A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
It’s not a circular argument, it is a brute fact argument.
Proponents of the cosmological argument posit god as a brute fact.
We are positing an infinite causal chain as a brute fact.
Parsimony favors our brute fact over your brute fact.[/quote]
No we do not posit God as a brute fact but instead the reason for his existence is in the necessity of his own nature.
Positing the universe as a brute fact which has no reason for its existence is saying that the principle of sufficient reason is not valid.(edit>)Where one uses the principle of sufficient reason for everything else in the universe but commits the taxicab fallacy when one gets to the universe itself and says the principle doesn’t apply anymore.[/quote]
Saying that the reason for god’s existence is in the necessity of his own nature IS the same as positing god as a brute fact. You’re arguing that he is because he is.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.
But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]
The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.
I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.
But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]
The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.
I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.[/quote]
Ok lets say there is a set of contingent things named X, and Xn is describing the number of contingent things in the set and it could be any natural number (1,2,3…) or as dubiously claimed if it could exist an actual infinite. Saying that the explanation of X1 is due to the infinite number of contingent things prior to it ignores why the set of contingent things X itself exists.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.
But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]
The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.
I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.[/quote]
Ok lets say there is a set of contingent things named X, and Xn is describing the number of contingent things in the set and it could be any natural number (1,2,3…) or as dubiously claimed if it could exist an actual infinite. Saying that the explanation of X1 is due to the infinite number of contingent things prior to it ignores why the set of contingent things X itself exists.[/quote]
You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.
You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for an interesting discussion anyway.[/quote]
No, I look as infinity as infinite. An infinite regression is circular…Again this is basic logic. An infinite regress /= infinity.
If you oppose what I propose you have to prove me wrong. If you can produce an argument that can prove it wrong, then I will accept it. It hasn’t been proven wrong in 2 millennia, the argument from contingency is over 1500 years old…That’s a good track record.
The argument has been scrutinized in every way possible and has withstood it. Really, what’s the criteria for accepting the validity of an argument, before people consider that it just may be that damn good.
Lets see:
Accurate premises - check
a conclusion that flows directly from the premises - check.
Premises that have never been proven false - check
Been scrutinized by really smart people. - check, way more than any other philosphical argument in the history of man.
withstood the test of time - check.
I mean really, what does it take? [/quote]
That’s the logical fallacy I’m talking about. Just because an argument hasn’t been proven wrong doesn’t mean it has been proven right. You cannot conclude that something must be right solely because it hasn’t been proven wrong.
Furthermore, the cosmological argument has indeed been successfully challenged over the centuries (See Russell, Hume, Kant, Craig, Hawking, Swinburne, etc.). Many disagree that its premises are axiomatic, and many believe that it is not deductively valid. Obviously, you can agree or disagree with their arguments, but they stand by these arguments, and in my opinion their criticisms have merit.
Does that mean the cosmological argument has been definitively disproven? Not at all. But there are solid reasons for questioning its soundness and validity, and it’s far too premature to conclude that it MUST be true.
The premise that gives me the most concern at this point is that there must have been a first cause, which hopefully we can discuss further.
[/quote]
I wasn’t making the argument their, I am asking what is sufficient for accepting it’s validity. It has past all tests, what does it take for you to accept it?
None of the afore mentioned people have proven cosmology wrong and they admit as much. If you look at Kant’s ontology, he essentially takes a cosmological form from the point of ontology… Hawking goes back and forth, but he hasn’t from something from nothing, he is theorizing something from gravity, which is something. Hume proposed a third element of causation, which he failed to prove but he brought great insight in to causation. Russell laughably says the universe ‘just is’ which as you know by now is circular reasoning.
Pick any one of their arguments and I’ll be happy to take a look at them with you.
Now, you still falling into the ‘Appeal to authority’ fallacy. Really smart people who have a different opinion does not prove or disprove anything. Hanging their credentials over my head does not disprove the argument. Besides Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke,Craig, Lowe, Rowe, Smart, even Einstein, etc believe in cosmology. So loads of really smart dudes support it to. My smart dudes can beat up your smart dudes, especially Hawking…
[/quote]
As a proponent of the cosmological argument, obviously you don’t think their criticisms of its underlying premises have merit. I disagree, and think those criticisms do have merit.
But all of that is beside the point.
The point, again, is that failure to definitely disprove an argument doesn’t make it true. It only makes it potentially true, given what we currently know.[/quote]
No the failure to dis prove an argument doesn’t make it true, the validity of it’s premises and the conclusion that leads from it it what makes it true. The argument has that validity in spades. The only way to make it not valid is
What do you mean ‘I don’t think their criticisms are valid’, sure I do some of them any way, they just don’t disprove the argument. That’s a huge difference. I like most of those people mentioned, save for Russell. ‘It is cause it is’ is not an answer…But I find Kant’s reasoning very interesting…Keep in mind he was a staunch theist. He believed in Ontology and had a very interesting take on it via ontology, yet when he was done it looked strikingly similar to cosmology but using instead the principles of ontology. He argued that the concept of a reality is the same whether the reality exists or not. Since we’re dealing with an immaterial object concept and reality are one in the same, more or less. ← It’s a very inelegant version of what Kant was saying but you get the picture.
I disagree with ontology, because I don’t see concept and reality as the same. Being able to conceive ‘it’,does mean that a metaphysical abstract of the concept exists, but it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘it’ exists.
You’re bringing nothing to the table by saying smart people disagree, because just as many agree just fine. And who does and does not agree with it says nothing about the argument itself.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
It’s not a circular argument, it is a brute fact argument.
Proponents of the cosmological argument posit god as a brute fact.
We are positing an infinite causal chain as a brute fact.
Parsimony favors our brute fact over your brute fact.[/quote]
Infinite causal regression is a fallacy, not a fact, brute or otherwise.
The Uncaused-cause is the necessary solution to the problem. It’s not more complicated than that. Assigning weird names like ‘brute fact’ sodomizes the elegance and simplicity of the argument.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
It’s not a circular argument, it is a brute fact argument.
Proponents of the cosmological argument posit god as a brute fact.
We are positing an infinite causal chain as a brute fact.
Parsimony favors our brute fact over your brute fact.[/quote]
No we do not posit God as a brute fact but instead the reason for his existence is in the necessity of his own nature.
Positing the universe as a brute fact which has no reason for its existence is saying that the principle of sufficient reason is not valid.(edit>)Where one uses the principle of sufficient reason for everything else in the universe but commits the taxicab fallacy when one gets to the universe itself and says the principle doesn’t apply anymore.[/quote]
Saying that the reason for god’s existence is in the necessity of his own nature IS the same as positing god as a brute fact. You’re arguing that he is because he is.[/quote]
That’s not what is being said. We’re saying He, the Uncaused-cause must exist because existence itself demands it.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
6 comes from 5 only if all (contingent) things are ultimately and fully explainable
which is an unproven and unprovable assumption.
granted, infinite regression is not a “complete” answer.
granted, the “complete answer” could be an uncaused cause (let’s call that God)
but we can’t be sure there is such a complete answer.
usually, the next “hidden assumption” of believers is transcendance.
Even if there is an answer, and an uncaused cause, this uncaused cause can very well be an immanent one.
Like Spinoza’s God.
Deus sive Natura.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…
…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.
They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]
You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.
But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]
The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.
I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.[/quote]
Ok lets say there is a set of contingent things named X, and Xn is describing the number of contingent things in the set and it could be any natural number (1,2,3…) or as dubiously claimed if it could exist an actual infinite. Saying that the explanation of X1 is due to the infinite number of contingent things prior to it ignores why the set of contingent things X itself exists.[/quote]
[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).
However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.
We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.
As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.
(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.
You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.
You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for an interesting discussion anyway.[/quote]
No, I look as infinity as infinite. An infinite regression is circular…Again this is basic logic. An infinite regress /= infinity.
If you oppose what I propose you have to prove me wrong. If you can produce an argument that can prove it wrong, then I will accept it. It hasn’t been proven wrong in 2 millennia, the argument from contingency is over 1500 years old…That’s a good track record.
The argument has been scrutinized in every way possible and has withstood it. Really, what’s the criteria for accepting the validity of an argument, before people consider that it just may be that damn good.
Lets see:
Accurate premises - check
a conclusion that flows directly from the premises - check.
Premises that have never been proven false - check
Been scrutinized by really smart people. - check, way more than any other philosphical argument in the history of man.
withstood the test of time - check.
I mean really, what does it take? [/quote]
That’s the logical fallacy I’m talking about. Just because an argument hasn’t been proven wrong doesn’t mean it has been proven right. You cannot conclude that something must be right solely because it hasn’t been proven wrong.
Furthermore, the cosmological argument has indeed been successfully challenged over the centuries (See Russell, Hume, Kant, Craig, Hawking, Swinburne, etc.). Many disagree that its premises are axiomatic, and many believe that it is not deductively valid. Obviously, you can agree or disagree with their arguments, but they stand by these arguments, and in my opinion their criticisms have merit.
Does that mean the cosmological argument has been definitively disproven? Not at all. But there are solid reasons for questioning its soundness and validity, and it’s far too premature to conclude that it MUST be true.
The premise that gives me the most concern at this point is that there must have been a first cause, which hopefully we can discuss further.
[/quote]
I wasn’t making the argument their, I am asking what is sufficient for accepting it’s validity. It has past all tests, what does it take for you to accept it?
None of the afore mentioned people have proven cosmology wrong and they admit as much. If you look at Kant’s ontology, he essentially takes a cosmological form from the point of ontology… Hawking goes back and forth, but he hasn’t from something from nothing, he is theorizing something from gravity, which is something. Hume proposed a third element of causation, which he failed to prove but he brought great insight in to causation. Russell laughably says the universe ‘just is’ which as you know by now is circular reasoning.
Pick any one of their arguments and I’ll be happy to take a look at them with you.
Now, you still falling into the ‘Appeal to authority’ fallacy. Really smart people who have a different opinion does not prove or disprove anything. Hanging their credentials over my head does not disprove the argument. Besides Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke,Craig, Lowe, Rowe, Smart, even Einstein, etc believe in cosmology. So loads of really smart dudes support it to. My smart dudes can beat up your smart dudes, especially Hawking…
[/quote]
As a proponent of the cosmological argument, obviously you don’t think their criticisms of its underlying premises have merit. I disagree, and think those criticisms do have merit.
But all of that is beside the point.
The point, again, is that failure to definitely disprove an argument doesn’t make it true. It only makes it potentially true, given what we currently know.[/quote]
No the failure to dis prove an argument doesn’t make it true, the validity of it’s premises and the conclusion that leads from it it what makes it true. The argument has that validity in spades. The only way to make it not valid is
What do you mean ‘I don’t think their criticisms are valid’, sure I do some of them any way, they just don’t disprove the argument. That’s a huge difference. I like most of those people mentioned, save for Russell. ‘It is cause it is’ is not an answer…But I find Kant’s reasoning very interesting…Keep in mind he was a staunch theist. He believed in Ontology and had a very interesting take on it via ontology, yet when he was done it looked strikingly similar to cosmology but using instead the principles of ontology. He argued that the concept of a reality is the same whether the reality exists or not. Since we’re dealing with an immaterial object concept and reality are one in the same, more or less. ← It’s a very inelegant version of what Kant was saying but you get the picture.
I disagree with ontology, because I don’t see concept and reality as the same. Being able to conceive ‘it’,does mean that a metaphysical abstract of the concept exists, but it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘it’ exists.
You’re bringing nothing to the table by saying smart people disagree, because just as many agree just fine. And who does and does not agree with it says nothing about the argument itself.[/quote]
You don’t recognize the validity of the criticisms against its premises and conclusions, but many of us do recognize the validity of those criticisms. The criticisms don’t definitively disprove the argument, but they certainly cast doubt on it, and prove that it isn’t axiomatically true.
Claiming that it MUST be true until it is DEFINITIVELY DISPROVEN is logically fallacious. Just because something isn’t definitively disproven doesn’t prove it is true. I can’t definitively disprove that invisible pink unicorns exist, but that doesn’t mean they do.
Again, if you find yourself stubbornly insisting that only one particular argument can be true, it is a sure sign of confirmatory bias. I recognize that it COULD be true, but I also recognize that it COULD be false. I’m open to both possibilities, and I recognize the reasonableness of points on both sides of the argument.
I don’t want to say anything further on that, so my future comments will be on the argument itself.
[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).
However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.
We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.
As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.
(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.[/quote]
Claiming something is the necessity of its own nature makes it a brute fact, because it offers no explanation for its existence beyond the existence itself.
You are claiming god exists because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.
Fine.
I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.
6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.
[/quote]
Incorrect. A regression cannot be infinite. Regression in a causal chain necessarily end up at something or nothing. Infinity doesn’t answer the question there for it’s an invalid answer.
If you as me what 2+2 is and I say yellow, it doesn’t prove the answer isn’t, it just proves I didn’t answer the question provided. Infinity does not answer the question therefore it’s not a valid answer.
I think if you wrap your mind around the difference between infinity and infinite regresses then you will start to understand it much better.
][/quote]
Pat,
I am trying hard to understand your argument. Honestly. But I can’t find anything that proves an infinite regress is a fallacy. Conservapedia has a few arguments that try to. But they dont.
To say that an infinite regress needs a cause is to say its not infinite.
Just like…
To say an uncaused cause is caused is to say its not an uncaused cause.
Neither work so they’re both possible.[/quote]
Well I think your over complicating the issue. Applying infinite regress to an answer is a non-answer. It fails to answer the question. Saying something was always there doesn’t explain it’s existence. It says something about it that may or may not be true, but it doesn’t answer the question. Saying the universe just exists is circular reasoning. It’s like saying Casey Anthony killed her daughter cause she just did. Well we know she killed her, but just did does answer why.
Further a regression is a reductive process essentially. If in a reductive process you go into an infinate regress, you essentially say the thing itself is it’s essence, it’s circular. Concepts of infinity are not the same as a reductive infinity. An apple isn’t an apple because it just is. An apple has a core set of properties that make it an apple vs. something else…
Now to speak of the infinate universe…You realize it’s only a concept, one of many, and not a very well liked one. You realize, again, that there is not a shred of evidence for it, none. It’s a minute possibility and even if true doesn’t invalidate cosmology because perpetual existence still doesn’t explain it. And is sufficient to ask for an explanation…
What evidence do you have for thinking the universe is eternal in all dimensions?
You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.
You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for an interesting discussion anyway.[/quote]
No, I look as infinity as infinite. An infinite regression is circular…Again this is basic logic. An infinite regress /= infinity.
If you oppose what I propose you have to prove me wrong. If you can produce an argument that can prove it wrong, then I will accept it. It hasn’t been proven wrong in 2 millennia, the argument from contingency is over 1500 years old…That’s a good track record.
The argument has been scrutinized in every way possible and has withstood it. Really, what’s the criteria for accepting the validity of an argument, before people consider that it just may be that damn good.
Lets see:
Accurate premises - check
a conclusion that flows directly from the premises - check.
Premises that have never been proven false - check
Been scrutinized by really smart people. - check, way more than any other philosphical argument in the history of man.
withstood the test of time - check.
I mean really, what does it take? [/quote]
That’s the logical fallacy I’m talking about. Just because an argument hasn’t been proven wrong doesn’t mean it has been proven right. You cannot conclude that something must be right solely because it hasn’t been proven wrong.
Furthermore, the cosmological argument has indeed been successfully challenged over the centuries (See Russell, Hume, Kant, Craig, Hawking, Swinburne, etc.). Many disagree that its premises are axiomatic, and many believe that it is not deductively valid. Obviously, you can agree or disagree with their arguments, but they stand by these arguments, and in my opinion their criticisms have merit.
Does that mean the cosmological argument has been definitively disproven? Not at all. But there are solid reasons for questioning its soundness and validity, and it’s far too premature to conclude that it MUST be true.
The premise that gives me the most concern at this point is that there must have been a first cause, which hopefully we can discuss further.
[/quote]
I wasn’t making the argument their, I am asking what is sufficient for accepting it’s validity. It has past all tests, what does it take for you to accept it?
None of the afore mentioned people have proven cosmology wrong and they admit as much. If you look at Kant’s ontology, he essentially takes a cosmological form from the point of ontology… Hawking goes back and forth, but he hasn’t from something from nothing, he is theorizing something from gravity, which is something. Hume proposed a third element of causation, which he failed to prove but he brought great insight in to causation. Russell laughably says the universe ‘just is’ which as you know by now is circular reasoning.
Pick any one of their arguments and I’ll be happy to take a look at them with you.
Now, you still falling into the ‘Appeal to authority’ fallacy. Really smart people who have a different opinion does not prove or disprove anything. Hanging their credentials over my head does not disprove the argument. Besides Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke,Craig, Lowe, Rowe, Smart, even Einstein, etc believe in cosmology. So loads of really smart dudes support it to. My smart dudes can beat up your smart dudes, especially Hawking…
[/quote]
As a proponent of the cosmological argument, obviously you don’t think their criticisms of its underlying premises have merit. I disagree, and think those criticisms do have merit.
But all of that is beside the point.
The point, again, is that failure to definitely disprove an argument doesn’t make it true. It only makes it potentially true, given what we currently know.[/quote]
No the failure to dis prove an argument doesn’t make it true, the validity of it’s premises and the conclusion that leads from it it what makes it true. The argument has that validity in spades. The only way to make it not valid is
What do you mean ‘I don’t think their criticisms are valid’, sure I do some of them any way, they just don’t disprove the argument. That’s a huge difference. I like most of those people mentioned, save for Russell. ‘It is cause it is’ is not an answer…But I find Kant’s reasoning very interesting…Keep in mind he was a staunch theist. He believed in Ontology and had a very interesting take on it via ontology, yet when he was done it looked strikingly similar to cosmology but using instead the principles of ontology. He argued that the concept of a reality is the same whether the reality exists or not. Since we’re dealing with an immaterial object concept and reality are one in the same, more or less. ← It’s a very inelegant version of what Kant was saying but you get the picture.
I disagree with ontology, because I don’t see concept and reality as the same. Being able to conceive ‘it’,does mean that a metaphysical abstract of the concept exists, but it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘it’ exists.
You’re bringing nothing to the table by saying smart people disagree, because just as many agree just fine. And who does and does not agree with it says nothing about the argument itself.[/quote]
You don’t recognize the validity of the criticisms against its premises and conclusions, but many of us do recognize the validity of those criticisms. The criticisms don’t definitively disprove the argument, but they certainly cast doubt on it, and prove that it isn’t axiomatically true.
[/quote]
If the criticisms are valid, I don’t reject them. Your lying if you say I do. You’re asking me to accept things that aren’t true, in order to have an ‘open mind’. I don’t see the point of considering that which is incorrect. It’s a waste of time to spend it on that which is wrong.
So, by that logic some thing has to be proven wrong before it’s proven right? I also said it’s the validity of the premises and the validity that they lead to the conclusion that makes it right. That’s verified by never being proven wrong.
It sure helps an argument if it’s not proven wrong.
I never said only one particular argument is true. I am saying the argument is true, I didn’t say to the exclusion of others. Got any valid arguments that come to a different conclusion? I have heard other arguments that come to the same conclusion, but this one is the strongest of those. I haven’t seen you propose a valid argument that comes to a different conclusion.
[quote]
I don’t want to say anything further on that, so my future comments will be on the argument itself.[/quote]
[/quote]
Who’s to say theists don’t have a sense of humor =).
However I guess I have to introduce the principle of sufficient reason since that is whats being brought up. All the principle of sufficient reason states is that everything has a reason for the way it is(including existence) and that the reason for it is either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.
We use this principle all the time, for example there is a white ford pickup across my driveway. There is a reason why it is white instead of no reason.
As for God him being a necessary being or uncontingent being being essential to who he is.
(edit) A brute fact would be be a statement has no explanation for why it is. I could state that when I open my door and I see a flaming bag of poop on my porch could be a brute fact, even though experience tells us there is a reason for it.[/quote]
Claiming something is the necessity of its own nature makes it a brute fact, because it offers no explanation for its existence beyond the existence itself.
You are claiming god exists because it is the necessity of his nature to exist.
Fine.
I’m claiming the infinite causal series exists because it is the necessity of its nature to exist.[/quote]
Well all the members in set X are contingent making the set itself contingent as all the members themselves could have not existed, where is the logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. For if the set of contingents were a necessary being than it would result in a logical contradiction in saying set X could have not existed. However there is nothing logically contradictory in saying set X could have not existed which is sufficient to show that set X is not a necessary being.
God on the other hand being uncontingent sitting outside the set of contingents, the statement God could have not existed results in a logical contradiction which means he is the necessary being regardless of whether chose or not chose to being the set of contingents into existence.
