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, 04:39 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 04:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have yet to disprove either of the two premises.

You have yet to prove them. Since I cannot disprove what has not been proven, your non sequitur response is stunningly irrelevant.

"You can't prove it's not true" is an even worse justification than "it's just self-evident".

(24-03-2014 04:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  As a result of this, the conclusion stands. The universe has a cause for its existence.

No. As a result of this, your ignorance is well and truly apparent.

I don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang, and neither do you.

You are the one claiming otherwise.

"You can't prove it wrong" is a pathetic dodge.

"It's just self-evident" is a pathetic justification.

Those are all you have presented. That is not compelling. Thanks for playing.

(24-03-2014 04:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Rambling...

I have only ever responded to what you said. You wanted to have this discussion. My responses are precisely as relevant as the statements of yours to which they are responding.

If someone responding to you directly constitutes rambling, I am unsure how you ever expect to hold a conversation with anyone.

(24-03-2014 04:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... and using words you think sound intelligent...

I am endeavouring to use the right words. Because words mean things.

If I have used some scientific terminology appropriate to cosmological contexts, and if I have used some logical terminology appropriate to argumentation contexts, then it is because I think those words are appropriate. Appropriate terminology (and agreement on said terminology) are necessary precursors to philosophical and scientific discussion.

Whether or not that bothers you is not my problem.

(24-03-2014 04:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... 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.

I'm pretty much speechless.

You do not understand. This is been manifestly demonstrated by your last several posts, which in no way address my objections.

You asserted premises. I questioned them. You cannot justify them. End of story.

All the idiotic and facetious attempts in the world to dance around your own inadequacy are not going to change the facts of the matter. As the person submitting the premises for consideration it is your duty to provide their justification.

If I find that justification wanting, I need not accept your premises. That is how a debate works.

Naive physical intuition is not justification. It is facile drivel. "It's self-evident" is not justification. It is an appeal to subjective personal experience.

(24-03-2014 04:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Reference whatever you like.
(and, no, wiki cut-and-pastes are not references)

This discussion is between the two of us. If you wish to bring in something, you must also summarise and synthesise it yourself.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 04:50 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Still waiting on you to tell me why you think premise one is not true without arguing in a circle.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-03-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 04:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Still waiting on you to tell me why you think premise one is not true without arguing in a circle.

Oh, child. You are hopeless.

That is a tragically fallacious attempt at reversing things. Much like digging your way out of a deep hole, it won't work.

I need not even consider anything for which you have presented no consideration. Your assertions are not true merely by virtue of your having declared them.

Here is your premise one:
(23-03-2014 04:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

I began thus:
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "everything".
Define "begin".
Define "exist".
Define "cause".

You never gave valid definitions.

I continued thus:
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is dependent on the properties of time and causality, both of which are implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

(23-03-2014 05:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That limitation means that one cannot generalise contingent properties of objects within the universe to the universe as a whole.

(23-03-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Since you already admitted that your own definitions of such concepts as causality and beginning apply only within the universe, and that they cannot be meaningfully applied to the universe itself, any attempt to do so (as in the cosmological argument as presented) is founded on fallacy.

You did not address this.

Your responses were a series of dodges, false choices, misrepresentations, and non sequiturs.

This is theoretically a discussion where you are providing the premises. That means you must substantiate the premises. That is your role in this dialogue. You have shirked it utterly.

Whether or not you understand this is irrelevant. That is how a debate works. If you cannot participate so be it.

If you are incapable of understanding the framework of a debate and your role in it, ignorant of logical argumentation, and unwilling to examine and unable to substantiate your own premises, this is not a discussion. It is a waste of my time.

There is very little point in my continuing to reiterate points you fail so completely to grasp.

If at any point you wish to provide any further substantiation for your blindly asserted fiat premises, I will respond with my own thoughts on the matter.

Until you do, you have presented nothing worth considering.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 11 users Like cjlr's post
25-03-2014, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2014 01:21 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(24-03-2014 05:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 04:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Still waiting on you to tell me why you think premise one is not true without arguing in a circle.

Oh, child. You are hopeless.

That is a tragically fallacious attempt at reversing things. Much like digging your way out of a deep hole, it won't work.

I need not even consider anything for which you have presented no consideration. Your assertions are not true merely by virtue of your having declared them.

Here is your premise one:
(23-03-2014 04:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

I began thus:
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "everything".
Define "begin".
Define "exist".
Define "cause".

You never gave valid definitions.

I continued thus:
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is dependent on the properties of time and causality, both of which are implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

(23-03-2014 05:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That limitation means that one cannot generalise contingent properties of objects within the universe to the universe as a whole.

(23-03-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Since you already admitted that your own definitions of such concepts as causality and beginning apply only within the universe, and that they cannot be meaningfully applied to the universe itself, any attempt to do so (as in the cosmological argument as presented) is founded on fallacy.

You did not address this.

Your responses were a series of dodges, false choices, misrepresentations, and non sequiturs.

This is theoretically a discussion where you are providing the premises. That means you must substantiate the premises. That is your role in this dialogue. You have shirked it utterly.

Whether or not you understand this is irrelevant. That is how a debate works. If you cannot participate so be it.

If you are incapable of understanding the framework of a debate and your role in it, ignorant of logical argumentation, and unwilling to examine and unable to substantiate your own premises, this is not a discussion. It is a waste of my time.

There is very little point in my continuing to reiterate points you fail so completely to grasp.

If at any point you wish to provide any further substantiation for your blindly asserted fiat premises, I will respond with my own thoughts on the matter.

Until you do, you have presented nothing worth considering.

The premise

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

Is not vague, it is not ambiguous, and it is not a trick question.

Everything means everything.

Begins to exist means begins to exist.

Cause means cause.

Existence means existence. These words are not technical terms, you do not have to have a degree to know what they mean. We use them quite regularly in ordinary conversation.

Saying that everything needs a cause except the universe without giving a reason that is not circular is not helping you.

You have yet to give a good reason as to why the universe is an exception to the principle. Saying that the principle does not apply to the universe itself but only things within the universe is not a legitimate response. It is simply a re-phrasing of your question begging position. Why does the causal principle only apply to events within the universe and not the coming into existence of the universe itself?

Also, if things can just come into existence without a cause then you need to explain why we never see such things happening. This principle is repeatedly verified in our experience as sensing beings and never falsified.
Find all posts by this user
25-03-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(25-03-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The premise

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

Is not vague, it is not ambiguous, and it is not a trick question.

It is extraordinarily vague. The following "definitions":
(25-03-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Everything means everything.

Begins to exist means begins to exist.

Cause means cause.

Existence means existence.

Have the intellectual weight of a potato skin.

All the tap dancing in the universe will not change the fact that you are making a claim. You are asserting your premises.

I am questioning that claim. I am not asserting its converse. If I reject the parameters of the claim I also reject the parameters of its converse. This is elementary logic. You refuse to acknowledge it. This is either dishonest or stupid.

Using a word does not define a word. Stating a thing does not substantiate a thing. Re-asserting the same premise I have been questioning from post 1 is insufficient. "Proof by repetition" is not a thing. "Proof by evasion" is not a thing. "Proof by obfuscation" is not a thing. You're going to have to try a littler harder than that, friend.

You have completely failed to justify your position when asked. That is insufficient.

(25-03-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  These words are not technical terms, you do not have to have a degree to know what they mean. We use them quite regularly in ordinary conversation.

"Ordinary conversation" is not the same as "a philosophical and scientific examination of cosmology".

Words have meanings. Those meanings have contexts. If you attempt philosophy without defining your terms you have wasted your audience's time. If you attempt science without defining your terms you have wasted your audience's time.

(25-03-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Saying that everything needs a cause except the universe without giving a reason that is not circular is not helping you.

I did not say that.

It would not be circular regardless.

You do not understand logic.

You are arguing against a straw man.

One cannot substantiate an assertion by constructing a false choice with its converse. That is fallacious and incoherent. That this does not stop you from repeatedly trying is problematic.

(25-03-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have yet to give a good reason as to why the universe is an exception to the principle.

You have yet to give any reason as to why it applies.

You: "X"
Me: "Why?"
You: "You can't prove not-X"

That is presuppositional. That is fallacious and inadequate. That is you completely failing to substantiate your claim.

Your facetiously naive understanding of "existence" and "causality" are predicated on your macroscopic physical intuition and are derived from your mundane interaction with observable external reality. To apply them in any further context requires justification. "I say so" is not justification. "You can't prove they don't" is not justification.

The character of that interaction is contingent on properties of the universe which only have meaning in a post Big Bang context.

You are the one claiming extra knowledge.

You are the one who has utterly failed to substantiate a single claim.

Shit or get off the pot, friendo. Either substantiate your assertions, or admit them to be fiat declarations of convenience.

(25-03-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Saying that the principle does not apply to the universe itself but only things within the universe is not a legitimate response. It is simply a re-phrasing of your question begging position. Why does the causal principle only apply to events within the universe and not the coming into existence of the universe itself?

The causal principle is an assumed natural law derived from experience within the confines of a post Big Bang universe.

The law obtains for every moment in the universe since its inception, not of the inception of the universe itself. For there was no natural state of affairs prior to the big bang. It is applicable only to what takes place within the universe where natural laws are applicable. So your inference is faulty.

Your trivially shallow dodge is to claim instead that this is not a natural law but a "metaphysical" principle.

You have not defined "metaphysical".
(your implicit definition appears to be "a natural law I extend by fiat")

You have not provided any reason for holding such a "metaphysical" principle. You have not provided any reason for applying such a "metaphysical" principle.

In case this somehow remains unclear to you: "I just feel like it" is not substantiation.

Either substantiate your assertions, or admit them to be fiat declarations of convenience.

If you continue to do neither you reveal the vacuity of your unjustified position.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
25-03-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
In response to your edit:

(25-03-2014 01:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Also, if things can just come into existence without a cause then you need to explain why we never see such things happening. This principle is repeatedly verified in our experience as sensing beings and never falsified.

This is a straw man.

I never made such a claim. To pretend otherwise is either dishonest or stupid. Responding by rote to things I have not said does not reflect well on your ability to conduct honest discussion.

Causality is descriptive natural law. It applies only to the conditions under which it was derived: the post Big Bang universe. It is implicitly contingent on the physical properties of the universe (e.g. time).

The principle is never strictly falsified (notwithstanding that e.g. non-zero-energy quantum field theory admits of statistical vacuum fluctuations - there is no naive macroscopic "cause" at work) within the context of a post Big Bang universe.

You are asserting its truth in a different context.

This is a positive claim. You must substantiate it.

You have completely failed to do so.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
25-03-2014, 02:23 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(25-03-2014 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The causal principle is an assumed natural law derived from experience within the confines of a post Big Bang universe.

The causal principle is not a natural law. This is where you err.

(25-03-2014 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your trivially shallow dodge is to claim instead that this is not a natural law but a "metaphysical" principle.

That is actually what it is.

(25-03-2014 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have not defined "metaphysical".
Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]
What is ultimately there?
What is it like?
A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist [4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central tenet of metaphysics but this can be questioned.

The adjective metaphysical entered the English language through Aristotle, whose "Metaphysics" is a collection of treatises that follows his work, "Physics." "Physics" concerned natural philosophy, what we call science today, while "Metaphysics" dealt with more abstract questions about the reality beyond what we perceive with our senses. Look at a physical object, say an apple. At what exact point did that apple come into existence? If you eat it, does it cease to exist, or does it still exist but in a changed way? These are metaphysical questions.

met·a·phys·i·cal [met-uh-fiz-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
b.
concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.
Find all posts by this user
25-03-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(25-03-2014 02:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The causal principle is not a natural law. This is where you err.

And your justification for this is... ?

It's okay, I'll wait.

(25-03-2014 02:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(25-03-2014 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your trivially shallow dodge is to claim instead that this is not a natural law but a "metaphysical" principle.

That is actually what it is.

Mere assertion does not suffice.

(25-03-2014 02:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(25-03-2014 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have not defined "metaphysical".
...
[lol i can ctrl-c+ctrl-v durr]

Cut and paste is an infantile response.

I asked you.

Whatever. Let's go through this noise together.

Quote:met·a·phys·i·cal [met-uh-fiz-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
b.
concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.

"lol dictionary" is the first recourse of the inadequate. What else you got?

Quote:Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2]

Gee. That helps.

Quote:The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central tenet of metaphysics but this can be questioned.

Note that this does not mean, "a metaphysician gets to make stuff up for no reason and refuse to question it or explain it".

That's where you err. Flagrantly and ubiquitously.

Quote:Look at a physical object, say an apple. At what exact point did that apple come into existence? If you eat it, does it cease to exist, or does it still exist but in a changed way? These are metaphysical questions.

You have yet completely failed to substantiate your premises. Absent you defining precisely what you mean by it, "metaphysical" is not a meaningful term. Such recourse does you no good until then.

