Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
The black knights of the world would be heart-breakingly tragic if they weren't so stupefyingly ridiculous. One can only pity them, or thank them for the laughs, or both.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
24-05-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 04:46 PM)John Wrote:  .... and remove the first 'and' from the thread title. Dodgy

Pretty sure I saw a hair dryer attachment in a high street shop called "Rampant Jeremy" ... or was it rabbit?

Ann Summer's sure had a strange product line for a kitchen ware and home appliances shop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 05:23 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam



There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 05:51 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  "Begins to exist" is also semantic nonsense,

The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two.

This is a coherent and intelligible definition used by philosophers of time predicated on an A-Theory of time.


(24-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  and nothing has ever been witnessed "beginning to exist" in the same way as the universe.

In the above, you unintentionally affirm premise two i.e. that the universe began to exist by saying: "Nothing has ever been witnessed "beginning to exist" in the same way as the universe."

Now, not only that, but you make a patently false statement. For you yourself began to exist at some point in the past in the same sense that the Kalam proponent argues that the universe began to exist i.e. that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists.

But surely your mother who birthed you "witnessed" you being born and prior to that point had been privy to you not existing!

So it seems here that you have thoroughly helped support the argument.

(24-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  At what point does a chair "begin to exist" as a chair? When the 2nd leg is attached? 3? 4? When the wood is cut into parts for the chair?

How about a bicycle? Does it "begin to exist" sometime during when the frame is welded together from component parts ? When the wheels and chain are attached, before it has pedals?

Utilizing the aforementioned working conceptualization of "begins to exist" and applying it to the above mentioned entities we would say that a chair/bicycle begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if the chair or bicycle exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which the chair or bicycle exists.

Pretty simply and straight forward.

Your question is essentially: "what constitutes a chair"? The answer is simple. The causal agent responsible for causing the chair to exist determines this. If he decides the chair will have three legs then when he puts the third leg on and it is assembled, the chair exists and prior to that moment, it did not exist. Same goes for the bicycle.

(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Correct. They formulate a hypothesis then test that hypothesis

An hypothesis that is not falsifiable is by definition unscientific.

The KCA doesn't qualify. Here's why:


This is untestable. We will never be able to empirically observe anything "come into existence" the same way the universe came into existence.

Once again, you have affirmed that the universe began to exist with your statement above.

Now if you object to premise one by saying that the premise cannot be empircally verified of falsified, I would simply say:

[Image: h3EC54DFF]

You already know that in order for a premise to obtain in any syllogism, the premise must be shown to be more plausible than its negation, not empirically verifiable or falsifiable.

But not only that, premise one makes no mention of the universe. It simply says:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This premise is supported by three lines of evidence:

(i) Something cannot come from nothing.
(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.
(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1´

So it seems to me that not only have your tried to move goalposts, but you have also set up a strawman of premise one and tried to attack it. Logically, to no avail.

(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The KCA employs a loaded question, and does in fact make an assertion (however subtly) that the laws of causality must have applied prior to causality. It relies on that assumption to reach the conclusion.

The KCA consists of three declarative propositions, two in the form of premises and one in the form of a conclusion. Thus, there are no "loaded questions" in the KCA at all.

Neither premise asserts that the laws of causality must have applied prior to causality. This is a:

[Image: straw-man.jpg]

In addition, the KCA is a modus ponens syllogism which is a deductive argument, one of the most basic arguments in logic. In a deductive argument the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference. An example of this argument is the KCA as well as the more well known All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal modus ponens.

[Image: arg_mp.gif]


(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It defines "Begins to exist" as <creation ex nilho> not any other form of "beginning to exist" and is an equivocation.

[Image: scarecrow2-jpg.gif]

The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore the charge of equivocating falls.

(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It begs the question and invokes special pleading to avoid infinite regress.

[Image: scarecrow2-jpg.gif]

This is aimed at a strawman of your own construction. This objection is not even addressed to either of the premises so I find it hard to even tell what you are talking about.

(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It's exposing the hidden premises of the KCA.

There are two premises of the KCA.

(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Every recombination of existing matter has a cause [within in the universe as currently observed]

And therefore no representative of "beginning to exist," ) which remains undefined) in the same way the universe beginning.

The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore the charge of equivocating falls.

(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  In addition, on the quantum level, "things that exist have causes" does not traditionally apply. See Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for example.

I already addressed this in a previous post but will do so again.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to predict precisely the conditions of the values of momentum or position of some particle x at some time t2 on the basis of our knowledge of the conditions of x at t1.

However, this is not a defeater for premise one because the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to the causal principle.

Quentin Smith an atheist philosopher states these findings:

"at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).Smith, Q. (1986), "World Ensemble Explanations," Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67:73-86.

Wholly apart from the disputed question of whether virtual particles really exist at all,1 the central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which they depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which “this dynamism of empty space is but a formal abstraction lacking physical reality.”2 The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause.

1. Robert Weingard, “Do Virtual Particles Exist?’ in Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2 vols., ed. Peter Asquith and Thomas Nichols (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science association 1982), I: 235-242.

2. Alexander W. Stern, “Space, Field, and Ether in Contemporary Physics,” Science 116 (1952): 493. Stern is even willing to speak of the quantum vacuum as a sort of ether.

(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  There is no reason to assume causality follows in a linear fashion prior to causes and events within space time.

Simultaneous creation answers any misgivings you may have about this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
24-05-2014, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 06:12 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  There is no reason to assume causality follows in a linear fashion prior to causes and events within space time.


I tend to go even one step further than this, and contend that you can't assume anything about what is and is not outside this state of existence, if such a realm even exists. Since all knowledge we can attain is as of now still restricted in epistemological scope to this universe, anything assumed about a realm or state of existence outside this universe cannot move beyond speculation since it is by default an epistemological unknowable. One cannot defend any claim made about matters not pertaining to this universe because anything that is a given within this universe has no guarantee of applicability outside of it.

Therefore, in addition to the slew of fallacies that constitute its premises and conclusions, the KCA is actually flawed in the very concept it embodies. It fails before it even exits the starting gate because the intention for its for formulation was to construct an argument that simply would not be capable of being valid no matter what claim it would make since its objective---to make statements about conditions outside this realm---is an epistemological impossibility.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
24-05-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 03:33 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
a. something cannot come from nothing.

The use of the phrase "begins to exist" is a loaded special pleading fallacy.

Okay, then what is the best possible phrase???

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 06:35 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 06:34 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 06:15 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 03:33 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  The use of the phrase "begins to exist" is a loaded special pleading fallacy.

Okay, then what is the best possible phrase???

"This 'argument' is a load of bullshit."

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
24-05-2014, 06:37 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 06:24 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two.

As time did not exist prior to space time, and as such, causality as observed within the existing universe can not be assumed to apply prior to the existing universe.

[Image: esapuvym.jpg]


(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  See above: it is unreasonable to assume space and time existed before the universe existed.



In the above, you unintentionally affirm premise two i.e. that the universe began to exist by saying: "Nothing has ever been witnessed "beginning to exist" in the same way as the universe."

Now, not only that, but you make a patently false statement. For you yourself began to exist at some point in the past in the same sense that the Kalam proponent argues that the universe began to exist i.e. that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists.

But surely your mother who birthed you "witnessed" you being born and prior to that point had been privy to you not existing!

So it seems here that you have thoroughly helped support the argument.

Those are events occurring within the extent universe, and recombinations of pre-existing matter.

They are not equivocal to the beginning of matter itself, and again, you are presupposing time --> causal exists prior to the space-time continuum, which is farcical, and demonstrates the problems inherent in the Kalam's application in the first premise of to material objects belonging to the <Universe> set, then equivocating the same deduction to <The Universe> prior to its existence.


(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Utilizing the aforementioned working conceptualization of "begins to exist" and applying it to the above mentioned entities we would say that a chair/bicycle begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if the chair or bicycle exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which the chair or bicycle exists.

Pretty simply and straight forward.

Your question is essentially: "what constitutes a chair"? The answer is simple. The causal agent responsible for causing the chair to exist determines this. If he decides the chair will have three legs then when he puts the third leg on and it is assembled, the chair exists and prior to that moment, it did not exist. Same goes for the bicycle.

Seems like a rather arbitrary distinction. So why "begin to" exist rather than "exists," if not to allow for a later premise to specially plead for an "uncaused cause"?

(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Once again, you have affirmed that the universe began to exist with your statement above.

Now if you object to premise one by saying that the premise cannot be empircally verified of falsified, I would simply say:

[Image: h3EC54DFF]

You already know that in order for a premise to obtain in any syllogism, the premise must be shown to be more plausible than its negation, not empirically verifiable or falsifiable.

You've asserted that, however you have not shown "begins to exist" is a tenable concept. There is no reason to phrase the premise in that way other than to presuppose the <uncaused cause> solution.

Things do not simply "begin to exist" ex nilho in this universe, except theoretically at the quantum level. A baby does not "begin to exist,"
not does a bicycle: rather, these recombinations of matter are developed gradually in many stages by a variety of cause->effect events. At no point do objects spontaniously "begin to exist".

(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But not only that, premise one makes no mention of the universe. It simply says:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This premise is supported by three lines of evidence:

(i) Something cannot come from nothing.
(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.
(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1´

All of this is only applicable to events experienced within the already existing universe.

(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So it seems to me that not only have your tried to move goalposts, but you have also set up a strawman of premise one and tried to attack it. Logically, to no avail.

On the contrary, you have yet to demonstrate how and why the causal principle ought to exist prior to space and time.

(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The KCA consists of three declarative propositions, two in the form of premises and one in the form of a conclusion. Thus, there are no "loaded questions" in the KCA at all.

It has been demonstrated that there are hidden implied premises within the premises. But let's go through it again.

(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Neither premise asserts that the laws of causality must have applied prior to causality. This is a:

You're right: it simply presupposes it ass applicable before the universe and space time, because it has been observed in space time. An unwarranted presumption.

(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  [Image: straw-man.jpg]

In addition, the KCA is a modus ponens syllogism which is a deductive argument, one of the most basic arguments in logic. In a deductive argument the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference. An example of this argument is the KCA as well as the more well known All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal modus ponens.

[Image: arg_mp.gif]

None of which applies prior to the existing universe.

(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  [Image: scarecrow2-jpg.gif]

The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore the charge of equivocating falls.


[Image: scarecrow2-jpg.gif]

This is aimed at a strawman of your own construction. This objection is not even addressed to either of the premises so I find it hard to even tell what you are talking about.


There are two premises of the KCA.


The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore the charge of equivocating falls.


I already addressed this in a previous post but will do so again.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to predict precisely the conditions of the values of momentum or position of some particle x at some time t2 on the basis of our knowledge of the conditions of x at t1.

However, this is not a defeater for premise one because the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to the causal principle.

Quentin Smith an atheist philosopher states these findings:

"at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).Smith, Q. (1986), "World Ensemble Explanations," Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67:73-86.

Wholly apart from the disputed question of whether virtual particles really exist at all,1 the central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which they depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which “this dynamism of empty space is but a formal abstraction lacking physical reality.”2 The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause.

1. Robert Weingard, “Do Virtual Particles Exist?’ in Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2 vols., ed. Peter Asquith and Thomas Nichols (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science association 1982), I: 235-242.

2. Alexander W. Stern, “Space, Field, and Ether in Contemporary Physics,” Science 116 (1952): 493. Stern is even willing to speak of the quantum vacuum as a sort of ether.


Simultaneous creation answers any misgivings you may have about this.

If you don't understand why causality cannot be assumed pre causality, I don't know how to help you.

We have been through this repeatedly, and yet you continue to repeat the same unwarranted inapplicable presuppositions without support.


Quote tag problem again....

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
24-05-2014, 06:41 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 06:49 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  "Begins to exist" is also semantic nonsense,

The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two.


[Image: shell-game-flash.jpg]


It's a special-pleading, bet-hedging con game. You CAN'T say "everything that exists," because then you have to explain the cause of your deity, which you can't. So you attempt to special-plead it away with an unstated premise that your deity has no cause.


Quote:This is a coherent and intelligible definition used by philosophers of time predicated on an A-Theory of time.

...Used by charlatans who are trying to cheat in debates. HipTip: Snake-oil salesmen like WLC are NOT philosophers.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  and nothing has ever been witnessed "beginning to exist" in the same way as the universe.

In the above, you unintentionally affirm premise two i.e. that the universe began to exist by saying: "Nothing has ever been witnessed "beginning to exist" in the same way as the universe."

Not at all. You are intentionally misrepresenting what he said.


Quote:Now, not only that, but you make a patently false statement. For you yourself began to exist at some point in the past in the same sense that the Kalam proponent argues that the universe began to exist i.e. that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists.


Oh, LOOK -- Equivocation Fallacy! You are going on about a universe being magicked out of nothing, and equivocating it with a person who very definitely came to exist out of SOMEthing. None of us magically appeared out of nothing, moron.


Quote:But surely your mother who birthed you "witnessed" you being born and prior to that point had been privy to you not existing!

The Stupid...it BURNS.


Quote:So it seems here that you have thoroughly helped support the argument.

The delusion -- it BURNS.


Quote:
(24-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  At what point does a chair "begin to exist" as a chair? When the 2nd leg is attached? 3? 4? When the wood is cut into parts for the chair?

How about a bicycle? Does it "begin to exist" sometime during when the frame is welded together from component parts ? When the wheels and chain are attached, before it has pedals?

Utilizing the aforementioned working conceptualization of "begins to exist" and applying it to the above mentioned entities we would say that a chair/bicycle begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if the chair or bicycle exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which the chair or bicycle exists.

Pretty simply and straight forward.

Except that it doesn't apply at all to your claim of a magicked-out-of-nothingness-by-a-specially-pled-sky-fairy universe. Equivocation Fallacy.


Quote:Your question is essentially: "what constitutes a chair"? The answer is simple. The causal agent responsible for causing the chair to exist determines this. If he decides the chair will have three legs then when he puts the third leg on and it is assembled, the chair exists and prior to that moment, it did not exist. Same goes for the bicycle.

The causal agent didn't magick the bicycle or the chair out of nothing, idiot.


Quote:
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Correct. They formulate a hypothesis then test that hypothesis

An hypothesis that is not falsifiable is by definition unscientific.

The KCA doesn't qualify. Here's why:


This is untestable. We will never be able to empirically observe anything "come into existence" the same way the universe came into existence.

Once again, you have affirmed that the universe began to exist with your statement above.

Your petty misrepresentations only reveal how fucking stupid you really are.



Quote:Now if you object to premise one by saying that the premise cannot be empircally verified of falsified, I would simply say:

[Image: h3EC54DFF]

You already know that in order for a premise to be be obtain in any syllogism, the premise must be shown to be more plausible than its negation, not empirically verifiable or falsifiable.


It's YOU who is moving the goalposts, imbecile. Your claim that a premise merely needs to be "more plausible than its negation" is utter bullshit. You can't show your premise to be TRUE.

Quote:But not only that, premise one makes no mention of the universe. It simply says:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Your "everything" includes your made-up iron-age goatfucker's deity.


Quote:This premise is supported by three lines of evidence:

(i) Something cannot come from nothing.

That is an assertion, a claim, not evidence.


Quote:(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.

Just like the "creator deity" you are hiding under the table.

Assertions are not evidence.


Quote:(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1´

Yet another bald assertion.


Quote:So it seems to me that not only have your tried to move goalposts, but you have also set up a strawman of premise one and tried to attack it. Logically, to no avail.

You have to be pretty fucking stupid to see it that way. And you are.



Quote:
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The KCA employs a loaded question, and does in fact make an assertion (however subtly) that the laws of causality must have applied prior to causality. It relies on that assumption to reach the conclusion.

The KCA consists of three declarative propositions, two in the form of premises and one in the form of a conclusion. Thus, there are no "loaded questions" in the KCA at all.

Repeating your bullshit assertion over and over in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary doesn't make it any less bullshit. We have all exposed the cards you hold under the table.



Quote:Neither premise asserts that the laws of causality must have applied prior to causality. This is a:

[Image: straw-man.jpg]

Not at all. You see, you have to answer to facts, and you can't apply your premises selectively.


Quote:In addition, the KCA is a modus ponens syllogism which is a deductive argument, one of the most basic arguments in logic. In a deductive argument the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference. An example of this argument is the KCA as well as the more well known All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal modus ponens.

[Image: arg_mp.gif]

What is is, is a shell game in which you attempt to hide your unstated premises under the table and hope that no one will notice. Except that we all see your unstated premises and call you on it, and yet you, stupid dumbass, continue to stand there and say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."


[quote]
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It defines "Begins to exist" as <creation ex nilho> not any other form of "beginning to exist" and is an equivocation.

[Image: scarecrow2-jpg.gif]

The proponent of the Kalam

That's you, asshole.



Quote:...when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore the charge of equivocating falls.

Not t all, and you have been shown why.


Quote:
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It begs the question and invokes special pleading to avoid infinite regress.

[Image: scarecrow2-jpg.gif]

This is aimed at a strawman of your own construction. This objection is not even addressed to either of the premises so I find it hard to even tell what you are talking about.

It's called willful ignorance. Oh, and fallacious Appeal to Personal Incredulity.



Quote:
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It's exposing the hidden premises of the KCA.

There are two premises of the KCA.


There are several hidden premises, you have already been shown many times.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Every recombination of existing matter has a cause [within in the universe as currently observed]

And therefore no representative of "beginning to exist," ) which remains undefined) in the same way the universe beginning.

You used the example of a baby "beginning to exist" at birth. Shooting yourself in the face in the process.



Quote:The proponent of the Kalam

Kinda stupid that you keep saying that shit. Of course we all know you parrot it from your hero Bill "Larry" Craig.


Quote:when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore the charge of equivocating falls.

Argumentum ad Nauseum. Repeating the same bullshit over and over doesn't make it true.



Quote:
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  In addition, on the quantum level, "things that exist have causes" does not traditionally apply. See Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for example.

I already addressed this in a previous post but will do so again.

And you got shot down there, too.

Quote:According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to predict precisely the conditions of the values of momentum or position of some particle x at some time t2 on the basis of our knowledge of the conditions of x at t1.

However, this is not a defeater for premise one because the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to the causal principle.

You would have the deity you are hiding under the table be an exception. Oh, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


Quote:Quentin Smith an atheist philosopher states these findings:

"at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).Smith, Q. (1986), "World Ensemble Explanations," Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67:73-86.

Wholly apart from the disputed question of whether virtual particles really exist at all,1 the central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which they depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which “this dynamism of empty space is but a formal abstraction lacking physical reality.”2 The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause.

1. Robert Weingard, “Do Virtual Particles Exist?’ in Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2 vols., ed. Peter Asquith and Thomas Nichols (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science association 1982), I: 235-242.

2. Alexander W. Stern, “Space, Field, and Ether in Contemporary Physics,” Science 116 (1952): 493. Stern is even willing to speak of the quantum vacuum as a sort of ether.

Fallacy: Appeal To Authority.


Quote:
(24-05-2014 12:30 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  There is no reason to assume causality follows in a linear fashion prior to causes and events within space time.

Why?

How many dozens of times has this been explained to you. You are being intentionally and disingenuously obtuse.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: