply unless it is utilized within the context of the universe because the principle does not apply outside of the confines of the universe.

No. That is not what I said.

If you are going to apply a principle outside its proper context you must justify doing so. That is an incredibly elementary point. So far you have skipped between supplying a woefully inadequate justification ("it just is 'cause I feel like it"), presenting it as a false choice ("it's more appealing than its converse"), and attempted to reverse the onus ("you have to show it's not lol").

If you say X is true, and I say why?, it is not a valid response to say because you can't prove X isn't true.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The two statements are logically equivalent.

No. They are not.

You do not understand logic.

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 11:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I remind you of the box example. You are asserting (for no reason beyond shallow naivete) that empirically derived physical principles (cf causality, time) exist independently of the known universe. That is one hell of a leap of faith, friendo.

Assertion is not proof. Naive macroscopic physical intuition is not substantiation.

You may recognize those as the very first statements I made. You have completely failed to address them. You have instead gone on a merry runaround of straw men, equivocation, false choices, and bizarre personal commentary.

Since you fundamentally misunderstand natural law, and since you fundamentally misunderstand logical principles, and since you fundamentally misunderstand cosmological scientific theories, and since you fundamentally misunderstand what constitutes a definite claim...

Yes. There certainly is a hack here.

You have yet to disprove either of the two premises. Circular reasoning does not count as a good rebuttal or undercutter for the warrant of premise one.

You are utterly incapable of providing any justification whatsoever for your vacuous assertions.

I have been very generous in attempting to explain to you why merely declaring things to be true does not make them true.

I am entirely justified in judging you fundamentally incapable of understanding argumentation.

Let me show you why:
(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Circular reasoning...

We have seen why your fatuous claims of "circular!" do not follow.

You: "X is true for B."
Me: "Why?"
You: "X is true for A."
Me: "Can you justify extending X from A to B?"
You: "It is self-evident."
Me: "It is not. Saying so does not make it so. 'X is true for A' means only that 'X is true for A'. If you wish to apply X to B you must justify the attempt."
You: "NO U R CIRCULR WRONG TROLOLOLOL"

(24-03-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... does not count as a good rebuttal or undercutter for the warrant of premise one.

This is perhaps the best indicator that you do not understand this "discussion" nor why your "responses" are so completely deficient.

I do not need to counter your premises. First you must justify them. I am asking you to justify them. You cannot.

The sole justification you have provided is "they are self-evident".

You could not make less of an argument if you tried. That is laughably shallow and, indeed, quite ironically circular.

I will ask you one last time: can you provide any further elaboration?

If you cannot, your entire "argument" is merely unsubstantiated assertion predicated on subjective personal experience.

That is the exact opposite of compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
You have yet to disprove either of the two premises.

As a result of this, the conclusion stands. The universe has a cause for its existence.

Rambling, and using words you think sound intelligent to cover up the fact that you are begging the question in objecting to the first premise for the reason you have given does not constitute either a rebutting defeater or an undercutting defeater to either of the two premises.

As I stated earlier, I can refer you to some of the works of non-theists philosophers who have tackled the Kalam if you are in need of assistance.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: