Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

[smh_23]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I’ve learned.

Nothingness (or, not really) created everything out of nothing. So, miracles exist. And we’re possibly experiencing a false view of reality (eww, remember the faith in reality conversation?) since this universe/reality is a hologram projection of a lower dimension (something like that, I think).

[/quote]

If this refers to me, I averred none of this.[/quote]

No, no. Refers to me. Just thinking out loud.

Between this, something out of nothing (the miracle), and what we perceive as reality perhaps being some sort of projected hologram (a physics theory talked about here on the board at one point), strange stuff.
[/quote]

Ah, gotcha. I thought perhaps it was being taken that I am one of these mystico-scientists myself.

In the end, “strange stuff” is really the only way to describe any of it. Whatever conclusion you arrive at, it is probably beyond the ability of the human brain to truly absorb the particulars of that conclusion.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist.

I do not agree with that proposition, clearly, for aforementioned reasons. [/quote]

1. Is God uncaused and uncontingent?

2. Does God exist?[/quote]

My bad, I misread it. I do agree that there is necessarily something uncaused and noncontingent.
I have a touch of the dyslexia. Sometimes my brain inserts words or deletes words, it’s weird my daughter has it too. I never realized it until she was diagnosed.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
We can only know to degrees of certainty that when there is ‘x’, there will be ‘y’. We can be certain, only to a degree that when you mix vinegar and baking soda, there will be CO2. We don’t know that mixing vinegar and baking soda causes CO2.
[/quote]

What do you mean “degrees of certainty”? Do we know that it will happen, or do we not?
[/quote]
Degrees of certainty is shortened for we can only infer cause and effect in the physical world to varying degrees of certainty. The reason is not that the cause and effect relationship doesn’t exist. Through empirical testing, we see that it likely does, but our way of receiving information is imperfect. Because we cannot know every instance of say ‘A’ added to a ‘B’ will result in ‘C’ every single time. It’s not that it won’t, it’s that we cannot know it. So it’s an epistemological limitation.
That was the genius of Hume’s observations. It isn’t that the link isn’t absolute, its that we have no way of knowing it is. So we know causal relationships in the physical world, based on probability.

[quote]
Know that David Hume’s answer is unequivocally no in both Treatise and Enquiry. We assume that it will happen, and nothing more.

Look, you’re dancing round the issue here. Hume argued, correctly, that everything about causality is inductive.[/quote]

Well, in a sense you’re right that causation was all inductive, but he was a strict empiricist which means he reduced all causation to physical phenomena in a sense because he did not believe in the existence of non-physical entities.
He did not deal with contingency. A temporal causal relationships that are true by definition.

This isn’t a causal relationship where the effect neatly follows a cause in temporal and spatial order. It deals with what makes something what it is, and what it necessarily must have to be that. It’s a different way of looking at things. Humein causation is important because it’s the one we are most familiar with and is frequently misunderstood. But it is limited by space and time, it cannot tell us everything we can know about something and it does not deal well with metaphysics. Contingency is also limited in that it doesn’t deal with space or time. Those things become properties but not limitations in that view and it’s not well understood en masse.

The latter deals in absolutes, truth by definition. That’s not the same as a dictionary definition. It’s for something to be true, or exist it must have a certain properties that make it so, that without, it could not be true or exist.
It’s for ‘A’ to exist it must have ‘B’ and ‘C’. Where if ‘B’ or ‘C’ lack, then ‘A’ cannot exist. It’s not ‘A’+‘B’=‘C’, it’s 'Because ‘B’ and ‘C’, therefore ‘A’.

Hume doesn’t talk about that stuff, Aquinas, Leibniz, Berkeley, Kant, etc. do talk about it.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing has no properties, no mechanism of action, there is a complete lack of existence.
In everyway there can be existence, nothingness lacks.
Nothing does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.
Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.[/quote]

I’m going to cut through everything else to the heart of the matter.

In order to prove that something cannot come from nothing, you have taken that which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist as a premise. This is question-begging.

So: prove the premise: That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist

If it’s not an assumption, it must be capable of being proved. If you cannot or will not prove it–and, preferably, without begging the question–then it is an assumption.[/quote]

So we’re now dealing with nothing and what it is, or rather is not. Well the answer is that it isn’t. Nothing does not exist, literally.
There is no way to describe nothing in that describing nothing, you are describing what is not.
Nothing is the complete absence of existence. It does not exist physically, it does not exist metaphysically. Even by trying to define nothingness, you are doing a disservice to the purity of it because you can only speak in terms of existence and the fact there nothing does not have it. Only trying to understand nothingness isn’t, you do so by expressing things that do exist and show that nothingness posses none of it.
You cannot prove what nothingness is, because it isn’t. It isn’t a vast expanse of emptiness because that is something. It is not a vacuum, because that is something. It isn’t anything because there isn’t.

Nothingness does not exist literally.
What does not exist does not have properties. It does not occupy space, it does not occupy a position in time. That which does not exist cannot cause because it has no properties or capability to do so. It is not zero as that is still something. It cannot actually be an ‘it’. Even attributing a word to ‘it’ violates ‘nothing’ as it has no description or way of being understood because it cannot be understood.
Epistemologically speaking we cannot deal with a lack of existence, we have to understand a lack of existence by using things that exist and understand the opposite.
Nothing cannot be a factor in something because nothing does not exist. Something that does not exist, cannot affect something that does.
A formal understanding of ‘nothing’ is that it isn’t. [/quote]

Since this debate is about whether or not you can formally prove God’s existence without assumption, it would be best if we stick to formal proofs.
[/quote]
The formal proof is the argument itself. I can paste it, but I don’t see what good it would do. That’s all I have to do. Then you have to try to prove it wrong.

[quote]
I made the point that, in attempting to make a formal argument, you took as a premise (That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist) a restatement of your conclusion (something cannot come from nothing). I made the point that this is fallacious argumentation, and I challenged you therefore to prove the premise:

That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist. If, as you believe, this is not an assumptive maxim, then you will be able to do it formally and without begging the question.[/quote]

Which I have done at least 20 times. Not sure what you are looking for. I explain it, you call it an ‘assumption’ which I don’t even see how it can be remotely thought of that way since it violates the definition of what an ‘assumption’ is. Something logically necessary is not an assumption.

Calling something an ‘assumption’ is not a counter argument, it certainly doesn’t prove it is. You haven’t put forth any arguments that prove I made any assumptions. You mere call on me to repeatedly prove things I shouldn’t really have to.
But since you disagree, put forth a formal proof that something can come from nothing. Put forth a proposition that something can come from nothing. I want to see an argument for that. And good luck.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Well, outside of nature, yes. Supernaturally.

One of the interview excerpts I posted refers to pre-existing “natural processes” being all that is needed to explain how the universe came into being. Pre-existing? Natural processes? These are in existence, prior? How does that equate to nothingness? If these natural processes were all that is NEEDED, then that’s saying they were needed. They were conditions. To me it seems like a great big fudging on “nothing.”

[/quote]

I tend to agree with what you’re saying, without pretending that I “know” anything at this point so far and deep into inquiry. My point is simpler; If God exists, and is uncaused, then it is possible that the uncaused exists–because God does. I am gathering that you agree.
[/quote]

/Shrug

I suppose my own view is that an uncaused-cause would be something prior to/uncaused by natural processes laws, “natural processes,” etc. A supernatural state of being.

If the uncaused-cause is the output of natural-processes, mechanics/laws…Well, those are then necessary conditions. Meaning that the thing is actually dependent. And dependent on prior conditions. So, how is it uncaused, and out of nothing?

Prior existing natural laws.

Laws.

And, anyway, if it is due to laws/mechanics existing prior, then why is it called a happy ACCIDENT? If it’s inevitably going to happen because the necessary laws and mechanics exist, why refer to it as an accident? A rain drop striking the ground on a particular spot isn’t an accident.

Laws/processes/mechanics that exist prior to what they will govern, shape, form, whatever. Laws that don’t actually produce an accident. But a natural outcome (given enough time) of those laws and processes. Meaning, things are going on just as these laws would have it.

I’d be looking for a law-giver independent of the natural order (which is dependent on it), with a plan!
[/quote]

Again, I know what you’re saying. I’m simply making the point that if God exists as an uncaused cause, then uncaused causes can exist, and the maxim “there can be no uncaused cause” cannot be accepted–because there is one.
[/quote]
Logically, only one can exist. But put forth an argument for other things ‘uncaused’ and not God, or ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is off limits.

[quote]
But my argument goes deeper than that. “All events have causes” is an assumption. As David Hume was correct in noting, it is an a posteriori, inductive leap of faith. A necessary leap, but a leap, and it will not be proved to be anything other than assumptive. It will be broken into further assumptions, and they into further ones, but it will rest on assumption and on question-begging down to very bottom of the deep.[/quote]

And he is right in the empirical realm, they are all assumed. The bigger lesson from Hume and what you are missing is that our senses tell us really rather little.
Hume is not the ‘end of the debate’ like you seem to think he is.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically, only one can exist.[/quote]

Nonsense.

Can the uncaused and uncontingent exist? Yes, or no?

Edit: I will speed this particular argument up.

You believe that God exists and is uncaused and uncontingent.

Therefore, you believe that it is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist–because, of course, it does.

Therefore, you believe in the maxim: “The uncaused and uncontingent can exist.” Yes, you do.

Therefore, not only is the entire argument you’ve been trying to make over this last 15 or whatever pages completely assumptive, not even you subscribe to it.

If you don’t believe me, then please answer the question, yes or no: Can the uncaused and uncontingent exist?

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing has no properties, no mechanism of action, there is a complete lack of existence.
In everyway there can be existence, nothingness lacks.
Nothing does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.
Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.[/quote]

I’m going to cut through everything else to the heart of the matter.

In order to prove that something cannot come from nothing, you have taken that which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist as a premise. This is question-begging.

So: prove the premise: That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist

If it’s not an assumption, it must be capable of being proved. If you cannot or will not prove it–and, preferably, without begging the question–then it is an assumption.[/quote]

So we’re now dealing with nothing and what it is, or rather is not. Well the answer is that it isn’t. Nothing does not exist, literally.
There is no way to describe nothing in that describing nothing, you are describing what is not.
Nothing is the complete absence of existence. It does not exist physically, it does not exist metaphysically. Even by trying to define nothingness, you are doing a disservice to the purity of it because you can only speak in terms of existence and the fact there nothing does not have it. Only trying to understand nothingness isn’t, you do so by expressing things that do exist and show that nothingness posses none of it.
You cannot prove what nothingness is, because it isn’t. It isn’t a vast expanse of emptiness because that is something. It is not a vacuum, because that is something. It isn’t anything because there isn’t.

Nothingness does not exist literally.
What does not exist does not have properties. It does not occupy space, it does not occupy a position in time. That which does not exist cannot cause because it has no properties or capability to do so. It is not zero as that is still something. It cannot actually be an ‘it’. Even attributing a word to ‘it’ violates ‘nothing’ as it has no description or way of being understood because it cannot be understood.
Epistemologically speaking we cannot deal with a lack of existence, we have to understand a lack of existence by using things that exist and understand the opposite.
Nothing cannot be a factor in something because nothing does not exist. Something that does not exist, cannot affect something that does.
A formal understanding of ‘nothing’ is that it isn’t. [/quote]

Since this debate is about whether or not you can formally prove God’s existence without assumption, it would be best if we stick to formal proofs.
[/quote]
The formal proof is the argument itself. I can paste it, but I don’t see what good it would do. That’s all I have to do. Then you have to try to prove it wrong.

[quote]
I made the point that, in attempting to make a formal argument, you took as a premise (That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist) a restatement of your conclusion (something cannot come from nothing). I made the point that this is fallacious argumentation, and I challenged you therefore to prove the premise:

That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist. If, as you believe, this is not an assumptive maxim, then you will be able to do it formally and without begging the question.[/quote]

Which I have done at least 20 times. Not sure what you are looking for. I explain it, you call it an ‘assumption’ which I don’t even see how it can be remotely thought of that way since it violates the definition of what an ‘assumption’ is. Something logically necessary is not an assumption.

Calling something an ‘assumption’ is not a counter argument, it certainly doesn’t prove it is. You haven’t put forth any arguments that prove I made any assumptions. You mere call on me to repeatedly prove things I shouldn’t really have to.
But since you disagree, put forth a formal proof that something can come from nothing. Put forth a proposition that something can come from nothing. I want to see an argument for that. And good luck.[/quote]

You haven’t proved anything, at all. You keep giving me maxims which I’m, I suppose, supposed to take on faith. But the whole point is that you believe, in error, that no faith is required here, and that nothing you believe relies on something you can’t prove.

Again, I asked for a proof, and you gave me an invalid one–one which took its conclusion as a premise.

Now, again, prove to me that That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist. You said it, so why did you say it, and why is correct?

Again: A formal proof of That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist, without assumptive premises and without begging the question.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

Hume is not the ‘end of the debate’ like you seem to think he is.[/quote]

I don’t think he was the end of the debate–the debate is alive between you and I–I think that Hume was correct and his detractors are comically outmatched.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

But since you disagree, put forth a formal proof that something can come from nothing. Put forth a proposition that something can come from nothing. I want to see an argument for that. And good luck.[/quote]

Good (uncaused, uncontingent) God, man. For what I truly hope is the last time, I ask you to please take the time to understand what I’m arguing here. My argument is not that I know that something can come from nothing. It is that you do not know that something cannot come from nothing.

It is that your “certainty” is assumptive.

And I am proving it, again and again and again, every time you give me a formal proof that is invalid and/or assumptive.

To recap, I’ve been begging to keep this in the realm of formal proof for a long, long time. You gave me one–one–and it was an invalid and assumptive wreck. It took its conclusion as its premise and it completely failed.

So, unless you want me to be completely correct in this sprawling argument, prove the damn thing. Prove that That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist, as you have insisted, and do it without assuming anything and withing heading back in a circle.

[smh_23]

Pat–I am not nearly arrogant enough to argue that I know that something can come from nothing. No one knows this.

I am arguing that no one knows it’s impossible, either. We think it is. Under our presently accepted natural laws, it in many ways is. But no one will ever prove that it could not have happened in the past, or that it cannot happen tomorrow, or that it isn’t happening right now as I type this.

Do some reading on the philosophy of science, particularly on the axiomatic assumptions of science. Take a look at the constancy of law, known processes, and causal assumptions. They are great assumptions, and they are not today controversial, but they are assumptive and will not not be.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically, only one can exist.[/quote]

Nonsense.

Can the uncaused and uncontingent exist? Yes, or no?

Edit: I will speed this particular argument up.

You believe that God exists and is uncaused and uncontingent.

Therefore, you believe that it is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist–because, of course, it does.

Therefore, you believe in the maxim: “The uncaused and uncontingent can exist.” Yes, you do.

Therefore, not only is the entire argument you’ve been trying to make over this last 15 or whatever pages completely assumptive, not even you subscribe to it.
[/quote]
It is logically incapable of being so. If you believe that, then you don’t understand the argument. The point about supports for the argument is to back up the premises of it. You attacked the first premise. Something exists, that cannot, not exist.

You have not proven that it’s wrong, nor have you proven or even tried to prove it’s assumptive. That is not enough. You cannot just say something and it be true.

[quote]
If you don’t believe me, then please answer the question, yes or no: Can the uncaused and uncontingent exist?[/quote]

You have not answered my question. Therefore I will not answer yours. You have not proven, nor can you that something can exist, outside of the Uncaused-cause, uncaused. You must prove something other than the Uncaused-cause, exists, uncaused.
So put your money where your mouth is, prove uncaused entities exist. If you believe the first premise of the argument is wrong, then prove it’s wrong. It’s not assumptive, it’s either right or wrong, there is no inbetween.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing has no properties, no mechanism of action, there is a complete lack of existence.
In everyway there can be existence, nothingness lacks.
Nothing does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.
Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.[/quote]

I’m going to cut through everything else to the heart of the matter.

In order to prove that something cannot come from nothing, you have taken that which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist as a premise. This is question-begging.

So: prove the premise: That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist

If it’s not an assumption, it must be capable of being proved. If you cannot or will not prove it–and, preferably, without begging the question–then it is an assumption.[/quote]

So we’re now dealing with nothing and what it is, or rather is not. Well the answer is that it isn’t. Nothing does not exist, literally.
There is no way to describe nothing in that describing nothing, you are describing what is not.
Nothing is the complete absence of existence. It does not exist physically, it does not exist metaphysically. Even by trying to define nothingness, you are doing a disservice to the purity of it because you can only speak in terms of existence and the fact there nothing does not have it. Only trying to understand nothingness isn’t, you do so by expressing things that do exist and show that nothingness posses none of it.
You cannot prove what nothingness is, because it isn’t. It isn’t a vast expanse of emptiness because that is something. It is not a vacuum, because that is something. It isn’t anything because there isn’t.

Nothingness does not exist literally.
What does not exist does not have properties. It does not occupy space, it does not occupy a position in time. That which does not exist cannot cause because it has no properties or capability to do so. It is not zero as that is still something. It cannot actually be an ‘it’. Even attributing a word to ‘it’ violates ‘nothing’ as it has no description or way of being understood because it cannot be understood.
Epistemologically speaking we cannot deal with a lack of existence, we have to understand a lack of existence by using things that exist and understand the opposite.
Nothing cannot be a factor in something because nothing does not exist. Something that does not exist, cannot affect something that does.
A formal understanding of ‘nothing’ is that it isn’t. [/quote]

Since this debate is about whether or not you can formally prove God’s existence without assumption, it would be best if we stick to formal proofs.
[/quote]
The formal proof is the argument itself. I can paste it, but I don’t see what good it would do. That’s all I have to do. Then you have to try to prove it wrong.

I made the point that, in attempting to make a formal argument, you took as a premise (That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist) a restatement of your conclusion (something cannot come from nothing). I made the point that this is fallacious argumentation, and I challenged you therefore to prove the premise:

That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist. If, as you believe, this is not an assumptive maxim, then you will be able to do it formally and without begging the question.[/quote]

Which I have done at least 20 times. Not sure what you are looking for. I explain it, you call it an ‘assumption’ which I don’t even see how it can be remotely thought of that way since it violates the definition of what an ‘assumption’ is. Something logically necessary is not an assumption.

Calling something an ‘assumption’ is not a counter argument, it certainly doesn’t prove it is. You haven’t put forth any arguments that prove I made any assumptions. You mere call on me to repeatedly prove things I shouldn’t really have to.
But since you disagree, put forth a formal proof that something can come from nothing. Put forth a proposition that something can come from nothing. I want to see an argument for that. And good luck.[/quote]

You haven’t proved anything, at all. You keep giving me maxims which I’m, I suppose, supposed to take on faith. But the whole point is that you believe, in error, that no faith is required here, and that nothing you believe relies on something you can’t prove.

Again, I asked for a proof, and you gave me an invalid one–one which took its conclusion as a premise.

Uh, no it did not. You haven’t shown that it is, you just repeat the mantra that it’s an assumption. Which it cannot be.

Now, again, prove to me that That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist. You said it, so why did you say it, and why is correct?

Again: A formal proof of That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist, without assumptive premises and without begging the question.

There is no assumption. That which does not exist, cannot act, or make something that does. A lack of existence has no properties, no causal factors, it lacks. That which isn’t, cannot do anything to what is.

I really don’t know how to explain nothingness because it doesn’t exist. It’s unintelligible because it’s lacks. Do you understand what nothingness is, or rather more accurately isn’t?

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat–I am not nearly arrogant enough to argue that I know that something can come from nothing. No one knows this.

I am arguing that no one knows it’s impossible, either. We think it is. Under our presently accepted natural laws, it in many ways is. But no one will ever prove that it could not have happened in the past, or that it cannot happen tomorrow, or that it isn’t happening right now as I type this.
[/quote]
Experience is not required. It’s a question of pure logic. It’s not required that it did, or did not. It’s require you prove that it can.

[quote]
Do some reading on the philosophy of science, particularly on the axiomatic assumptions of science. Take a look at the constancy of law, known processes, and causal assumptions. They are great assumptions, and they are not today controversial, but they are assumptive and will not not be.[/quote]
I’ll try not to take this as an insult.
You realize this is not a scientific inquiry, right? We’re not dealing with the stuff of science, though the principles we are discussing are bared in science, but it is not science.

Science is empirical, it is a posteriori. That which can be observed can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. We’re in a realm way beyond science. These are metaphysics. Metaphysics can only be explored by reason.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

So put your money where your mouth is, prove uncaused entities exist.[/quote]

Jesus. [i][u]THIS IS NOT MY CONTENTION.[/i][/u] I have now said this for the last time, and I really do ask, in complete sincerity, that you absorb it.

My contentions are:

1. It cannot be proved without assumption that the uncaused can exist.

2. It cannot be proved without assumption that the uncaused cannot exist.

You say [2] is incorrect. (Sort of–you believe that the uncaused does in fact exist, so you’re really making an enormously invalid argument even by the standards of its own internal logic, which in and of itself has already settled this argument in my favor a hundred times over. The answer to my question about whether you think the uncaused and uncontingent can exist is: YES. So, it would be wise to stop insisting otherwise. But, for simplicity’s sake, let’s just go with: You think [2] is incorrect.) The only way for the argument to proceed is for you to prove me wrong by doing what [2] claims to be impossible–by proving that the uncaused cannot exist.

(It is as if I claimed that no living human can jump 30 feet in the air. If you say I’m wrong, then the only way for the argument to proceed is for you to show me I’m wrong, either by doing it yourself or finding someone to do it for you.)

So, we find ourselves in the following place: You tried to offer a formal proof, but it was invalid. This is not controversial: Anyone can look back a page or so and find it. It took its conclusion as one of its premises, and it did so without even trying to alter the language all that much.

The next step, obviously, is that you must prove that premise. The premise was:

That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.

I am being serious here: If you want to continue this debate–and I do, because it is a good time–please make this easy on me. Do not hide this argument inside a wall of quickly wrought and therefore barely intelligible text. Give me an actual argument: numbered premises, conclusion. It is simple and it is the way things are done. Please note, lastly, that I am not making some kind of unreasonable demand of you. Your entire argument is that you can indeed formally prove what you say you can, without assumption. If you’re going to even begin the work of settling this debate in your favor, then do what you say you can. You tried ONCE, and the thing begged the question like it had been paid to do so. So try it again. That is, after all, why we’re doing this at all.

[smh_23]

^ And keep in mind that I’m going to point out that you haven’t proved that things need to be made to exist in order for them to exist at all.

So please just give me a real, simplified argument. Numbers. WHY IS IT THAT THE UNCAUSED CANNOT EXIST?

[smh_23]

Separately, I offer:

1. God exists.

2. God is uncaused and uncontingent.

3. Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent can exist.

The argument is valid. Is it sound? If not, which premise is incorrect?

[smh_23]

Put most elegantly, your argument is:

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

But if this is not assumptive, then prove premise [1]–everything which begins to exist has a cause.

[smh_23]

Also, prove premise 2:

The universe began to exist.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Separately, I offer:

1. God exists.

2. God is uncaused and uncontingent.

3. Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent can exist.

The argument is valid. Is it sound? If not, which premise is incorrect?[/quote]

It’s not bad, but the conclusion is a tad non sequitur only because word ‘can’ vs. ‘does’. The use of the word ‘can’ in this situation is not appropriate because your premises indicate that it does exist. ‘Can’ indicates that it may not. Your premises state it that it does.
What it does not do is indicate anything other than God can be uncaused or noncontingent. The point is to prove that noncontingent things other than God exist or even can. Your argument shows that noncontingency or uncaused-ness exists but it does not show it’s applicable to anything other than God.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Put most elegantly, your argument is:

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

But if this is not assumptive, then prove premise [1]–everything which begins to exist has a cause.[/quote]

That’s not the argument. That looks like the Kalam Cosmological argument which is one I reject because of the reliance on time and space and the Universe.
We cannot prove the universe exists because of the afore mentioned issues that Hume brought up with the nature of empirical causation.

This is a better one, yet it’s not perfect:
1.A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
2.This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4.What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6.Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

The important thing to know about the cosmological argument, is that it is an argument form. It doesn’t matter where you start, you must always reduce to an Uncaused-cause or Necessary Being which is non-contingent.

What is not important is ‘The Universe’. Following Cartesian reasoning, we can only deduce that ‘something’ exists. We don’t have to be right about what it is, all that matters is that it exists and it exists for a reason because it cannot exist for no reason…