The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2017, 10:31 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 04:51 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  That helicopter! Laugh out load




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
07-02-2017, 10:38 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 08:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Pragmatism and materialism are not in this group. They aren't sufficient to explain reality as we observe it.

More Pontifical Pronouncements from His Holiness.
You hang around theists too much, and ape their ways.
You forgot to explain why.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 10:57 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 10:19 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:11 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  ... and he falsely extrapolated from that to conclude that the universe as a whole is contingent. This simply does not follow. His problem was bad logic. But you can go equally far astray with faulty observations or bad data.

All logical arguments have to start from (1) observed fact or (2) assumptions. If you're only using #2, I don't have to agree with your conclusion unless I agree with your assumption(s). The facts and assumptions can exist with or without logic. They are the starting point for an argument. Logic is the structure of the argument.

You don't necessarily need to know the universe is contingent. If any contingent being exists, then you have the same problem of how to explain it's existence without infinite regress.

Only if you accept the corollary assumption/assertion that every contingent thing/being requires a cause. I do not accept that assumption, unless you define "contingent" to mean that, and then you're just building your conclusion into your assumptions, which would be circular reasoning. If "contingent" just means "exists but didn't have to", well so what? Maybe things "just happen" sometimes. This certainly seems to be the case at the subatomic level, and everything else is built on that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
07-02-2017, 10:58 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 10:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 08:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Pragmatism and materialism are not in this group. They aren't sufficient to explain reality as we observe it.

More Pontifical Pronouncements from His Holiness.
You hang around theists too much, and ape their ways.
You forgot to explain why.

Materialism lacks ability to explain intentionality and mental states without some modification towards dualism. Pragmatism unessecarily redefines truth by a proposition's usefulness. It assumes reality is only relevant to the extent at which it can help humans. It's the response of the scientist who just discovered they need a philosophical justification for their beliefs.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:00 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
For those who haven't seen it:

The Failure of the Cosmological Argument
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 10:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:19 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You don't necessarily need to know the universe is contingent. If any contingent being exists, then you have the same problem of how to explain it's existence without infinite regress.

Only if you accept the corollary assumption/assertion that every contingent thing/being requires a cause. I do not accept that assumption, unless you define "contingent" to mean that, and then you're just building your conclusion into your assumptions, which would be circular reasoning. If "contingent" just means "exists but didn't have to", well so what? Maybe things "just happen" sometimes. This certainly seems to be the case at the subatomic level, and everything else is built on that.

If you don't accept the PSR and you hold that contingent things happen without cause, then how do you know anything has a cause? Why do you have a problem with anyone asserting things without evidence? No need to observe reality to find patterns if you can't be sure of causality.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:05 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 10:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:19 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You don't necessarily need to know the universe is contingent. If any contingent being exists, then you have the same problem of how to explain it's existence without infinite regress.

Only if you accept the corollary assumption/assertion that every contingent thing/being requires a cause. I do not accept that assumption, unless you define "contingent" to mean that, and then you're just building your conclusion into your assumptions, which would be circular reasoning. If "contingent" just means "exists but didn't have to", well so what? Maybe things "just happen" sometimes. This certainly seems to be the case at the subatomic level, and everything else is built on that.

If you don't accept the PSR and you hold that contingent things happen without cause, then how do you know anything has a cause? Why do you have a problem with anyone asserting things without evidence? No need to observe reality to find patterns if you can't be sure of causality.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:06 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:01 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Only if you accept the corollary assumption/assertion that every contingent thing/being requires a cause. I do not accept that assumption, unless you define "contingent" to mean that, and then you're just building your conclusion into your assumptions, which would be circular reasoning. If "contingent" just means "exists but didn't have to", well so what? Maybe things "just happen" sometimes. This certainly seems to be the case at the subatomic level, and everything else is built on that.

If you don't accept the PSR and you hold that contingent things happen without cause, then how do you know anything has a cause? Why do you have a problem with anyone asserting things without evidence? No need to observe reality to find patterns if you can't be sure of causality.

We don't have to be "sure" of anything. Science is largely built on induction (for that matter, so is "common sense"), and any philosopher knows that induction can never produce certainty. We observe patterns and build theories around them because, in general, it works. When it doesn't work, we modify the theories. "Knowing" and being "sure" are highly overrated. You can do science and accomplish things without certain knowledge.

Again, at the subatomic level uncaused contingent events are quite common. Get used to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:00 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  For those who haven't seen it:

The Failure of the Cosmological Argument

I reject the form of the argument you use. IEP was trying to be brief. There are many cosmological arguments that don't have erronious claims like premise 1.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 09:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 06:12 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You're equivocating the abstract and the concrete.

Well maybe I'm biased towards the abstract, but I do think it applies to the concrete here. You can have exactly one third of something. And if you get three thirds of something you get one of that thing. So it can occur in the concrete. But I can justify it with the abstract. Math and physical reality are inseparable.

You just can’t keep yourself from making alternative-facts statements can you? Consider

i^2 = -1

i^0 = i^4

i^1 = i^5

i = necessary being ™

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: