The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:50 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(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?

That's what I thought. Go to your Stanford site, and search for "other logics".

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, 12:07 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:59 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(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.

And why is the question AT ALL relevant ?

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, 12:08 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 11:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The Kalam states that all things require a cause. I modified this claim."

But the issue with such assertions is that they aren't demonstrated as true. So if one assumes that all things make a cause, you can move forward with that argument. But without actually demonstrating that ALL things/events/occurrences require a cause, it is a rather useless starting point. If that is where you want to start, you need to rationalize why it's an acceptable position and initial assumption.

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.

It's still unfounded. Assuming all things must have a cause is without base

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:30 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Argument from contingency:

In point 1-7 you talk about contingent and necessary beings, and how the cause of all the contingent beings must be a necessary being. In point 8 you state: "the universe is contingent". But its not a contingent being.
Thus, you are trying to smuggle in a (with a mind?) being, where we basically are talking about things (in a very abstract way). Its very obvious that this is a cheap shot to try and equivocate things and beings.

Being is being used differently here. Sorry for the confusing diction. I should have been more clear with that.

Quote:The whole argument, when we put the thesaurus back on the shelf and boil it down to what it is, sounds like this:

there are *normal* beings, and they need a cause, which is another being
there is a necessary being, which needs no cause
thus, a necessary being must be the cause of all *normal* beings, to avoid infinite regress
the universe is a *normal* being
thus a necessary being caused the universe

First, you need to establish that a being caused the universe, other than by smuggling it in in such a dishonest way.

I think this is demonstrated by the argument. It follows that the necessary being caused all contingent beings because that was the reason for positing the necessary being to begin with.

Quote:Second, you need to demonstrate that two different types of beings exist, by more than just asserting there are *normal* ones and *contingent ones*, because otherwise your argument would run into infinite regress. You need to solve this problem, by anything else than just creating that "exeption" of a necessary being. This is by the way (making up two separate types of beings), why you already have been told that you are comitting a fallacy of special pleading, or lets better say, you tried to circumvent it.

Well the Argument from Possibility and Necessity does this. It's a reductio of the claim that all beings are contingent.

Quote:Third: quantum physics (and relativity with spacetime rather than space-and-time) already proves that "reality" works, on a fundamental level, anything but intuitive. So appealing to "causation" as a rule valid outside of the universe and space time is not supported by evidence, quite to the contrary.

Would you then hold to a nondeterministic view of QM? It seems you disagree with the PSR.

Quote:In the end, all your argument would be good for, if i would let it stand as it is, is: "The universe was caused by something that has no cause."
You wont get further than a "thing" (that caused the universe) and still have to demonstrate how a thing can cause the universe but needs no cause itself, in other words: how you think you can circumvent or avoid special pleading.

Again, i am a mere engineer, and have no clue about Philosophy, but even my intellect feels insulted by the dishonesty and stupidity of this argument, with the big open issue of special pleading.

I addressed the issue of special pleading. I'm not making an arbitrary exception. Instead, I'm making a distinction between two different kinds of beings.

Quote:The whole purpose of 1-7 is to smuggle in "being" and to cast a smoke screen on special pleading, nothing else. Then the universe gets equivocated with "being" and we are done....are we?
[Image: CJ0lUUvXAAA5x4I.png]

I don't think I'm done, but I can't speak for you.

Quote:Please excuse me if i dont waste my time with the other arguments, because people tend to bring forth the best ones first, and the first one is not convincing at all....and i am hungry, i need a snack and watch the superbowl on my DVD player.

I don't like football but that was quite a good game. And Gaga is insane lol.

Quote:Let me remind you again: since quantum physics and spacetime we know that the universe itself is absolutely counter intuitive. Thus, by applying philosophy, sitting in your armchair and thinking hard with your human brain, about the universe and what is possibly "outside", without even looking at the universe, namely by applying science and making experiments and watching the ultimatively strange and -almost- unbelieveable results, you will never find out the mysterious ways it works or beyond, never.

I don't think the universe is intuitive. But I do think the universe follows logical laws. So we can reason about it merely a priori.

"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, 12:12 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It's still unfounded. Assuming all things must have a cause is without base

I don't assume all things must have a cause. In fact, one of my arguments aims to disprove that through reductio.

"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, 12:13 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 11:59 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I already stated that I agreed with you that there's no reason to suspect it's one necessary being.

And why is the question AT ALL relevant ?

Relevant to what goal?

"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, 12:14 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I have repeatedly stated that there must be a necessary being.

And it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that's an absurd notion.
A "necessary" being (who is ALSO the "first cause") is SUBJECT to the very Reality it supposedly created. Reality remains unaccounted for. It explains nothing.
Reality DETERMINED what that being's properties are.

A real "undetermined" deity, could have made ANY sort of Reality. Yours can't.

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, 12:19 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that's an absurd notion.
A "necessary" being (who is ALSO the "first cause") is SUBJECT to the very Reality it supposedly created. Reality remains unaccounted for. It explains nothing.
Reality DETERMINED what that being's properties are.

A real "undetermined" deity, could have made ANY sort of Reality. Yours can't.

I don't know what you mean when you say reality determined the aspects of the necessary being. What is the issue?

"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, 12:21 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:13 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And why is the question AT ALL relevant ?

Relevant to what goal?

Answer the question. Why is the question relevant to how anyone lives today, or the choices they make, or anything they do ?

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, 12:22 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:12 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It's still unfounded. Assuming all things must have a cause is without base

I don't assume all things must have a cause. In fact, one of my arguments aims to disprove that through reductio.

But the larger point remains that the "First Cause" argument can be easily debunked by pointing out its inability to support the initial assumption that all things must have a cause.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: