The Fallacy of Composition and the Cosmological Arguments

[Chrawnus]

I supose so, but then it hardly matters as Reichenbach's argument from Existence claims that as Exitence is all then we find no transcendent beiing, and transcendence denies omnipresence, and ti's no false dilemma, so God cannot exist as Himself.
God adds nothing to explanations or as a relationship! See mu arguments about God thread.
The quantum fields it now seems to me also make the fallacy an ignoration elenchi- irrelevant, red herring. So, I think for now.
That the parts are contingent still is irrelevant to the whole, because eternal quantum bespeaks eternal Existence! And again, ti's nonsence to require the sufficient reason-putative God.

Yes, Victor Stenger and others should never use the term nothing for the quantum fields as that leads to equivocation with nothngness, which cannot exists as ancient Greeks knew.
Ponder Alex Vilenkin's " Many Worlds in One" and David Mills' " Atheist Universe for information on the fields and how they relate to the Cosmos and not to such as Billy Lane.
That the parts are contingent however does not relate to the eternal quanta,because of the law of conservation and so the Cosmos - the Megaverse-exists eternally, and it does no good for Billy Lane and Eddy Feser and Tommy Aquinas and God Billy Leibniz to assert that still the Cosmos needs a personal cause: that is the reduced animism that is theism. See my thread arguments... about all that.
Ah, but contingency is a red herring,because the out of existence refers to an item when its quarks are eternal! Never do we notice an absolute annhilation of matter-energy! So, science rules whilst theology rings a succession of false notes due to its study of that square circle called God.
Victor Stenger and such offer evidence whilst the Craigs and the Fesers pontificate using solecistic, sophisticated sophistry of wily,woeful woo!

You're derailing this thread.


Don't do that.





@robertb: I'll respond to your post, but it might take a while. Just to let you know.

[shunyadragon]

How do you know this? What science do you have that shows this?

All the evidence we have at present of the cosmos, and the quantum world is that there is no evidence that our natural existence is contingent on anything other that Natural Law and processes. There is no evidence of any ultimate beginnings nor endings on the Quantum nor cosmos level. All we have is beginnings and endings within a continuum of existence, as with our universe. The only evidence we have is our universe began expanding from preexisting matter and energy.

You provide for hypothetical beginnings in logical arguments for contingency, but there is no evidence for such beginnings.

So because we haven't observed it, it can't happen? Sounds like a fallacy to me....

There is nothing in science that has determined that anything cannot happen. These conclusions represent the current knowledge of science. There is simply no evidence that the Quantum world is contingent on anything other than natural causes and effects within the quantum world itself.

Sadly for Griggsy, Stenger and other physicists operate out of an unexamined metaphysics, doing their science and showing their 'evidence' without actually reasoning through the underlying metaphysical conclusions that their science rests on. They assume certain metaphysical positions to do their science, then use that science to 'prove' that their metaphysical assumptions are correct. Circular reasoning, you are my master.

Sadly, you show no comprehension of science, physics and cosmology.

Question . . .

What metaphysical conclusions does science rest on.

[MaxVel]

To avoid further derailing Chrawnus' thread, I'm only going to reply once.

All the evidence we have at present of the cosmos, and the quantum world is that there is no evidence that our natural existence is contingent on anything other that Natural Law and processes. There is no evidence of any ultimate beginnings nor endings on the Quantum nor cosmos level. All we have is beginnings and endings within a continuum of existence, as with our universe. The only evidence we have is our universe began expanding from preexisting matter and energy.

You provide for hypothetical beginnings in logical arguments for contingency, but there is no evidence for such beginnings.

1. Logical arguments are evidence.

2. We don't have any empirical evidence for what happened 'before' the Big Bag singularity. We don't have any empirical evidence for multiverses, or anything outside, or before, or after the Universe.

3. If 'our natural existence' is contingent then it cannot eternal. Ditto the Cosmos, quantum vacuum, etc etc. Given enough time (i.e. eternity) anything contingent would at some point not have existed. If everything is contingent, then nothing (meaning no thing at all, no energy, matter, fields, whatever, nothing) would exist right now.

There is nothing in science that has determined that anything cannot happen. These conclusions represent the current knowledge of science. There is simply no evidence that the Quantum world is contingent on anything other than natural causes and effects within the quantum world itself.

Sadly, you show no comprehension of science, physics and cosmology.

I guess I'm in good company with Griggsy, who shows no comprehension of how to construct a rational argument, nor of metaphysics, nor of philosophy ; and in good company with you, who shows no comprehension of {too many things to list within the character limit}.

Question . . .

What metaphysical conclusions does science rest on.

Why, none at all.


Off the top of my head:-

Uniformity

Existence of a real, mind-independent, external world.

Reliability of our senses to tell us about that world.

Some aspects of causation

[technomage]

1. Logical arguments are evidence.

No, they are not. A logical argument is nothing more than an attempt to process a concept in a consistent and coherent manner. Indeed, nothing prevents an argument from being logical but false, if that argument is based on a false premise.

[shunyadragon]

1. Logical arguments are evidence.

False, by definition of evidence, but nonetheless logical arguments are more convincing if they are based on the evidence.

2. We don't have any empirical evidence for what happened 'before' the Big Bag singularity. We don't have any empirical evidence for multiverses, or anything outside, or before, or after the Universe.

Your proposing an illogical argument for the negative proof of beginnings. This not compateble with science nor logic.

[quote] 3. If 'our natural existence' is contingent then it cannot eternal.

Ditto the Cosmos, quantum vacuum, etc etc. Given enough time (i.e. eternity) anything contingent would at some point not have existed. If everything is contingent, then nothing (meaning no thing at all, no energy, matter, fields, whatever, nothing) would exist right now.

True, but there is no evidence that the cosmos and the Quantum world is contingent nor finite.

None of the evidence of our cosmos and the Quantum world leads to this vague, IFFY, hypothetical unfounded possible conclusion.

Why, none at all.


Off the top of my head:-

Uniformity

Existence of a real, mind-independent, external world.

Reliability of our senses to tell us about that world.

Some aspects of causation

The assumptions above are not very well worded. The problem with not having uniform assumptions in science, regardless of whether you call them metaphysical or not is that if you do not make certain assumptions you fall into a useless world of metaphysical monism like in many Vedic traditions and you become paranoid questioning everything. It is best not to go down this road.

I prefer the very concise well presented assumptions outlined in the Stanford Philosophy Dictionary and go on with the discussion.

Do you seriously question these assumptions used in the Philosophy of science in understanding the nature of our physical existence as referenced here?

To comply with Tweb regs the summary of this article will be presented in two posts.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/

Views on matters of unity and unification make more than a cardinality difference, and they do so in both science and philosophy. In science they provide strong heuristic or methodological guidance and even justification for hypotheses and projects, and specific goals too. They also provide legitimacy, even if rhetorically, in social contexts with sources of funding and profit. They become the standard of what carries the authority and legitimacy of what it is to be scientific. They make a difference, as a result, through scientific application and extension, often merely rhetorical, to other domains such as healthcare and economic policy. Last but not least is the influence of implicit assumptions about unification can and do have on science education.

Philosophically, assumptions about unification help choose what sort of philosophical questions to pursue and what target areas to explore. For instance, fundamentalist assumptions typically lead to addressing epistemological and metaphysical issues in terms only of results and interpretations of fundamental levels of disciplines. Assumptions of this sort help define what count as scientific and shape scientistic or naturalized philosophical projects. In this sense, it determines, or at least strongly suggests, what relevant science carries authority in matters philosophical.

© source where applicable

[shunyadragon]

I believe this is also important.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/

At the end of the day one should not lose sight of the larger context that sustains problems and projects in most disciplines and practices. We are as free to pursue them as Kant's dove is to fly, that is, not without the surrounding air resistance to flap its wings upon and against. Philosophy was once thought to stand for the systematic unity of the sciences. The foundational character of unity became the distinctive project of philosophy, in which conceptual unity played the role of standard of intelligibility. In addition, the ideal of unity, frequently under the guise of harmony, has long been a standard of aesthetic virtue (This image has been eloquently challenged by, for instance, John Bailey and Iris Murdoch; Bailey 1976; Murdoch 1992). Unities and unifications help us meet cognitive and practical demands upon our life as well as cultural demands upon our self-images, cosmic and earthly. It is not surprising that talk of the many meanings of unity, namely, fundamental level, unification, system, organization, universality, simplicity, atomism, reduction, harmony, complexity or totality, can bring an urgent grip on our intellectual imagination.

© source where applicable

[Griggsy]

Frank, it irks me that those who use inane argumentation project that nonsense onto us!
Should we still state that theists use that composition fallacy! Anyway, it's quanta all the way down!
The real fallacy results from overlooking that the Cosmos is unique and is all, so no God can operate outside it anyway.
God would have to be in space but differentiated like any other item in it and thus would have to depend on the laws of nature and so could never be that Primary Cause but a secondary one!
Not having intent,He couldn't act and not having a brain He couldn't think! So, He is the apophatic delight that He is not this nor that and cannot do this nor that-affirming ignosticism!
Max is in good company with Edward Feser who lives in Medieval thought instead of modern knowledge!
Google lamberth's naturalist arguments to ponder even more! I've nearly two hundred blogs. I reblog and do my own articles and posts. I combine and permute my arguments so that others can see how theism no matter in what form fails.
It's psychological with theists to have faith as their arguments from happiness-purpose and from angst declare!
See y'all@ arguments about God!
I'm a fallibilist for all my bluster!

[MaxVel]

No, they are not.

Yes, they are.

Logical arguments are the basis of things like maths. A valid argument can show that something must be the case.

A logical argument is nothing more than an attempt to process a concept in a consistent and coherent manner. Indeed, nothing prevents an argument from being logical but false, if that argument is based on a false premise.

Both true, but not my point. (Read what Shumya wrote that I was responding to).

[MaxVel]

False, by definition of evidence,

Incorrect. See the Stanford article on 'Evidence' . Logical arguments can meet at least points (1) and (3)

but nonetheless logical arguments are more convincing if they are based on the evidence.



Your proposing an illogical argument for the negative proof of beginnings. This not compateble with science nor logic.

Asserted, but not shown. If you can't show where the argument is wrong, show me the empirical evidence, then.



[quote=Shunyadragon]

3. If 'our natural existence' is contingent then it cannot eternal.



True, but there is no evidence that the cosmos and the Quantum world is contingent nor finite.

None of the evidence of our cosmos and the Quantum world leads to this vague, IFFY, hypothetical unfounded possible conclusion.

1. Note that I am not talking solely about beginnings. Aquinas' argument, for example, does not depend on the Universe having a beginning.

2. You made a broad generalised claim ('there is no evidence that...') that I doubt you can support.

3. You yourself said this:

All the evidence we have at present of the cosmos, and the quantum world is that there is no evidence that our natural existence is contingent on anything other that Natural Law and processes.

You are saying that our existence is contingent.


4. Lack of evidence for X is not proof that ~X is true.

The assumptions above are not very well worded.

Perhaps. I should have said 'Uniformitarianism' instead of Uniformity.

The problem with not having uniform assumptions in science, regardless of whether you call them metaphysical or not is that if you do not make certain assumptions you fall into a useless world of metaphysical monism like in many Vedic traditions and you become paranoid questioning everything. It is best not to go down this road.

I prefer the very concise well presented assumptions outlined in the Stanford Philosophy Dictionary and go on with the discussion.

Do you seriously question these assumptions used in the Philosophy of science in understanding the nature of our physical existence as referenced here?

Not my point. Griggsy seems to think that science is better than philosophy because it does not dabble in metaphysics. He is clearly wrong about that, which I have shown. You agree with me above. Thank you.

[shunyadragon]

Incorrect. See the Stanford article on 'Evidence' . Logical arguments can meet at least points (1) and (3)

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.

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

Asserted, but not shown. If you can't show where the argument is wrong, show me the empirical evidence, then.

Science cannot offer empirical evidence for a negative challenge. Empirical evidence can only be used to falsify hypotheses or theories. Hypotheses and theories cannot be expressed as negative propositions. Again in logic it is a fallacy to attempt to prove the negative.

1. Note that I am not talking solely about beginnings. Aquinas' argument, for example, does not depend on the Universe having a beginning.

In cosmology our universe has no known absolute beginning. there is only the beginning of expansion from a previous state of existence.

2. You made a broad generalised claim ('there is no evidence that...') that I doubt you can support.

Please be specific. no there is no evidence of any absolute beginnings of anything. No problem here. If you can cite evidence of absolute beginnings in nature please do.

3. You yourself said this:

This is true of the Quantum world as far as the evidence. The only thing that the 'Quantum World' is contingent on is Natural Law. There is no evidence for demonstrating that the Quantum World is contingent on any cause and effect relationship of a prior existing 'Source.'

You are saying that our existence is contingent.

Yes, scientifically the evidence indicates that our physical existence is contingent on Natural Laws and natural causes and effects. There is no evidence to support the existence of a prior source that existed before our physical existence.

4. Lack of evidence for X is not proof that ~X is true.

Correct, but the lack of evidence for X is not proof that Y is true.

Not my point. Griggsy seems to think that science is better than philosophy because it does not dabble in metaphysics. He is clearly wrong about that, which I have shown. You agree with me above. Thank you.

I do not share Griggsy's world view nor many of Griggsby's arguments and conclusions, but likewise it is unlikely that I agree with you very much.

[shunyadragon]

No, they are not. A logical argument is nothing more than an attempt to process a concept in a consistent and coherent manner. Indeed, nothing prevents an argument from being logical but false, if that argument is based on a false premise.

Could you possibly address the issue of the 'Fallacy of Composition' and how Chawnus proposes to use it here.

[technomage]

Could you possibly address the issue of the 'Fallacy of Composition' and how Chawnus proposes to use it here.

I have elsewhere, and others have done so here. I especially like the "All of the groceries in the bag are red" analogy.

[Griggsy]

Frank, it irks me that those who use inane argumentation project that nonsense onto us!
Should we still state that theists use that composition fallacy> Anyway, it's quanta all the way down!
The real fallacy results from overlooking that the Cosmos is unique and is all, so no God can operate anyway.
God would have to be in space but differentiated like any other item in it and thus would have to depend on the laws of nature and so could never be that Primary Cause but a secondary one!
Not having intent,He couldn't act and not having a brain He couldn't think! Si, He is the apophatic delight that He is not this nor that and cannot do this and that-affirming ignosticism!
Max is in good company with Edward Feser who lives in Medieval thought instead of modern knowledge!
Google lamberth's naturalist arguments to ponder even more! I've nearly two hundred blogs. I reblog and do my own articles and posts. I combine and permute my arguments so that others can see how theism no matter in what form fails.
It's psychological with theists to have faith as their arguments from happiness and from angst declare!
See y'all@ arguments about God!

[Cerebrum123]

Griggsy, don't double post like that.

[Griggsy]

Science rules over metaphysics as it give the evidence to which the latter has to adjust, For instance, science finds no ultimate origins of the Cosmos and no intent, so that metaphysics has then to find no God!
See the ignostic-Ockham about why we can indeed " prove" universal negatives.
By the way the title shown is a typo as is the one for the two category mistake, but alas, I cannot change them.
Cerebum, thanks for reminding me to click more lightly.