[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Also, prove premise 2:
The universe began to exist.[/quote]
I cannot prove the universe exists. Nobody can.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ 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?[/quote]
Something cannot exist as a factor of nothing. Something cannot ‘just exist’ because that begs the question and is circular. So that which exists cannot be a factor of nothing or itself, so it’s the result of something other than itself.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Separately, I offer:
-
God exists.
-
God is uncaused and uncontingent.
-
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.[/quote]
That which does exist, can exist. Yes?
Edit: If something is, then that thing is possible. Is this correct, or incorrect?
If there is something exists and is uncaused, then it is possible for something uncaused to exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ 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?[/quote]
Something cannot exist as a factor of nothing. Something cannot ‘just exist’ because that begs the question and is circular. So that which exists cannot be a factor of nothing or itself, so it’s the result of something other than itself.
[/quote]
I really would like you to put your argument in formal format, so that you can see that you are in fact not making any kind of acceptable argument here at all. So: Please make this argument a formal one, for both our sakes.
So:
-
Premise.
-
Premise.
-
Premise.
-
Conclusion: Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent cannot exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
1.A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
[/quote]
Your argument begins with an assumption. Whatever exists–you have not proved why it must be contingent.
See my last post, your answer to that will also cover this.
"What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause. These claims are as different from ?Everything has a cause? as ?Whatever has color is extended? is different from ?Everything is extended.?
- ?Why assume that the universe had a beginning?? is not a serious objection to the argument.
The reason this is not a serious objection is that no version of the cosmological argument assumes this at all. Of course, the kalām cosmological argument does claim that the universe had a beginning, but it doesn?t merely assume it. Rather, the whole point of that version of the cosmological argument is to establish through detailed argument that the universe must have had a beginning. You can try to rebut those arguments, but to pretend that one can dismiss the argument merely by raising the possibility of an infinite series of universes (say) is to miss the whole point.
The main reason this is a bad objection, though, is that most versions of the cosmological argument do not even claim that the universe had a beginning. Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Thomistic, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments are all concerned to show that there must be an uncaused cause even if the universe has always existed.
Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn?t mean ?first? in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.
In fact, Aquinas rather famously rejected what is now known as the kalām argument. He did not think that the claim that the universe had a beginning could be established through philosophical arguments. He thought it could be known only via divine revelation, and thus was not suitable for use in trying to establish God?s existence. (Here, by the way, is another basic test of competence to speak on this subject. Any critic of the Five Ways who claims that Aquinas was trying to show that the universe had a beginning and that God caused that beginning ? as Richard Dawkins does in his comments on the Third Way in The God Delusion ? infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn?t know what he is talking about.)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn?t mean ?first? in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.
[/quote]
I don’t contend that Aquinas thought the universe had a beginning, but since you brought it up:
The emboldened portion is an enormous and completely assumptive maxim. If somebody can prove to me that this must be so, without further assumption, then by all means do so.
All of these arguments reduce to assumptive maxims which, when questioned, can only be re-offered, either without modification or with some superficial rephrasing that offers exactly nothing new. In other words, they can’t be logically proved without fallacy. Are the assumptions good? Yeah. Fantastic. Which is why I believe it more likely that a God exists than that one does not, without going so far as to claim knowledge of it. But they are assumptions.
To revisit the philosophy of science:
Pat responded, “Oh, this isn’t science!” But that doesn’t matter, and it couldn’t matter less; the context happens to have to do with scientific inquiry, but this assumption entirely precedes that inquiry and belongs to no artificial human distinction–metaphysics, the scientific method, etc. The point being that all of science is predicated on the notion of causality and that that notion is readily admitted to be assumptive.
Or has the entire edifice of scientific inquiry also missed the memo that explained that these matters were done and settled long, long ago (by some logical argument which, by the way, I have yet to be made privy to here in this discussion)? Does anybody actually believe that the brightest people on Earth would be talking about the causality assumption if it could be shown without a shadow of a doubt that no assumption is necessary–that causality is an a priori truth? Come on.
Or else, go ahead and do it. Prove to me that “the uncaused and uncontingent cannot exist,” without restating the conclusion as a premise and without bringing in any new assumptive maxim.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Separately, I offer:
-
God exists.
-
God is uncaused and uncontingent.
-
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.[/quote]
That which does exist, can exist. Yes?
Edit: If something is, then that thing is possible. Is this correct, or incorrect?
If there is something exists and is uncaused, then it is possible for something uncaused to exist.[/quote]
I was being nit picky, and yes, if it does exist, it can exist. I was simply stating, in the context of this argument, you’re proving it does.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ 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?[/quote]
Something cannot exist as a factor of nothing. Something cannot ‘just exist’ because that begs the question and is circular. So that which exists cannot be a factor of nothing or itself, so it’s the result of something other than itself.
[/quote]
I really would like you to put your argument in formal format, so that you can see that you are in fact not making any kind of acceptable argument here at all. So: Please make this argument a formal one, for both our sakes.
So:
-
Premise.
-
Premise.
-
Premise.
-
Conclusion: Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent cannot exist.[/quote]
-
Something must exist, because it cannot not exist.
-
That which exists is a factor of something else that exists.
-
That which exists cannot be a factor of it’s own existence because that is circular.
-
That which exists cannot come from nothing because nothing has no properties to be a factor of something elses existence.
-
Therefore contingent beings exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
- Something must exist, because it cannot not exist.
- That which exists is a factor of something else that exists.
- That which exists cannot be a factor of it’s own existence because that is circular.
- That which exists cannot come from nothing because nothing has no properties to be a factor of something elses existence.
- Therefore contingent beings exist.[/quote]
Before I show this to be assumptive, can you make the language more precise? Specifically: What do you mean, exactly, by “a factor of something else that exists”? Do you mean, “that which exists is contingent upon something else for its existence”?
Edit: Also, you’re not trying to prove that contingent beings exist–you’re trying to prove that the uncaused and uncontingent cannot exist, so that should be the argument’s conclusion.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
1.A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
[/quote]
Your argument begins with an assumption. Whatever exists–you have not proved why it must be contingent.
See my last post, your answer to that will also cover this.[/quote]
I didn’t actually say that. First, let’s not call it ‘my argument’ because I didn’t come up with it. I am only defending it. It’s not an assumption because the inverse is logically impossible. It’s also not an assumption because ‘beings’ a term that can describe anything so long as it exists and we know contingent things exist. It’s a logical necessity that they do.
I think you are stuck in the realm that ‘all arguments are circular’, that the inevitable conclusion of the argument means that other things can exist for no reason. That not what the conclusion is. The conclusion does not posit an existence for no reason. The Uncaused-cause does not exist for no reason. The argument doesn’t describe the Uncaused-cause, it deduces one must exist.
If you really look at the argument, it is impossible for there to be more than one Uncaused-cause. I am going to leave this open deliberately so you think about it. Think about what an Uncaused-cause, non-contingent being must be to be what it is.
Hint: ‘It’ didn’t come from nothing, and it’s not a factor of itself. Those two things are logical fallacies and are therefore logically impossible to be true. But there must be an Uncaused-cause based on the argument…So even if you don’t believe it, pretend.
One amendment, keep in mind also that this argument has never been disproven. It doesn’t mean people haven’t tried, or brought forth objections. They just were not successful.
[quote]pat wrote:
yes, if it does exist, it can exist.[/quote]
Good.
-
God exists.
-
God is uncaused and uncontingent.
-
Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent exist.
-
If it does exist, it can exist.
-
Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent can exist.
Definitely valid and, in your opinion, sound. Correct?
[I still would like to continue the line of inquiry from my last post, and ascribe that one as much if not more importance. The two will meet, anyhow.]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
3. ?Why assume that the universe had a beginning?? is not a serious objection to the argument.
The reason this is not a serious objection is that no version of the cosmological argument assumes this at all. Of course, the kalām cosmological argument does claim that the universe had a beginning, but it doesn?t merely assume it. Rather, the whole point of that version of the cosmological argument is to establish through detailed argument that the universe must have had a beginning. You can try to rebut those arguments, but to pretend that one can dismiss the argument merely by raising the possibility of an infinite series of universes (say) is to miss the whole point.
The main reason this is a bad objection, though, is that most versions of the cosmological argument do not even claim that the universe had a beginning. Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Thomistic, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments are all concerned to show that there must be an uncaused cause even if the universe has always existed.
Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn?t mean ?first? in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.
In fact, Aquinas rather famously rejected what is now known as the kalām argument. He did not think that the claim that the universe had a beginning could be established through philosophical arguments. He thought it could be known only via divine revelation, and thus was not suitable for use in trying to establish God?s existence. (Here, by the way, is another basic test of competence to speak on this subject. Any critic of the Five Ways who claims that Aquinas was trying to show that the universe had a beginning and that God caused that beginning ? as Richard Dawkins does in his comments on the Third Way in The God Delusion ? infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn?t know what he is talking about.)[/quote]
Correct. But, this universe did have a beginning if it exists ;). But it is not a serious objection, neither is a multi-universe theory which is actually a horrific theory as it is, but still not an objection because it does not decouple contingency from existence.
[quote]pat wrote:
One amendment, keep in mind also that this argument has never been disproven. It doesn’t mean people haven’t tried, or brought forth objections. They just were not successful.[/quote]
It has never been proved. It is assumptive. There is no way around this.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
yes, if it does exist, it can exist.[/quote]
Good.
-
God exists.
-
God is uncaused and uncontingent.
-
Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent exist.
-
If it does exist, it can exist.
-
Therefore, the uncaused and uncontingent can exist.
Definitely valid and, in your opinion, sound. Correct?
[I still would like to continue the line of inquiry from my last post, and ascribe that one as much if not more importance. The two will meet, anyhow.][/quote]
Yup, it’s sound now. However, it cannot prove that anything other than God posses it. I never doubted the existence of non-contingencies. It’s just impossible for anything other than what we call ‘God’ to posses it.
Again, you have to keep in mind that something cannot come from nothing and that it cannot be a factor of itself. Those are the ‘rules’. Try to prove anything other than ‘God’ or the Uncaused-cause can be that.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s just impossible for anything other than what we call ‘God’ to posses it.
[/quote]
And what formal argument makes you think that this is a reasonable claim?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
One amendment, keep in mind also that this argument has never been disproven. It doesn’t mean people haven’t tried, or brought forth objections. They just were not successful.[/quote]
It has never been proved. It is assumptive. There is no way around this.[/quote]
No. Until you prove it’s an assumption, I will not answer this as a serious objection and assume you just don’t understand the argument or it’s premises, period.
The point of bringing up that it has never been disproven is to illustrate the fact that the objections you brought are not new, they just are applicable. It’s been looked at and dissected from every angle for centuries.