The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 02:26 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The hell you say. We invented both the laws of logic and truth. There is no logic without us just as there is no truth without us. We've invented dozens of different logics for reasoning under a variety of different circumstances each with their own version of truth.

Exactly. Which logic is Naielis refering to? First order logic? Second order logic? higher order logic? Propositional logic? Fuzzy logic?

He just found out about them today.

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, 02:28 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
The entire premise of the thread is based on an error.

The cosmological argument has been debunked many times, by many people, over the course of the last two decades.

Many of the sources have already been provided here so I won't repeat what has already been done.

It - the argument - has yet to recover, and is unlikely to ever recover.

Thing is, there may be a rational, cogent argument for a divine superintelligence that "sparked off" the universe/multiverse. I've never seen one, but perhaps I've just missed it.

But the cosmological argument isn't it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heath_Tierney's post
06-02-2017, 02:34 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 01:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I want to know where the larger Reality came from, and how it came to be. A god/being with specific properties can't be the answer to that question.

This statement requires justification.

"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, 02:40 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The hell you say. We invented both the laws of logic and truth. There is no logic without us just as there is no truth without us. We've invented dozens of different logics for reasoning under a variety of different conditions each with their own definition of truth. Truth doesn't exist outside us. How could it? I mean we define it for chrissake.

The laws of logic describe truths that existed before humans. This is what we are referring to. If you disagree, then you have a very different definition of truth than I do. I'm using truth as that which corresponds to reality. Are you saying nothing corresponded to reality before humans? Well that's somewhat ad hoc don't you think? "Truth doesn't exist outside us. How could it? I mean we define it for chrissake." We defined evolution and natural selection. Those didn't occur before we defined them? We're talking about the content of words here, not the words themselves.

"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, 02:41 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Exactly. Which logic is Naielis refering to? First order logic? Second order logic? higher order logic? Propositional logic? Fuzzy logic?

He just found out about them today.

Logic hasn't been my main area of study but I do know what these categories are. I'm not sure they're relevant to this discussion though.

"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, 02:44 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:41 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He just found out about them today.

Logic hasn't been my main area of study but I do know what these categories are. I'm not sure they're relevant to this discussion though.

Evidently it is relevant to the conversation:

(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The laws of logic describe truths that existed before humans.

The laws of which form of logic?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 02:45 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 01:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bla bla bla. The DISCOVERY and determination of CO2 concentrations are not determined by logic. Relativity (no absolute position in spacetime), Uncertainty (double slit) experiment are not "logical". Too bad you know so little science.

Come back when you get an education.

You have not answered the questions. Still waiting.

I know plenty about science. And what questions are you referring to? I answered all the questions I saw.

"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, 02:47 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(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.

Being vs entity makes no difference unless you are saying it just means "thing" with no defined attributes other than existence. In that case we're back to the first point being rejected as a baseless assertion.

The problem I have with your PSR is that there is no standard for "sufficient". You seem to want to limit it to a high enough standard to support your desired conclusion and I reject that as unjustified.

I am not claiming that there is no cause or that the current evidence for uncaused events is conclusive. All I'm saying is that the evidence is sufficient to reject your claim that there has to be a necessary thing as unfounded.

Quote:
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.

If the universe simply exists then there is no need for it to cause anything so there is no issue with "potency". Any potential needed would be part of what exists.

You also are still saying that either the universe or its cause must be necessary but have not demonstrated that to be true. Whether or not we see uncaused events within our universe tells us nothing about whether or not there can be uncaused events outside the universe that result in a contingent universe that had no necessary cause.

Quote:
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.

I probably should have said that I don't accept that there has to be any necessary thing rather than anything necessary. The laws of logic are human descriptions of how we perceive the universe and we already know that they may be inaccurate at the far ends of the scale. I see applying anything we understand within the universe to the universe as a whole, or to anything "outside" it, as a category error.

Quote:
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.

Yes, but you have failed to demonstrate that there is any necessary being, entity, or thing. If uncaused events can happen then the chain of contingent things ends whenever one occurs. Since we have no way of knowing if the universe is the result of an uncaused event we can say nothing at this time about its cause. We can't even say that the universe itself isn't necessary because without the need for creation there is no need for sufficient "potency" (which seriously sounds like another attempt to hide bad logic behind an appeal to everyday experience that just doesn't 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
06-02-2017, 02:50 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The hell you say. We invented both the laws of logic and truth. There is no logic without us just as there is no truth without us. We've invented dozens of different logics for reasoning under a variety of different conditions each with their own definition of truth. Truth doesn't exist outside us. How could it? I mean we define it for chrissake.

The laws of logic describe truths that existed before humans. This is what we are referring to. If you disagree, then you have a very different definition of truth than I do. I'm using truth as that which corresponds to reality. Are you saying nothing corresponded to reality before humans? Well that's somewhat ad hoc don't you think? "Truth doesn't exist outside us. How could it? I mean we define it for chrissake." We defined evolution and natural selection. Those didn't occur before we defined them? We're talking about the content of words here, not the words themselves.

Facepalm

did you even watch the video ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 02:50 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:44 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Evidently it is relevant to the conversation:

(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The laws of logic describe truths that existed before humans.

The laws of which form of logic?

How are they relevant? The laws of logic are the same for first, second, and third order are they not? These are branches of logic. They aren't at odds.

"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: