New member question about philosophy

[carpedm9587]

There is no problem in the logic. Just you arguing from silence. I can do the same with any logical argument you want to present.

No. I think perhaps you don't know what "arguing from silence" means. I usually refers to trying to prove something from the absence of information. In this cause, what I have shown is that the claimed proof (KCA) fails to prove what it claims to prove because it claims knowledge it does not have. That knowledge is critical to proving the KCA true. Without it, the KCA is definitely not shown to be valid. The problem with the first two premises, as noted, also shows it not to be sound.

If you want to explain how it IS sound and IS valid - then you simply need to show how you go about demonstrating that Premise 1 and Premise 2 do NOT shift context, and how you can show both of them to be true. You need the former to show soundness. You need the latter to show validity. Then you have to do the same for Premise 3 added by Craig.

Otherwise, the KCA comes to a conclusion that has not been shown to be true. It also has not been proven to be false. It merely...isn't anything...

[Sparko]

No. I think perhaps you don't know what "arguing from silence" means. I usually refers to trying to prove something from the absence of information. In this cause, what I have shown is that the claimed proof (KCA) fails to prove what it claims to prove because it claims knowledge it does not have. That knowledge is critical to proving the KCA true. Without it, the KCA is definitely not shown to be valid. The problem with the first two premises, as noted, also shows it not to be sound.

If you want to explain how it IS sound and IS valid - then you simply need to show how you go about demonstrating that Premise 1 and Premise 2 do NOT shift context, and how you can show both of them to be true. You need the former to show soundness. You need the latter to show validity. Then you have to do the same for Premise 3 added by Craig.

Otherwise, the KCA comes to a conclusion that has not been shown to be true. It also has not been proven to be false. It merely...isn't anything...

Your objections are just made up excuses. You would have to prove that there was something previous to the big bang in order to have a valid objection. You can't do that. It is just a "well what if??? we don't know" - that is not a valid objection. We DO know that the big bang created time and space and matter. So unless you can prove any of those things existed prior to the big ban, you have no valid objection. Just a made-up excuse.

And yes logic says that for something to change it must have a cause. The singularity expanding was a change from a singularity to an entire universe. It had to have a cause. And the cause had to occur logically prior to there being any space or time to act in.

The argument is valid holds. Your objection does not.

[37818]

I doubt this made sense to you, let alone to the rest of us. Kindly explain what "sequence" took place before time began to exist. The infinite cannot be broken up into "sequences." Sequences, segments and generally anything to do with time are inherently and exclusively finite functions.

Such a sequence would have no beginning. There would be no before time for the sequence. God Himself is without beginning in time (Psalm 90:2).

[carpedm9587]

Your objections are just made up excuses. You would have to prove that there was something previous to the big bang in order to have a valid objection. You can't do that. It is just a "well what if??? we don't know" - that is not a valid objection. We DO know that the big bang created time and space and matter. So unless you can prove any of those things existed prior to the big ban, you have no valid objection. Just a made-up excuse.

No. You apparently do not understand the logic. I do not have to show what existed before the big bang to make the point I am making. I need to do that if I want to prove the KCA to be false. To show that the KCA has not been shown to be valid, all I need to do is show that the premises have not been shown to be true. This is what I have done.

I think you are confusing "the KCA is false" with "the KCA has not been shown to be true." I am saying the latter - not the former.

And yes logic says that for something to change it must have a cause. The singularity expanding was a change from a singularity to an entire universe. It had to have a cause. And the cause had to occur logically prior to there being any space or time to act in.

The argument is valid holds. Your objection does not.

You are arguing from what you observe within the universe to what must hold outside/before the universe. You cannot substantiate that this is a justified leap.

[Sparko]

No. You apparently do not understand the logic. I do not have to show what existed before the big bang to make the point I am making. I need to do that if I want to prove the KCA to be false. To show that the KCA has not been shown to be valid, all I need to do is show that the premises have not been shown to be true. This is what I have done.

No you haven't. All you did was say "nuh-uh! we don't know what we don't know!"

I can do that with any logical argument and claim it is invalid. doesn't make it so.

[carpedm9587]

No you haven't. All you did was say "nuh-uh! we don't know what we don't know!"

I can do that with any logical argument and claim it is invalid. doesn't make it so.

Sorry, Sparko, but I think you need a primer in logic. If a premise cannot be shown to be true - then the syllogism, even if sound, cannot be shown to be valid. It is not disproven - but it is also not proven.

In this case, however, the first problem you have is that the argument is not sound. The first premise is about items within the universe; the second is about the universe itself. It is the equivalent of doing the following:

1) All dogs have four legs.
2) My girlfriend is a dog.
3) Therefore, my girlfriend has four legs.

It appears, at first blush, to be sound. Both premises may even be true. But the conclusion is not shown to be true because "dog" is being used in two different ways, so the first and second premise are not related to one another. The KCA has this problem. It takes an observation about things we observe within the universe, and applies it to the universe itself.

It also has the problem that Premise 2 cannot be shown to be true.

At this point, we've been around and around on this more than enough. If you're not seeing it, more repetition is not going to help. If you have an argument to deal with the problem, I will read and respond. If your response is simply more, of the above, I'll leave the last word to you.

[Sparko]

Sorry, Sparko, but I think you need a primer in logic. If a premise cannot be shown to be true - then the syllogism, even if sound, cannot be shown to be valid. It is not disproven - but it is also not proven.

In this case, however, the first problem you have is that the argument is not sound. The first premise is about items within the universe; the second is about the universe itself. It is the equivalent of doing the following:

1) All dogs have four legs.
2) My girlfriend is a dog.
3) Therefore, my girlfriend has four legs.

Not the same thing at all.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

Is a valid syllogism.

But we were not even arguing about that. Somehow you keep moving the goal posts. We were arguing about

> The universe was caused by an intelligent, non-physical, personal being.

And the subsequent argument for it. Which you at first said there was no argument for, and which I posted the argument for, at which time you went off on your tangent.


And that is the last word.

[Charles]

In case anyone takes interest in it, I would like to share a few points. I am neither a theist or an atheist so it is not my intention to show anyone right or wrong. I only want to shed some light on other perspectives.

First, does not the most extreme atheist and the most extreme theist begin the same basic logic? The axiom of self existence? By that I mean, SOMETHING existed, whether that was God (in whatever religious garb), or the universe itself.

I don’t think this is completely wrong but it need not be the entire truth either. In order to be an atheist you don’t need to be able to explain how the universe came into existence, why anything exists rather than nothing and all those rather difficult questions. You don’t need to know why the universe exists in order to see that it exists. You don’t even need to be able to give an explanation of why it exists in order for you to be an atheist. People are atheists for lots of different reasons and some are so because they follow the axiom that the universe is self existent but others are atheist for existential reasons. They find the evil in this world shows that an omnipotent and good God simply cannot exist with so many evil things taking place.

You suggest that extreme atheist and the most extreme theist begin the same basic logic. Perhaps that wording is somehow wrong though I get what you mean. What is the “basic logic” in in something being self existent? I have never heard anyone explain it.

As opposed to perhaps most people in here I do not claim to be able to explain how the universe started, and I feel it is much more honest to admit you cannot explain it than to be pushed into weak theories only for the sake of having an alternative to another weak theory. I think this is what theist and atheists often do to each other.

If you take the big bang theory for instance then while it may be true it goes completely beyond the grasp of the human mind. It did not happen in time and space. Rather it is a precondition for time and space to exist. Who can explain this to the human mind? And who can explain the self existing God to the human mind? I would say it would be far more honest to say this cannot be explained. It would also make God more godly than most apologetics seem to make “him”. And note that even calling God a man seems like some sort of making “him” human. Christians exist that is no problem since that is how God is described in scripture. Who says scripture is right about who God is?

If the big bang is asserted, then that condensed ball of matter was simply just there, self existent. If God exists, then he too was self existant (unless you want to assert a self existent infinite regression).

Based on what I said above this is perhaps a simplification because you use concepts of time and space as if they applied “before” time and space. Again this is something beyond the grasp of the human mind. I don’t understand why theists have such a hard time admitting there is something about eternity that cannot be grasped. And I don’t see why so called scientists or new atheists or whatever need to feel they can explain a reality in which these concepts do not apply.

Thus, God (in whatever form), or the Universe (in whatever form) simply self exists.

Remember that you can claim about both of them that you know they actually exist without knowing why they exist. You can even insist that they exist while also insisting that it is impossible to explain why.

So the atheist and the theist begin with the pre-supposition of self-existence.

Well… Looking at what I just wrote it is not something they have to “begin” with since you can be a theist or an atheist for quite many other reasons than your ideas about how the universe started. And you can find the ultimate cause of the universe unexplainable and still be an atheist or a theist.

[nihilnihil]

Hello. This is my first post of Theologyweb.com

First, does not the most extreme atheist and the most extreme theist begin the same basic logic? The axiom of self existence? By that I mean, SOMETHING existed, whether that was God (in whatever religious garb), or the universe itself.

If the big bang is asserted, then that condensed ball of matter was simply just there, self existent. If God exists, then he too was self existant (unless you want to assert a self existent infinite regression).

I don't think any of these statements are presuppositional / axiomatic, and you're being unfair to Big Bang :)

CMIIW, Big Bang is a scientific model developed to explain some natural phenomena (CMBR / cosmic microwave background radiation). It takes a lot of money to build the instrument to detect CMBR and a lot of mathematical work to develop the model. Before we had Big Bang model, some scientists proposed infinitely old universe. We don't know yet what caused Big Bang, and where the "condensed ball of matter" came from.

God, on the other hand, is experienced subjectively. Perhaps one day we can prove the existence of God using scientific method (or other yet undiscovered methods). But I don't think philosophical reasoning will bring us anywhere closer to the answer. For now, I think we should just be humble and admit that we don't know the answer yet :)

Quoting Peter Hacker on philosophy:

But philosophers are not meta-physicists. Physics studies what fundamental kinds of things there are and what properties and relations they have. No one would look to philosophers for discoveries about mesons or quarks; or about space and time – but only for clarification of the concepts of space and time. The study of substances (stuffs) is the province of chemistry. All philosophy can possibly do is clarify the logico-grammatical character of substance concepts – both concepts of stuffs of different sorts and concepts of persistent things of different kinds. The chemist studies substances in his laboratory, but the philosopher does not have the luxury of studying substances in that sense in the comfort of his armchair. The most he can do is clarify such purely conceptual matters as: what is an essential property? do all nominata signify things that have an essence? what does it mean to say that redness, or justice, or wisdom exists?

http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/...%20turn%20.pdf page 17

Trying to answer this type of questions using philosophy will only bring us back to speculative metaphysics.

Just my opinion.

[carpedm9587]

Not the same thing at all.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

Is a valid syllogism.

But we were not even arguing about that. Somehow you keep moving the goal posts. We were arguing about

> The universe was caused by an intelligent, non-physical, personal being.

And the subsequent argument for it. Which you at first said there was no argument for, and which I posted the argument for, at which time you went off on your tangent.

And that is the last word.

You are welcome to the last word, Sparko. I'm posting to note that, after my comment about needing a lesson on logic, I reversed the meaning of valid/sound. I've apparently been doing that for a few years now, given my posts of the past decade.

An argument is valid if it follows the proper syllogistic form. It is sound if it does that AND the premises are true.

[Machinist]

An infinite series of causes with no first cause is metaphysical argument. And from a metaphysical point of view cannot be disproven to be a physical possibility. Expand collapse rebound expand with no beginning of the series. If that is what has always happened, it is beyond our current understanding of physics.

I would venture to say that ultimate reality and truth, whether it's a monotheistic God or some pantheistic holographic oneness, is beyond our current understanding of physics.

[37818]

I would venture to say that ultimate reality and truth, whether it's a monotheistic God or some pantheistic holographic oneness, is beyond our current understanding of physics.

Yes, physics. Not necessarily metaphysics.

1) There was never nothingness. [nothingness being an impossibility, like square circles or four sided triangles]
2) Therefore there was always an existence. An uncaused self existent existence.
3) The question of causation. [Existence and causation are two different concepts]
4) . . . .

[shunyadragon]

Yes, physics. Not necessarily metaphysics.

1) There was never nothingness. [nothingness being an impossibility, like square circles or four sided triangles]
2) Therefore there was always an existence. An uncaused self existent existence.
3) The question of causation. [Existence and causation are two different concepts]
4) . . . .

It remains possible that our physical existence is eternal and the causation of the 'uncaused self-existent existence' are eternal Natural Laws.

[element771]

It remains possible that our physical existence is eternal and the causation of the 'uncaused self-existent existence' are eternal Natural Laws.

It also remains possible that I could get hit by a bus full of nuns while sitting in my living room watching Riverdance.

[seer]

It also remains possible that I could get hit by a bus full of nuns while sitting in my living room watching Riverdance.

Why would you be watching Riverdance?