The Fallacy of Composition and the Cosmological Arguments

[MaxVel]

Please reread the reference carefully. It does not refer to logical arguments as evidence. Please cite specifically fro this reference where it refers to logical arguments as evidence. In the same Stanford dictionary check out Justification Logic, and Evidentialism.

Nowhere did I say that the article mentioned 'logical arguments' so... strawman.

What it does say (under point 1) is:

Evidence, whatever else it is, is the kind of thing which can make a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe.

No reason why a logical argument cannot be that. See most pure mathematics proofs, for examples.


and (under point 3)

If E is evidence for some hypothesis H, then E makes it more likely that H is true: in such circumstances, E confirms H. On the other hand, if E is evidence against H, then E makes it less likely that H is true: E disconfirms H. Verification is the limiting case of confirmation: a piece of evidence verifies a hypothesis in this sense just in case it conclusively establishes that hypothesis as true.

A valid logical argument from true premises (iow a sound argument) meets the criteria underlined above. Scientists use this all the time.

No cigar or brass ring here. Logical arguments are not evidence.

Still wrong!


I note you have yet to give a definition of evidence, despite arguing that I was wrong "...by definition of evidence."

BTW, it's quite funny watching you use logical arguments as evidence to try and convince me that logical arguments aren't evidence. I hope you did note that I did not say that 'every logical argument is evidence' (some aren't), nor did I say that 'only logical arguments are evidence'. It would be a shame if you were arguing against a strawman (again).




Shunya, firstly you err in thinking that all cosmological arguments depend on 'absolute beginnings' or time/ the universe having a beginning.

See here, under point 3.


Secondly, Aquinas' cosmological argument is a demonstration that:

What it seeks to show is that if there is to be an ultimate explanation of things, then there must be a cause of everything else which not only happens to exist, but which could not even in principle have failed to exist. And that is why it is said to be uncaused – not because it is an arbitrary exception to a general rule, not because it merely happens to be uncaused, but rather because it is not the sort of thing that can even in principle be said to have had a cause, precisely because it could not even in principle have failed to exist in the first place. And the argument doesn’t merely assume or stipulate that the first cause is like this; on the contrary, the whole point of the argument is to try to show that there must be something like this.

{from the link above}

If you cannot show one of the premises to be false, or show that the argument is not logically valid, then it is a sound argument, and it's conclusion must be true.



Thirdly, Aquinas' arguments are not concerned with demonstrating a temporally prior cause (see under point 3 in Feser's post) so saying things like:

There is no evidence to support the existence of a prior source that existed before our physical existence.

is irrelevant to what Aquinas is arguing.

[technomage]

If you cannot show one of the premises to be false, or show that the argument is not logically valid, then it is a sound argument, and it's conclusion must be true.

Sound logical arguments can be false. Even if Shunya fails to demonstrate that the premises are false, his failure does not make the argument true.

[shunyadragon]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

© source where applicable

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS434US434&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=evidence+definition

ev·i·dence/ˈevədəns/
Noun:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

© source where applicable

Please cite a source that considers logical arguments as evidence. This you have failed to do.

Sound logical arguments can be false. Even if Shunya fails to demonstrate that the premises are false, his failure does not make the argument true.

[MaxVel]

Sound logical arguments can be false. Even if Shunya fails to demonstrate that the premises are false, his failure does not make the argument true.

Huh?

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.

Maybe I'm confused, but I read that to mean that a sound argument is one that is valid (i.e., if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false), and has true premises; and therefore the conclusion must be true also.


Anyway, enough derailing of the thread.

[technomage]

Huh?

Sorry, I should have stated that as "logical arguments can be properly constructed, but false." Whether or not Shunya fails to disprove a premise points far more to Shunya's abilities than to the truth or falsehood of the premise.

[MaxVel]

Sorry, I should have stated that as "logical arguments can be properly constructed, but false." Whether or not Shunya fails to disprove a premise points far more to Shunya's abilities than to the truth or falsehood of the premise.

Correct. In my experience Shunya tends to reject the conclusion rather than address the form of the argument or attack the premises. Not exactly convincing, but it's his life.

[shunyadragon]

Correct. In my experience Shunya tends to reject the conclusion rather than address the form of the argument or attack the premises. Not exactly convincing, but it's his life.

By far most of my objections have been directly or indirectly attacked the premises of the arguments.

Let's work with an example of a problem with a common premise in Cosmological arguments as follows . . .

'Everything that has a beginning has a cause.'

On the surface I see no problem with this premise as simply worded, but . . . (1) The cause of everything that has beginning could very well be natural in the natural chain of cause and effect as we know it today by the evidence. (2) Our natural physical existence has no known first cause other than simply possibly an eternal and infinite physical existence and natural law.

As I have said before, there is no sound basis for the assumption of the necessity of contingency in the cosmological arguments other than simply natural cause.

The leap of the apriori assumption that God is necessarily the first cause is described as follows . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries, from the ancient Greeks Plato and Aristotle to the medievals (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas) and beyond. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.

© source where applicable

[Griggsy]

Aquinas begs the question by his definition of God and special pleads for that definition.
His five ways are are just patently nonsencical!
The Cosmos itself is the ultimate explanation: no need to find that mystery,surrounded by still more mysteires,parading around as the sufficient reason as being that Primary Cause and Sufficient Reason.
Aquinas and Feser feel that by invoking superstitio they can add a deeper explanation when all they do is produce deeper obscurantism!
God, per the thread the ignostic-Ockham parades as that explanation but is actually no more than a square circle or married bachelor and providing no more explanation than demons and gremlins.
How can one have a deep relationship with a square circle!
Read Feser for amusement! Too bad he advocates the Dark Ages instead of the modern age! He abjures modern philosophy in favor of failed Thomism.

[GioD]

Griggsy shows he has no knowledge of the history of philosophy by using the term "Dark Ages". He also thinks "the Cosmos", in spite of being composite, complex, contingent, and material, is a better explanation for itself than God.

Credibility at 0% and going down.

[Griggsy]

What swill!
Now to my comments!

[technomage]

What swill!
Now to my comments!

Griggsy, when even the skeptics on the forum note that you are the best possible support for the contention of some theists that logic is impossible apart from their (putative) God, you know you're doing something wrong.

My advice? Go start yourself a blog somewhere so you stop interrupting attempts at communication with your drivel. Your command of the English language is tenuous at best, your command of logic far worse, and your command of common sense positively nonexistent.

You give atheism a bad name.

[Griggsy]

Fool, keep your drivel to yourself!
People should answer my points and when they put forth drivel, I find they deserve no respect! To all fools, the same!
I've been here for years with Shunyadragon and other reasonable people understanding me so who care what fools state?

[technomage]

I've been here for years

I know you have--I was here when you first showed up. That is irrelevant.

[Cerebrum123]

Fool, keep your drivel to yourself!
People should answer my points and when they put forth drivel, I find they deserve no respect! To all fools, the same!
I've been here for years with Shunyadragon and other reasonable people understanding me so who care what fools state?

The mention of shunyadragon explains MORE than enough, that and your previous posts say pretty much everything I need to know about you. To the ignore function.

[Griggsy]

As Aquinas' superfluity argument notes, God is superfluous to natural causes. Yet, with his five failed ways-suggestions- he tries to overcome his own argument and the presumption of naturalism and Ockham's Razor!
As Lord Rusell states to Fr.Copleston in their radio debate decades ago, Naure is just a brute fact, and Fr.Copleston's retort that then its all chocolates and no chocolate maker [ my example] but that begs the question! As a brute fact, God lacks facts!
Adding Him only asserts obscurantism to the highest degree!
That bane!
How does He act in the world as by miracle and by the let it be light are only obscurantistic.
And if with, Smoltczck, one speaks not of acting,but only of explanation, how could He instantiate Himself without acting? And how can He have intent and act when we naturalists' arguments note otherwise?
How without that drivel of Thomistic essence and so forth, could He be any sort of a good answer?
Shunyadragon, what is your valued opinion about any of this? This thread is for discussion of ways to Him, not of the way one posts!
For blogs that reblog the good stuff, visit:
http://ngriggs.blogspot.com
http://itarian.blogspot.com
http://igmor.blogspot.com
http://morgan-lynng.blogspot.com
Shunyadragon,