I reiterate: you are making a claim.

I reiterate: you must substantiate that claim.

"I feel like it" is not substantiation. Naive physical intuition is not substantiation. Personal subjective experience is not substantiation.

You may take recourse in "metaphysical" rather than "natural" principles. I will assume so, and react accordingly. The singular question remains: how do you know what you are claiming?. You have provided nothing by way of justification in this entire dialogue. You may either substantiate your premises, or you may admit them to be tools of convenience in obtaining your desired conclusion.

Do you wish to remove the natural universe from consideration by your appeal to poorly-defined "metaphysics"?

So be it.

If no, my prior unanswered objections stand. A natural law cannot be arbitrarily generalised.

If yes, you have now made your claim a metaphysical principle applied to a nonphysical context. Consequently no argument to physical experience may be made.
(note that this would include such straw men as your prior "I don't see things coming from nothing according to my experience within our physical universe")

Your remaining justification is your appeal to "self-evident intuition".

This is inescapably grounded in subjective personal experience.

You have now admitted your premises to be beyond your ability to articulate and founded on your own subjective personal experience.

You have no argument.

The end.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
25-03-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(25-03-2014 02:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have no argument.

The end.

That is great. You are still calling the causal principle a natural law even after having been shown it is a metaphysical principle.

But moving on.

If you will notice, the first premise states that everything that begins to exist, has a cause for its existence.

If you deny this, then you are affirming that there are indeed things that can come into existence without a cause.

You are essentially saying, premise one is not true because there are somethings that can come into existence without a cause.

My question therefore to you now is:

What are these things that can come into existence without a cause? RolleyesHuh
Find all posts by this user
25-03-2014, 05:24 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(25-03-2014 04:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  That is great. You are still calling the causal principle a natural law even after having been shown it is a metaphysical principle.

If it is a natural principle, you have completely failed to justify its extension.

If it is a metaphysical principle, you have completely failed to specify what that means, you have completely failed to explain why you hold it, and you have completely failed to justify its application.

You have completely failed to substantiate your assertion.

(25-03-2014 04:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you will notice, the first premise states that everything that begins to exist, has a cause for its existence.

For which "begin", "exist", and "cause" are undefined beyond the context of observable external reality in a post Big Bang universe.

I asked you to define the terms at the beginning of this exchange. You cannot.

Either you know this, and are being dishonest, or you do not understand this, and are incompetent.

(25-03-2014 04:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you deny this, then you are affirming that there are indeed things that can come into existence without a cause.

No. That is dishonest.

That is a straw man. It is the same straw man you have repeatedly resorted to.

Let us review:
You: "X."
Me: "Can you justify X?"
You: "You can't prove not-X."

NOPE. Learn to logic.

I grant the premise for everything within the known universe. The universe itself is not within the universe. A set is not bound by the rules of its members. This is extremely fundamental logic. Either you do not understand it, and are ignorant, or you do not care, and are dishonest.

You have completely failed to define "begin", "exist", and "cause". You have completely failed to justify your claim of knowledge beyond the confines of the known post Big Bang universe.

You have made a claim.

You must substantiate your claim.

You have feebly danced around the issue multiple times. You may either substantiate your premise with something more than "I just feel like it", or you may concede that your entire claim is predicated on subjective personal experience and is thus inarguable. Your move!

(25-03-2014 04:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You are essentially saying, premise one is not true because there are somethings that can come into existence without a cause.

My question therefore to you now is:

What are these things that can come into existence without a cause? RolleyesHuh

No.

This is the same hackneyed irrelevant straw man you so love to belabour. Either you do not understand why it is not germane, in which case you are ignorant, or you do not care, in which case you are dishonest.

(25-03-2014 02:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you wish to remove the natural universe from consideration by your appeal to poorly-defined "metaphysics"?

So be it.

If no, my prior unanswered objections stand. A natural law cannot be arbitrarily generalised.

If yes, you have now made your claim a metaphysical principle applied to a nonphysical context. Consequently no argument to physical experience may be made.
(note that this would include such straw men as your prior "I don't see things coming from nothing according to my experience within our physical universe")

This is a direct quote from my previous post. You have ignored the responses to your own inanity. You cannot or will not address your complete failure to substantiate your own premises. Either way, you have no argument.

You are making a claim.

I am asking you to justify your claim.

You may either substantiate it or admit its vacuity. Your move!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: