1.Something exists.
2.That something cannot have caused itself.
3.That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
4.Therefore, that something is caused.
Here is where pat is failing in the logic
This question is meaningless.
The universe is, by definition, the totality of existence.
There is nothing oustide of it.
And we are not (only) talking about space-time here : there is logically and definitionally nothing outside of it.
Which is more than enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant (“outside of the universe”) God. But that’s another story.
regarding the current discussion :
Here is the correct(ed) version of the argument :
A contingent thing exists
That contingent thing cannot have caused itself.
That contingent thing cannot have been caused by nothing. (because nothing can’t cause anything)
That contingent thing cannot be uncaused. (because it would not be contingent)
Therefore, that contingent thing is caused.
the next step is :
every contingent thing is caused
a causal chain cannot be of infinite length (it would lead to an infinite regress)
therefore a first uncaused cause must exist.
…If a contingent thing exists.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Frankly the proposition that the universe has no cause is very weak to me, to the point of being nonsensical. But supposing it doesn’t, we still need to ask “is there something outside this universe?” ;).
[/quote]
Anyway, if you believe that God cannot be proved through deductive a priori logic, then you do fall squarely on one end of this debate–for that is the contention at hand. In which case I say, good to have you with us sir, we will make sure you get your jacket in a timely fashion.
Re: Pat’s question leading toward contingency…that would be fine, but the exact same problems of assumption and invalidity will arise and persist indefinitely.[/quote]
Just as long as it has patches on the elbows and I can use it to smoke my briar pipe in.
I should correct myself here, however: I believe it is UNLIKELY that that deductive logic can be used to prove the existence of God beyond all doubt, but I am not a philosopher and I believe the case is quite strong for God. Therefore it is possible someone much smarter than I may find it.
Stated the way kamui put the argument, I find it quite convincing. However, of course, there are many many rebuttals throughout history.
[quote]kamui wrote:
This question is meaningless.
The universe is, by definition, the totality of existence.
There is nothing oustide of it.
And we are not (only) talking about space-time here : there is logically and definitionally nothing outside of it.
Which is more than enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant (“outside of the universe”) God. But that’s another story.
regarding the current discussion :
Here is the correct(ed) version of the argument :
A contingent thing exists
That contingent thing cannot have caused itself.
That contingent thing cannot have been caused by nothing. (because nothing can’t cause anything)
That contingent thing cannot be uncaused. (because it would not be contingent)
Therefore, that contingent thing is caused.
the next step is :
every contingent thing is caused
a causal chain cannot be of infinite length (it would lead to an infinite regress)
therefore a first uncaused cause must exist.
…If a contingent thing exists.
[/quote]
I would say at least one contingent thing must exist, therefore a first uncaused cause must exist. I do not believe it possible that NO contingent things exist.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Frankly the proposition that the universe has no cause is very weak to me, to the point of being nonsensical. But supposing it doesn’t, we still need to ask “is there something outside this universe?” ;).
[/quote]
I can’t keep up with this thread enough to read everything, so I’m hopelessly lost. And, frankly, I don’t have the philosophy vocabulary. I’d end up sowing utter confusion. However, skipping to this page, your statement caught my attention.
I see two possibilities. The universe came into existence. Or, it is eternal. But, in each case, don’t we acknowledge that there are fundamental mechanics/laws/processes that make it possible for the universe to have existed, to exist, to continue to exist (eternal or not). To cause its continued existence. At this very second, are there not conditions that the universe “relies” on to exist? That cause it to continue to exist, instead of devolving into some fundamental particles/energy/‘stuff,’ that may or may not then blink of it existence?
I don’t read “cause” as just a chronological, or 1,2,3…deal.
[quote]kamui wrote:
This question is meaningless.
The universe is, by definition, the totality of existence.
There is nothing oustide of it.
And we are not (only) talking about space-time here : there is logically and definitionally nothing outside of it.
Which is more than enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant (“outside of the universe”) God. But that’s another story.
regarding the current discussion :
Here is the correct(ed) version of the argument :
A contingent thing exists
That contingent thing cannot have caused itself.
That contingent thing cannot have been caused by nothing. (because nothing can’t cause anything)
That contingent thing cannot be uncaused. (because it would not be contingent)
Therefore, that contingent thing is caused.
the next step is :
every contingent thing is caused
a causal chain cannot be of infinite length (it would lead to an infinite regress)
therefore a first uncaused cause must exist.
…If a contingent thing exists.
[/quote]
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument. Your claim makes sense, and if push came to shove I would concede that it is probably true, but just because something makes sense does not mean we can pass it off as a fact without proving it. Until such a proof of this claim is presented, this will still be known as the cosmological argument instead of the cosmological proof.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Frankly the proposition that the universe has no cause is very weak to me, to the point of being nonsensical. But supposing it doesn’t, we still need to ask “is there something outside this universe?” ;).
[/quote]
Anyway, if you believe that God cannot be proved through deductive a priori logic, then you do fall squarely on one end of this debate–for that is the contention at hand. In which case I say, good to have you with us sir, we will make sure you get your jacket in a timely fashion.
Re: Pat’s question leading toward contingency…that would be fine, but the exact same problems of assumption and invalidity will arise and persist indefinitely.[/quote]
Just as long as it has patches on the elbows and I can use it to smoke my briar pipe in.
I should correct myself here, however: I believe it is UNLIKELY that that deductive logic can be used to prove the existence of God beyond all doubt, but I am not a philosopher and I believe the case is quite strong for God. Therefore it is possible someone much smarter than I may find it.
Stated the way kamui put the argument, I find it quite convincing. However, of course, there are many many rebuttals throughout history.
[/quote]
I agree that it is a very strong argument, at least as strong as and probably stronger then any argument that I have heard against the existence of some kind of deity. The only problems that arise on either side that prompt me to join any discussion on the matter is when someone tries to pass an argument that makes a whole lot of sense and is very convincing as a proof. The two are whole different monsters.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[/quote]
I do not have to prove it true or false because I am not claiming that it is one or the other. It may not be able to be proven true or false, which means that the cosmological argument will forever remain an argument and not a proof. Kamui is claiming that it is true, so he has to either prove it or accept that his argument does not constitute a proof. That does not mean his argument is not true, just that it is not a proof.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[/quote]
I do not have to prove it true or false because I am not claiming that it is one or the other. It may not be able to be proven true or false, which means that the cosmological argument will forever remain an argument and not a proof. Kamui is claiming that it is true, so he has to either prove it or accept that his argument does not constitute a proof. That does not mean his argument is not true, just that it is not a proof.
[/quote]
I’m not sure he was claiming it was true either, what about the first assumption “A contingent thing exists”?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[/quote]
I do not have to prove it true or false because I am not claiming that it is one or the other. It may not be able to be proven true or false, which means that the cosmological argument will forever remain an argument and not a proof. Kamui is claiming that it is true, so he has to either prove it or accept that his argument does not constitute a proof. That does not mean his argument is not true, just that it is not a proof.
[/quote]
Understood and agreed.
A root assumption restricts the realm of possibilities, and why should the possibilities be limited by that particular assumption?
The error in all this thinking lies in accepting the root assumption.
(Imagine a line of ants which have discovered the Moebius strip. They assume that at its origin is the answer to everything; it will be the uncontingent uncaused cause. They march in line along the rim, one after another. Of course, the ants on the other rim are marching in a similar search. But each ant follows the next, tirelessly searching for the origin of the universe.)
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[/quote]
I do not have to prove it true or false because I am not claiming that it is one or the other. It may not be able to be proven true or false, which means that the cosmological argument will forever remain an argument and not a proof. Kamui is claiming that it is true, so he has to either prove it or accept that his argument does not constitute a proof. That does not mean his argument is not true, just that it is not a proof.
[/quote]
I’m not sure he was claiming it was true either, what about the first assumption “A contingent thing exists”?[/quote]
That is not really an issue in this argument. This only requires the existence of one contingent thing, any contingent thing. This is very easy to prove under classical logic since you only have to show one contingent thing to exist to start the causal chain here, so I am not going to harp on it. This is allowable under classical logic, but it does lead to a breakdown of induction as I explained on the first page. Under higher forms of logic it is not allowed at all unless existence is defined axiomatically according to strict rules, but I doubt there are too many people on here who have studied type theory so I am limiting my comments to classical logic.
These statements:
[quote]That contingent thing cannot have caused itself.
That contingent thing cannot have been caused by nothing. (because nothing can’t cause anything)
That contingent thing cannot be uncaused. (because it would not be contingent)[/quote]
do not need to be proven either, except “nothing can’t cause anything”, and it does need to be proven that every time these and the first premise are met, the conclusion follows. Overall, there are a lot of assumptions that, although they make a lot of sense, are not proven and thus this argument is not proven. That is why this is called the cosmological argument and not the cosmological proof.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Overall, there are a lot of assumptions that, although they make a lot of sense, are not proven and thus this argument is not proven. That is why this is called the cosmological argument and not the cosmological proof.
[/quote]
This. Underlined, emboldened, and italicized.
It has never been the contention of Matt, Sufi and I that an argument for the existence of God cannot be made. It has never been out contention that a strong, or convincing, or “good” argument cannot be made.
It has been our contention that the argument has not been settled.
Challenge the premises of these arguments–reduce them to their components, and reduce those, and reduce those–and you will find yourself walking in circles through assumption and asserted maxim, chasing certainty into eternity.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[/quote]
I do not have to prove it true or false because I am not claiming that it is one or the other. It may not be able to be proven true or false, which means that the cosmological argument will forever remain an argument and not a proof. Kamui is claiming that it is true, so he has to either prove it or accept that his argument does not constitute a proof. That does not mean his argument is not true, just that it is not a proof.
[/quote]
Understood and agreed.
A root assumption restricts the realm of possibilities, and why should the possibilities be limited by that particular assumption?
The error in all this thinking lies in accepting the root assumption.
(Imagine a line of ants which have discovered the Moebius strip. They assume that at its origin is the answer to everything; it will be the uncontingent uncaused cause. They march in line along the rim, one after another. Of course, the ants on the other rim are marching in a similar search. But each ant follows the next, tirelessly searching for the origin of the universe.)[/quote]
It would seem we are in agreement here, except where you describe ants marching on “the other rim” of a mobius strip. A mobius strip has only a single topological boundary component, so only one rim. The ants are always marching on the same rim, and same side regardless of their position on the strip 
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Understood and agreed.
A root assumption restricts the realm of possibilities, and why should the possibilities be limited by that particular assumption?
The error in all this thinking lies in accepting the root assumption.
[/quote]
And this as well.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[/quote]
I do not have to prove it true or false because I am not claiming that it is one or the other. It may not be able to be proven true or false, which means that the cosmological argument will forever remain an argument and not a proof. Kamui is claiming that it is true, so he has to either prove it or accept that his argument does not constitute a proof. That does not mean his argument is not true, just that it is not a proof.
[/quote]
Understood and agreed.
A root assumption restricts the realm of possibilities, and why should the possibilities be limited by that particular assumption?
The error in all this thinking lies in accepting the root assumption.
(Imagine a line of ants which have discovered the Moebius strip. They assume that at its origin is the answer to everything; it will be the uncontingent uncaused cause. They march in line along the rim, one after another. Of course, the ants on the other rim are marching in a similar search. But each ant follows the next, tirelessly searching for the origin of the universe.)[/quote]
It would seem we are in agreement here, except where you describe ants marching on “the other rim” of a mobius strip. A mobius strip has only a single topological boundary component, so only one rim. The ants are always marching on the same rim, and same side regardless of their position on the strip :)[/quote]
Precisely…to us, the outsider, the ants are marching on the same rim.
But from the viewpoint of the ants: they see the “other” rim, the “other” ants, and no doubt believe that they are different and heretics, as well!
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…
This is a good argument, but if you are trying to pass this off as a proof then it fails. In a proof, you must prove every single claim and not just assume it to be true because it makes sense.
This:
Is one hell of a claim, but it is an assumption that must be proven in order for your argument for a first uncaused cause to begin to be considered a proof instead of just an argument…[/i]
[/quote]
…and it can be proved false?
[/quote]
I do not have to prove it true or false because I am not claiming that it is one or the other. It may not be able to be proven true or false, which means that the cosmological argument will forever remain an argument and not a proof. Kamui is claiming that it is true, so he has to either prove it or accept that his argument does not constitute a proof. That does not mean his argument is not true, just that it is not a proof.
[/quote]
Understood and agreed.
A root assumption restricts the realm of possibilities, and why should the possibilities be limited by that particular assumption?
The error in all this thinking lies in accepting the root assumption.
(Imagine a line of ants which have discovered the Moebius strip. They assume that at its origin is the answer to everything; it will be the uncontingent uncaused cause. They march in line along the rim, one after another. Of course, the ants on the other rim are marching in a similar search. But each ant follows the next, tirelessly searching for the origin of the universe.)[/quote]
It would seem we are in agreement here, except where you describe ants marching on “the other rim” of a mobius strip. A mobius strip has only a single topological boundary component, so only one rim. The ants are always marching on the same rim, and same side regardless of their position on the strip :)[/quote]
Precisely…to us, the outsider, the ants are marching on the same rim.
But from the viewpoint of the ants: they see the “other” rim, the “other” ants, and no doubt believe that they are different and heretics, as well![/quote]
Well done, and well said.
are we better off allowing kim jung-un to have the belief he was with obama?
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
…evidence sensitive and evidence insensitive.
are we better off allowing kim jung-un to have the belief he was with obama?[/quote]
I liked the post about ants better.
indeed.
And one of the best ways to attack this argument is to ask “define thing”.
Because there is already a whole ontology here.
