The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 10:43 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I do not accept that the explanation must be a being. I also think that necessary and non-contingent are not synonyous unless you equivocate on the use of "necessary". Science seems to be leading us to see that causeless events happen which means that it is possible for an event that is not contingent on any prior events could itself have happened or not happened. No "neceessary" event is needed, let alone a "being".

Being is used to represent entity here. It seems you're proposing a third option outside of necessary and contingent beings. I'd say this is false because it contradicts the PSR. Science's lack of observation of a certain cause doesn't seem sufficient as evidence to claim there is no cause.

Quote:That is an assertion that I do not accept as supported by evidence. It may be but if there can be a being that simply exists then it would be a lot simpler for there to be a universe that simply exists.

I addressed this in the original post. The universe doesn't have the potency to cause all contingent beings so it cannot be necessary. If you're saying it is neither, then it's the same argument about the PSR.

Quote:Since I don't accept that there has to be anything necessary, especially a being, and I don't accept that the universe is itself contingent the conclusion is rejected.

Would you argue there are any necessary truths? Certainly you would agree that the laws of logic describe necessary truths. These could not be otherwise or reality would be incoherent and unintelligible.

Quote:Points 6 through 10 depend on point 5 which depends on point one and I reject one or both of those according to what you mean by "thing" and "being". Points 6 and 7 are just bald assertions bsed on an assumption that the universe we experience is all of reality and that the rules of causality that you want to apply within our universe would apply to whatever created it.

Well causality doesn't apply to necessary beings. For example, there is nothing that caused the laws of logic to be true. Their truth is grounded in their own existence. Whereas a contingent truth is true becuase something else caused it to be true. In other words, it could have been otherwise.

"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
06-02-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The Five Proofs are simply a crutch for believers who need to convince themselves. They are shot through with fallacies, and as such should be discarded for the sloppy thinking that they are.

Well I simply disagree.

Quote:Furthermore, they ignore the point that you cannot reason anything into existence. If something exists in this reality, reason won't make it go away, and if something doesn't exist in this reality, reason cannot change that either.

No one is reasoning things into existence. We are using our reasoning to determine whether something exists.

Quote:I hated Phi101 when I took it about two centuries ago, but one thing I loved about it was my Jesuit-trained Professor, Dr Hughes. He'd stand at the door chain-smoking Winstons and sipping his coffee and vodka, and telling us why both Anselm and Aquinas were idiots to peg their faith on this sort of thing. He made a great point, to my mind: if you're trying to find solid reasoning for belief in god(s), doesn't that bespeak a lack of faith?

Yes it does. Fideism is unjustified nonsense.

"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
06-02-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No one is reasoning things into existence. We are using our reasoning to determine whether something exists.

And as you have been told, there are many perfectly correct logical systems which use perfectly correct "reasoning". They do not obtain in reality. Typical newbie error.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-02-2017, 11:50 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:30 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The real kicker is that the Cosmological Argument is essentially pointless.

The CA claims to prove a First Cause deity. A sentient being of some sort that consciously chose to create the universe.

So what?

It does not prove:

That the "god" intended to create humans.
That the "god" is even aware that humans exist.
That any of the human religions are valid.
Anything regarding an afterlife.
That the "god" interacts with the universe in any other way.

All you have done is essentially renamed the "Big Bang" to "god". You have done the same thing that ancient peoples did when they created weather gods. It's the god of the gaps.

A "god" that does not interact with the universe in a perceptible way and does not interact with humans?

How is that different from fictional characters?

It's different from fictional characters because you cannot create a successful argument for the existence of a fictional character. And my intent was never to validate specific religions. The more you specify to one religion, the closer you get to absurdity.

"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
06-02-2017, 11:50 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And as you have been told, there are many perfectly correct logical systems which use perfectly correct "reasoning". They do not obtain in reality. Typical newbie error.

I don't exactly know what you mean. Can you give an example?

"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
06-02-2017, 11:52 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No one is reasoning things into existence. We are using our reasoning to determine whether something exists.

listen reason and logic won't help you prove anything exists unless you have hard evidence to back it up and arguments don't qualify as evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
06-02-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  But the point of my post was that it wasn't a rational assumption. I have repeatedly stated that there must be a necessary being. This would mean not all things have to have a cause. This is why I said I modified the Kalam's first premise. Instead of it being all things require a cause, it can be stated as all contingent beings require a cause or a grounding separate from their own being.

Irrelevant what you do. Restating something does not make it true. You have not shown us why it has to be "a" necessary being. Could be 10.

You have not demonstrated the validity of this premise, or how it is you KNOW it applies to anything OTHER than inside this universe.

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
06-02-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
"If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—“Why is there something rather than nothing?”—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?"

https://infidels.org/library/modern/thei...gical.html

The philosophical answer to this question is “then a miracle occurs”, it’s turtles all the way down.

[Image: miracle_cartoon.jpg]

“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
06-02-2017, 11:57 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:52 AM)Ace Wrote:  listen reason and logic won't help you prove anything exists unless you have hard evidence to back it up and arguments don't qualify as evidence

So if I wrote a mathematical proof showing that 0.99... repeating on forever is equal to 1, would you not believe me until I showed it with physical evidence? Your standard seems to be empiricism. But empiricism is subservient to a priori deductive arguments.

"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
06-02-2017, 11:59 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Irrelevant what you do. Restating something does not make it true. You have not shown us why it has to be "a" necessary being. Could be 10.

You have not demonstrated the validity of this premise, or how it is you KNOW it applies to anything OTHER than inside this universe.

I already stated that I agreed with you that there's no reason to suspect it's one necessary being.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: