The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2017, 11:37 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:20 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Sorry I wasn't specific. I reject the form of the cosmological argument you are using. IEP misrepresented it. I'm not saying I reject the form of your argument. I agree with your argument against their formulation.

I don't get your complaints as the forms of the arguments you used openly admit to assumptions and these other types of unjustifiable premises.

The arguments I use do not claim all things are contingent.

"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, 11:41 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I have several issues with the "it works" thesis. First, how do you know it works? Do you have epistemic certainty of this or is it just begging the question and assuming your senses are reliable?

You really are a child.
We know it works, as science sees it work every day of the fucking week.
We have certainty that people DIE without science.
Maybe some day you'll descend from that idiotic ivory tower where you fap all day to "philosophy" and join the human race.

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, 11:46 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:37 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:20 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't get your complaints as the forms of the arguments you used openly admit to assumptions and these other types of unjustifiable premises.

The arguments I use do not claim all things are contingent.

No, but you are essentially saying "All things are contingent except for the things that aren't." Don't you see how information-free and useless such a statement is? You are building your conclusion into your definitions, and that's cheating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
07-02-2017, 11:47 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 09:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 03:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes - EVIDENCE.


Yes there is - EVIDENCE.


No - but it relies on EVIDENCE.

In what way is evidence beyond logic? Evidence is not a method for determining truth. It's a term within a specific method called... logic.

No, evidence is fact, logic is a tool.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
07-02-2017, 11:50 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I have several issues with the "it works" thesis. First, how do you know it works? Do you have epistemic certainty of this or is it just begging the question and assuming your senses are reliable?

You really are a child.
We know it works, as science sees it work every day of the fucking week.
We have certainty that people DIE without science.
Maybe some day you'll descend from that idiotic ivory tower where you fap all day to "philosophy" and join the human race.

God why do you lace every post with an insult? And you can't claim to love evidence if you're going to continually fail to provide evidence for your claims. Your first statement is just science works because science works. Your second statement is just an assertion and an attempt to appeal to emotion. Your third statement is just another insult. Do you have any answer to my question? Remember I asked how you know science works. You respond by saying we know it works. Irrelevant thesis fallacy.

"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, 11:50 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 10:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Wrong. Mind is an emergent property of brains. There is no evidence of mind without a physical substrate.

Quote: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.

Who brought up pragmatism? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-02-2017, 11:52 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  In what way is evidence beyond logic? Evidence is not a method for determining truth. It's a term within a specific method called... logic.

No, evidence is fact, logic is a tool.

Evidence is fact? What? Evidence is simply something used to indicate or point to a certain proposition. You could say observations are facts, but you'd have to justify that. And the entire system under which you justify anything is known as logic.

"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, 11:56 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:24 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:20 AM)Naielis Wrote:  When I say math and reality are inseparable, I mean that there is no aspect of reality that deals with quantity but doesn't adhere to mathematical laws.

So what you are saying is that reality is subservient to mathematics. I agree.

And I do not.

Mathematics is a way to describe aspects of reality. If reality were different, then the math would different.

Physical reality is what we have. The rest is commentary. And woo.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-02-2017, 11:56 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 12:33 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 09:20 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The universe can't be the necessary being because it lacks potency to cause all things

Bare assertion, based on a vague non-concept of "potency".

(07-02-2017 09:20 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm appealing to the Principle of Proportionate Causality

Which is not a law, but bare assertion by various theistic philosophers that they try to pass off as a rule and hope no one thinks about it too much. On top of this, your positing that it applies to the universe is itself bare assertion.

(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.

And your repeated claims that the universe cannot be, itself, necessary are nothing but - say it with me now - bare assertion.

(07-02-2017 10:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism lacks ability to explain intentionality

This is a weasel word with no hard-and-fast definition, which various theists attempt to use in a dozen different ways. Unless you clarify which one of the various definitions you are using, no response can be made.

(07-02-2017 10:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  and mental states without some modification towards dualism.

This is simply false. Materialism has no issue with the concept of mind.

(07-02-2017 11:01 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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?

Because they demonstrably do, within the universe.

Outside the universe, causality does not and cannot hold, because time ceases to exist. Even assuming that we accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe is contingent, it wouldn't actually help to establish the existence of God - or any other necessary entity - simply because you cannot show that the causal relationship necessary for a necessary-cause-contingent-effect relationship could hold.

This is another issue with the argument, but since you cannot establish that the universe is contingent to begin with, it's rather moot, and I didn't bother with it before.

(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I have several issues with the "it works" thesis. First, how do you know it works?

Because you are typing on a computer right now.

(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Do you have epistemic certainty of this

Yes.

(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  or is it just begging the question and assuming your senses are reliable?

No.

Solipsism is an incoherent position, Naielis. It, like the cosmological arguments, has not been relevant for centuries. We know that we are interacting with something. We call this "the universe". It does not matter if we are sensing "the thing-in-itself" or whatever other not-actually-that-impressive term you want to try to tack on to it. So long as what we sense is consistent, we can learn about it, and the only distinction that you can make is a purely semantic one that amounts to precisely nothing.

I have explained this to you before. Please read. These are not enormously complicated concepts.

(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Second, it works in what sense? What is the goal?

It allows us to collect accurate data on and construct working models of the thing studied.

(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Third, the problem of induction doesn't lead to uncertainty. It leads to a lack of justification. The problem for pragmatists and materialists is justifying the assumptions that certain observations represent universals. How do you know gravity operates everywhere?

Because we can demonstrate that it does.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
07-02-2017, 11:56 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I agree that evidence is necessary in many cases. But you can use deductive reasoning from observations.

so long as you then cross-check your conclusions against reality. I observe the sun moving across the sky but deducing that the sun travels around the earth from that observation is wrong.

Quote:Aquinas observed that some beings are contingent and he formed his argument around that.

and he extrapolated from common-sense notions into areas where they simply do not apply

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: