Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  1. Something must exist, because it cannot not exist.
  2. That which exists is a factor of something else that exists.
  3. That which exists cannot be a factor of it’s own existence because that is circular.
  4. That which exists cannot come from nothing because nothing has no properties to be a factor of something elses existence.
  5. 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]

Just to make sure you do not miss this, because it is the most important of our various backs-and-forth.

1102

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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]

The Cosmological argument necessitates it. It always goes back to the argument. You have to look at what it’s actually saying and nothing more.

1103

[quote]pat wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I have proved that it is assumptive many times already: Each time you were asked to prove one of your assumptions, and either refused, argued by assertion (tons of that here), or offered a fallacious argument (you took the conclusion as a premise in the only serious attempt you made), I was proving it. This is how this kind of thing is proved.

More importantly, see my last post.

1104

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  1. Something must exist, because it cannot not exist.
  2. That which exists is a factor of something else that exists.
  3. That which exists cannot be a factor of it’s own existence because that is circular.
  4. That which exists cannot come from nothing because nothing has no properties to be a factor of something elses existence.
  5. 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]

Just to make sure you do not miss this, because it is the most important of our various backs-and-forth.[/quote]

That’s not what I am saying.
The latter “Something exists which its existence is contingent upon something else for its existence” is better language.
I know where you are going with this, but it will fail. This only deals with contingent beings. However, it does not mean that anything other than the one, Uncaused-cause, can be what it is.
The conclusion of the cosmological argument is necessary. We’re only dealing with a premise here. You want the premise to be proven to be true. So, if it’s not true, you must prove it false without simply calling it an assumption! because that is a fallacious conclusion that CANNOT be drawn from what is presented.

The fun part of philosophy is that you get to violate the rules of composition :slight_smile:

1105

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I have proved that it is assumptive many times already: Each time you were asked to prove one of your assumptions, and either refused, argued by assertion (tons of that here), or offered a fallacious argument (you took the conclusion as a premise in the only serious attempt you made), I was proving it. This is how this kind of thing is proved.

More importantly, see my last post.[/quote]

No, you did not prove anything. You simply called it one. You can call it a ‘turd’ and it doesn’t make it one.
You have not proven the arguments fallacious.
The only assumption I have made is that you understand the subject matter. And I don’t mean it as an insult, because I do enjoy discussing it, though you frustrate me at times. I guess it’s a factor of the fact that I studied it for years formally and has become second nature. Some of the things I take for granted are things you are going through now. What that simply means is that often we are not on the same page and good discussions result from common understanding of words and their meanings in the context of the discussion and the rules of logic.
I understand it take a long time to ‘get it’.
Here’s the thing. Don’t simply take my word for any of this. These aren’t my own concoctions, I only wish I was that smart.

1106

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  1. Something must exist, because it cannot not exist.
  2. That which exists is a factor of something else that exists.
  3. That which exists cannot be a factor of it’s own existence because that is circular.
  4. That which exists cannot come from nothing because nothing has no properties to be a factor of something elses existence.
  5. 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]

Just to make sure you do not miss this, because it is the most important of our various backs-and-forth.[/quote]

That’s not what I am saying.
The latter “Something exists which its existence is contingent upon something else for its existence” is better language.
[/quote]

First of all, that sentence is an absolute nightmare. Precise language is a very good thing in matters like these.

More importantly: That doesn’t help you. You’re trying to argue to me that the universe cannot be uncaused and uncontingent. “Something exists that is caused and contingent” does not disprove this, just as “something exists that is red” does not disprove that my belt is brown.

So, please give me a formal and numbered argument that concludes exactly with: The universe cannot be uncaused and uncontingent. Please use precise language (“be a factor of” being my big concern here).

I’m off to do some work. I hope to find an actual argument, simple and clean, when I return. Then, I will show you that you cannot support it without fallacy. I am telling you this flatly–if you think me wrong, then I invite you to try this out. A clean and formal argument is what I ask for, what I’ve been asking for. One that ends with the exact conclusion: “The universe cannot be uncaused and uncontingent.” This has been the crux all along; I don’t know why on Earth it is taking so long to get to the meat of it. Let’s put our moneys where our mouths are.

1107

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I have proved that it is assumptive many times already: Each time you were asked to prove one of your assumptions, and either refused, argued by assertion (tons of that here), or offered a fallacious argument (you took the conclusion as a premise in the only serious attempt you made), I was proving it. This is how this kind of thing is proved.

More importantly, see my last post.[/quote]

No, you did not prove anything. You simply called it one. You can call it a ‘turd’ and it doesn’t make it one.
You have not proven the arguments fallacious.
The only assumption I have made is that you understand the subject matter. And I don’t mean it as an insult, because I do enjoy discussing it, though you frustrate me at times. I guess it’s a factor of the fact that I studied it for years formally and has become second nature. Some of the things I take for granted are things you are going through now. What that simply means is that often we are not on the same page and good discussions result from common understanding of words and their meanings in the context of the discussion and the rules of logic.
I understand it take a long time to ‘get it’.
Here’s the thing. Don’t simply take my word for any of this. These aren’t my own concoctions, I only wish I was that smart.[/quote]

You are smart. Which is why I find it stranger than I can convey in words that you don’t understand that we don’t truly understand anything.

I look forward to the formal argument that ends with the correct conclusion that I’ve been trying to get out of you for the past two weeks. It is this debate in its entirety, so let’s stop talking and start showing. Give me the argument that you so vehemently believe to be perfect. “The universe cannot be uncaused and uncontingent.” Number it so that I can refer to numbered premises. I will be back later, and am excited to actually get somewhere here.

1108

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  1. Something must exist, because it cannot not exist.
  2. That which exists is a factor of something else that exists.
  3. That which exists cannot be a factor of it’s own existence because that is circular.
  4. That which exists cannot come from nothing because nothing has no properties to be a factor of something elses existence.
  5. 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]

Just to make sure you do not miss this, because it is the most important of our various backs-and-forth.[/quote]

That’s not what I am saying.
The latter “Something exists which its existence is contingent upon something else for its existence” is better language.
[/quote]

first of all, that sentence is an absolute nightmare. Precise language is a very good thing in matters like these.
[/quote]
Yes, they are. It’s not supposed to be easy. These are big questions in life. They aren’t going to be easy. And no degree of linguistic precision is going to do it justice. You have to have a good foundation of understanding.

This goes back to Descarte. And the point of this is to understand what we don’t understand which is the reality of our existence. That’s why the language is a nightmare. When you break it down, you can only know that something exists, what that is, isn’t necessarily knowable.

[quote]
So, please give me a formal and numbered argument that concludes exactly with: The universe cannot be uncaused and uncontingent. Please use precise language (“be a factor of” being my big concern here).

I’m off to do some work. I hope to find an actual argument, simple and clean, when I return. Then, I will show you that you cannot support it without fallacy. I am telling you this flatly–if you think me wrong, then I invite you to try this out. A clean and formal argument is what I ask for, what I’ve been asking for. One that ends with the exact conclusion: “The universe cannot be uncaused and uncontingent.” This has been the crux all along; I don’t know why on Earth it is taking so long to get to the meat of it. Let’s put our moneys where our mouths are.[/quote]

Well this will require an assumption. That the universe exists. I will do my best, but understand something else. Arguments are not understood by themselves. It’s the explanations and discussions about them that yield understanding. That argument is just a framework.

-The universe exists.
-The universe is composed of contingent entities.
-The universe does not contain anything that was not caused.
-The universe is the result of a causal series of events that if reduced go back to it’s beginning.
-The universe cannot be a factor of itself, nor could it come from nothing.
-Therefore the universe was caused.

As you see, the argument doesn’t explain itself. But each premise is true (if the universe exists ;)) and I would challenge you to prove any of them false.

1109

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I have proved that it is assumptive many times already: Each time you were asked to prove one of your assumptions, and either refused, argued by assertion (tons of that here), or offered a fallacious argument (you took the conclusion as a premise in the only serious attempt you made), I was proving it. This is how this kind of thing is proved.

More importantly, see my last post.[/quote]

No, you did not prove anything. You simply called it one. You can call it a ‘turd’ and it doesn’t make it one.
You have not proven the arguments fallacious.
The only assumption I have made is that you understand the subject matter. And I don’t mean it as an insult, because I do enjoy discussing it, though you frustrate me at times. I guess it’s a factor of the fact that I studied it for years formally and has become second nature. Some of the things I take for granted are things you are going through now. What that simply means is that often we are not on the same page and good discussions result from common understanding of words and their meanings in the context of the discussion and the rules of logic.
I understand it take a long time to ‘get it’.
Here’s the thing. Don’t simply take my word for any of this. These aren’t my own concoctions, I only wish I was that smart.[/quote]

You are smart. Which is why I find it stranger than I can convey in words that you don’t understand that we don’t truly understand anything.
[/quote]
Certainly the feeling is reciprocal. It seems we both feel the other is missing ‘the point’. Because, what I feel is self evident, by definition, you feel is assumptive. But I, like you are now, did not always feel that way. I questioned it all as well. I am just not used to having to break it down in such detail. I have to dig back 20 years for some of it…Crap, I am old. :frowning:

[quote]
I look forward to the formal argument that ends with the correct conclusion that I’ve been trying to get out of you for the past two weeks. It is this debate in its entirety, so let’s stop talking and start showing. Give me the argument that you so vehemently believe to be perfect. “The universe cannot be uncaused and uncontingent.” Number it so that I can refer to numbered premises. I will be back later, and am excited to actually get somewhere here.[/quote]

Formal arguments are the basis for discussion, they don’t end it they start it. I can put forth a laborious break down of each premise, where the premise is the conclusion of another argument. And then we can break down the premises of those arguments where those premises are conclusions of other arguments.(If you notice something ironic about what I said, it indicates a causal chain). Discussion yields more understanding the the consistent presentation of formal arguments.
Even back to Plato and Aristotle, you would have a 3 line argument and 300 pages of explanation. We’re going to have to be a bit more concise than that.
Since these are deductive arguments, by their nature they are binary, they are either true or not true. So if you feel a premise is not true, then prove it false. Providing formal arguments will not answer your questions, they will only create more questions.

1110

[quote]pat wrote:
It seems we both feel the other is missing ‘the point’. Because, what I feel is self evident, by definition, you feel is assumptive.[/quote]

Exactly. However, allow me to say that I, too, think that your premises are self-evident. Or, said more precisely: As best as I can understand–and, probably, as best as I ever could understand–your premises are true. (This, I hope you’ve noted, is why I lean in the direction of some kind of theism, without claiming ultimate knowledge.) But what I cannot do, and will not ever do, is make the leap from what my finite and material brain has determined to be, to what is.

Obviously, I live my life under a set of absolutely necessary and fantastic assumptions, without which I would but be able to crumple limply and die. However, in discussing these things–large things, final things–I must admit my own inescapable, inbuilt, fumbling blindness, and therefore identify these assumptions for what they are.

So, for example:

[quote]

  1. The universe exists.
  2. The universe is composed of contingent entities.
  3. universe does not contain anything that was not caused.
  4. The universe is the result of a causal series of events that if reduced go back to it’s beginning.
  5. The universe cannot be a factor of itself, nor could it come from nothing.
  6. Therefore the universe was caused.[/quote]

[I have numbered them.]

Take [3]. I believe it; you believe it. But if either of us were to try to prove it, he would wander in logical circles for the rest of his life, moving from (essential, fantastic, intelligent) assumption to (essential, fantastic, intelligent) assumption, taking conclusions as their own premises, circling back to what he’s trying to prove in the very act of trying to prove it. Same with, for example, [5]–there is no way to prove that those are the only two options, and there is no way to prove that either of them never happened, either.

To consolidate my thoughts: Every good proof of God will reduce to a (euphemistic) maxim that is a variant of the simple phrase, “that which is in motion, was put in motion by something that is not itself.” (The variant vis-a-vis contingency is: “That which is so, and could have not been so, was made so by something that is not itself.”) Now, these are elegant and, as best any human brain seems able to determine, true. I believe them. But the sentence immediately preceding this one’s immediate precedent–sorry for that: I’m a big fan of Nabokovian literary convolution: Not to imply a qualitative similarity–could not, in good faith, be said to stand if its qualifier were ablated.

In other words, I neither know, nor think that I know.

1111

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
It seems we both feel the other is missing ‘the point’. Because, what I feel is self evident, by definition, you feel is assumptive.[/quote]

Exactly. However, allow me to say that I, too, think that your premises are self-evident. Or, said more precisely: As best as I can understand–and, probably, as best as I ever could understand–your premises are true. (This, I hope you’ve noted, is why I lean in the direction of some kind of theism, without claiming ultimate knowledge.) But what I cannot do, and will not ever do, is make the leap from what my finite and material brain has determined to be, to what is.

Obviously, I live my life under a set of absolutely necessary and fantastic assumptions, without which I would but be able to crumple limply and die. However, in discussing these things–large things, final things–I must admit my own inescapable, inbuilt, fumbling blindness, and therefore identify these assumptions for what they are.

So, for example:

Hume’s third element of causation? That would only insert something between cause and effect, which itself would be a cause. I don’t know if that’s what you were talking about, but that’s what came to mind initially.
There is no other option. Think about it logically. Any third option would by necessity be causal, which in the end makes it one of the only two options available.
People have tried this sort of thing before as an example, ‘soft determinism’.
This isn’t an epistemological limitation on the human mind. It’s simply that there are no other choices. You do not need an omnipotent mind to know that. Something cannot come from nothing and that is a brute fact. There is nothing assumptive about it, it’s simply a logical impossibility.
I get that on the surface it appears that ‘wait, you don’t know everything, so how can you know there is nothing in the universe that is uncaused?’. You have to deal with the tools you have and seeing it that way is a two dimensional approach. Okay, you don’t know everything, but you know what is logically possible and what is logically impossible. Since it’s logically impossible, it’s not possible for it to exist.
If you think about what an Uncaused-cause must be to be what it is, you will see why it cannot exist en masse and why there can be only one of them in existence.
Where did it come from? It didn’t, it’s uncaused.

[quote]
To consolidate my thoughts: Every good proof of God will reduce to a (euphemistic) maxim that is a variant of the simple phrase, “that which is in motion, was put in motion by something that is not itself.” (The variant vis-a-vis contingency is: “That which is so, and could have not been so, was made so by something that is not itself.”) Now, these are elegant and, as best any human brain seems able to determine, true. I believe them. But the sentence immediately preceding this one’s immediate precedent–sorry for that: I’m a big fan of Nabokovian literary convolution: Not to imply a qualitative similarity–could not, in good faith, be said to stand if its qualifier were ablated.

In other words, I neither know, nor think that I know.[/quote]

I call it selling yourself short. I am not certain of much, but I am certain of that. Because you cannot know everything, doesn’t mean you can’t know somethings. In as much as the logical process can give us uncertainties about many things, there are some that are absolute and you don’t need to know everything and eliminate every variable to know that.

1112

Alright, then. I’ll continue. (First of all, I despise appeals to authority, but the time has come for me to note that I am making an argument that is widely subscribed to by contemporary philosophers. For every Craig, there are two Smiths. I suggest you read Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, by the way, if you haven’t. That debate exists alone–and exists in fierce form–should be enough to prove that I am correct in my contention that this is not, not at all, settled.) You gave me the following argument, and you believe that you can prove to me that its premises are necessarily true, without assumption. I say that you absolutely cannot. So:

  1. The universe exists.
  2. The universe is composed of contingent entities.
  3. universe does not contain anything that was not caused.
  4. The universe is the result of a causal series of events that if reduced go back to it’s beginning.
  5. The universe cannot be a factor of itself, nor could it come from nothing.
  6. Therefore the universe was caused.

Please prove, formally, premises [3], [4], and [5]. Each of these arguments will be a logical progression, each will rely on numbered premises, and each will end with, verbatim, the above premise that it’s trying to prove.

I embolden the following clause not in frustration, but for emphasis: This is where you have bailed on me in the past, and if you decide to bail again, I’m going to have to excuse myself, because I don’t have the stamina for another trip around the circle. I hold that you cannot do what I’m asking you to do; you hold that you can. The only way forward is for you to try to do it. So please formally prove what you say you can formally prove. If you don’t, I will assume–there’s that word again–that you cannot.

Note that, once you make your arguments, I will look to show that the arguments you make are invalid or assumptive. I tell you so that you put your best effort forth.

1113

[quote]pat wrote:
Okay, you don’t know everything, but you know what is logically possible and what is logically impossible. Since it’s logically impossible, it’s not possible for it to exist.
[/quote]

The only true measure of logical impossibility is the implication of logical contradiction. You show me the logical contradiction in the converse of the causal principle, and I’ll show you one bedraggled and logically invalid argument.

1114

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Alright, then. I’ll continue. (First of all, I despise appeals to authority, but the time has come for me to note that I am making an argument that is widely subscribed to by contemporary philosophers. For every Craig, there are two Smiths. I suggest you read Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, by the way, if you haven’t. That debate exists alone–and exists in fierce form–should be enough to prove that I am correct in my contention that this is not, not at all, settled.) You gave me the following argument, and you believe that you can prove to me that its premises are necessarily true, without assumption. I say that you absolutely cannot.
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter who likes or dislikes a particular argument, it only matters who is right. This disconnect is following where the logical evidence takes you.
It really takes being honest with yourself rather than trying to prove the point of view you subscribe to, which means you have to abandon what you believe and follow the evidence. I would direct you to Anthony Flew, and renowned atheist for 40 years who by the same value of logic I subscribe to, felt forced to abandon his atheist views because the logic simply didn’t support it. And he became a theist. Now mind you, he did not become a ‘Christian’ or religious, but he did become a theist and took and unholy beating for it by atheists who felt betrayed.

[quote]
So:

  1. The universe exists.
  2. The universe is composed of contingent entities.
  3. universe does not contain anything that was not caused.
  4. The universe is the result of a causal series of events that if reduced go back to it’s beginning.
  5. The universe cannot be a factor of itself, nor could it come from nothing.
  6. Therefore the universe was caused.

Please prove, formally, premises [3], [4], and [5]. Each of these arguments will be a logical progression, each will rely on numbered premises, and each will end with, verbatim, the above premise that it’s trying to prove.

I embolden the following clause not in frustration, but for emphasis: This is where you have bailed on me in the past, and if you decide to bail again, I’m going to have to excuse myself, because I don’t have the stamina for another trip around the circle. I hold that you cannot do what I’m asking you to do; you hold that you can. The only way forward is for you to try to do it. So please formally prove what you say you can formally prove. If you don’t, I will assume–there’s that word again–that you cannot.

Note that, once you make your arguments, I will look to show that the arguments you make are invalid or assumptive. I tell you so that you put your best effort forth.[/quote]

My responses are still going to be the same, where you feel I bailed, I feel you refuse to see the logic for what it is. You see ‘One cannot know everything, hence one cannot know if everything is caused.’ I see, correctly and you cannot prove me wrong, that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. There is no logic to support such a thing. If something exists outside the Uncaused-cause, it exists for a reason.
Something cannot come from nothing. ← Do you, can you understand why this must be true by definition?

As far a 4 is concerned that is an assumption, so that premise can be removed. It isn’t necessary for the conclusion. I did have to whip it out unedited in short order.
So revised:

  1. The universe exists.
  2. The universe is composed of contingent entities.
  3. universe does not contain anything that was not caused.
  4. The universe cannot be a factor of itself, nor could it come from nothing.
  5. Therefore the universe was caused.

I am done with writing a formal arguments because as you see it’s only a conversation starter, not ender. And you are putting the onus on me to do all the work and you do none. All you will do is ask me to prove those premises. And then further prove those premises. I am not writing arguments for each premise while I have asked, repeatedly, for arguments that something can come from nothing and that the formal logic that something cannot come from nothing is false.

YOU have neither proven that basal logic is ‘assumptive’ nor that the converse can even be true. You haven’t even tried. Speaking of bailing.

If you try to come up with some kind of crap that the universe is non-contingent because it always existed, I might shit a golden brick.
Hopefully I can head you off at the pass in that, that is NOT a non-contingency. Temporal infinity is not only not prove of non-contingency, but is contingent in itself.

The universe is a factor of what is in it and what it’s made of. There was no universe and BAM, stuff blew into it. So the universe is the sum total of all it contains. That based on the fact that the universe is defined by what’s in it. We cannot define something by what it’s not.

The only way the argument can be assumptive is if this is true: Something can come from nothing. If you got evidence that the universe has that which is not contingent, bring it.

So prove that it can. You can do it formally or informally. If you are successful, I will shut up, fold up my tent, take my ball and go home.

Bailed? I have asked MANY questions. You have answered nearly none of them, but merely asked for more. It’s time you answer some of them. Starting with proof that something can come from nothing.

BTW: Do you know why Hawking and Krauss are trying so desperately to prove a ‘Universe from nothing’? It’s because they cannot prove the cosmological argument wrong based on logic and they know it. That’s my appeal to authority.

1115

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Okay, you don’t know everything, but you know what is logically possible and what is logically impossible. Since it’s logically impossible, it’s not possible for it to exist.
[/quote]

The only true measure of logical impossibility is the implication of logical contradiction. You show me the logical contradiction in the converse of the causal principle, and I’ll show you one bedraggled and logically invalid argument.[/quote]

No. Prove it wrong.

1116

BTW…Happy Friday! I see you are on at the same time as me…It’s funny when I see responses coming as I am writing my own…

1117

Pat–happy Friday to you. I will respond later in the day, or over the weekend. I hope you’re not done with logic, because logic absolutely does begin and end this discussion. Before I respond, I’d like to bring up something that went unanswered before: You keep using the term, “be a factor of.” As best I can tell, this is a phraseology that is yours alone, albeit one whose meaning I think I can divine. Does this mean “cause”?

If X is a factor of Y, has X caused Y?

1118

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat–happy Friday to you. I will respond later in the day, or over the weekend. I hope you’re not done with logic, because logic absolutely does begin and end this discussion. Before I respond, I’d like to bring up something that went unanswered before: You keep using the term, “be a factor of.” As best I can tell, this is a phraseology that is yours alone, albeit one whose meaning I think I can divine. Does this mean “cause”?

If X is a factor of Y, has X caused Y?[/quote]

Yes, the way I am using the term it is causal. Interchangeably would also be dependent, as a result, reason, because of, etc. These are all terminology of causation.

But with regards to “If X is a factor of Y, has X caused Y?”, no. X being a factor of ‘Y’ isn’t that ‘X’ is soley responsible for ‘Y’. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘X’ may be factors of ‘Y’, but with regards to discussion we are only discussing ‘X’.
So to say that something is a factor of something else, isn’t to say it’s the only factor. For instance, saying the universe is a factor of dark energy, isn’t saying that dark energy is the only factor, but it is important definitionally to the universe. Am I making any sense?

And no, I am not done with logic…

1119

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat–happy Friday to you. I will respond later in the day, or over the weekend. I hope you’re not done with logic, because logic absolutely does begin and end this discussion. Before I respond, I’d like to bring up something that went unanswered before: You keep using the term, “be a factor of.” As best I can tell, this is a phraseology that is yours alone, albeit one whose meaning I think I can divine. Does this mean “cause”?

If X is a factor of Y, has X caused Y?[/quote]

Yes, the way I am using the term it is causal. Interchangeably would also be dependent, as a result, reason, because of, etc. These are all terminology of causation.

But with regards to “If X is a factor of Y, has X caused Y?”, no. X being a factor of ‘Y’ isn’t that ‘X’ is soley responsible for ‘Y’. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘X’ may be factors of ‘Y’, but with regards to discussion we are only discussing ‘X’.
So to say that something is a factor of something else, isn’t to say it’s the only factor. For instance, saying the universe is a factor of dark energy, isn’t saying that dark energy is the only factor, but it is important definitionally to the universe. Am I making any sense?

And no, I am not done with logic… [/quote]

So if X is a factor of Y, X did cause Y, but not necessarily on its own. As in, “my father’s anger was caused by my having dented his car, and by my mother having come home smelling like men’s cologne.”

If that’s a fair characterization of what you’re saying, I’ll get down to a response. Hopefully today, definitely by tomorrow.

1120

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat–happy Friday to you. I will respond later in the day, or over the weekend. I hope you’re not done with logic, because logic absolutely does begin and end this discussion. Before I respond, I’d like to bring up something that went unanswered before: You keep using the term, “be a factor of.” As best I can tell, this is a phraseology that is yours alone, albeit one whose meaning I think I can divine. Does this mean “cause”?

If X is a factor of Y, has X caused Y?[/quote]

Yes, the way I am using the term it is causal. Interchangeably would also be dependent, as a result, reason, because of, etc. These are all terminology of causation.

But with regards to “If X is a factor of Y, has X caused Y?”, no. X being a factor of ‘Y’ isn’t that ‘X’ is soley responsible for ‘Y’. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘X’ may be factors of ‘Y’, but with regards to discussion we are only discussing ‘X’.
So to say that something is a factor of something else, isn’t to say it’s the only factor. For instance, saying the universe is a factor of dark energy, isn’t saying that dark energy is the only factor, but it is important definitionally to the universe. Am I making any sense?

And no, I am not done with logic… [/quote]

So if X is a factor of Y, X did cause Y, but not necessarily on its own. As in, “my father’s anger was caused by my having dented his car, and by my mother having come home smelling like men’s cologne.”

If that’s a fair characterization of what you’re saying, I’ll get down to a response. Hopefully today, definitely by tomorrow.[/quote]

Well, not exactly. Why it may be true that both factors contributed to your fathers anger, they don’t define it. Indeed it’s possible that your father is angry for many reasons, or for no reason at all. He could just be an angry person.
A heightened emotional state and aggressive mental state are factors of anger. They would define what anger is. That what stimulates this doesn’t define anger, they may cause one to be angry, but it isn’t ‘anger’ in itself.
So external factors may indeed make ‘your father’ angry, but they don’t define his anger. Anger is something else. For indeed, he may not care about his car and he may hate his wife and not care what happened to them. He has the option to not be angry.
So ‘factors’ as we are discussing them here are that which are definitionally necessary for something to be true.
Now even supposing you statement is true, it doesn’t definitionally define anger. It doesn’t make anger what it is. It may be the reason for the anger, but it isn’t the definitional basis of anger.