ad ho·mi·nem
ˈad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
[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]
Also, even beyond the assumptions, it should be noted that the major point of contention in this thread had to do with this uncaused cause being “God,” and all that that entails–that it could not have simply been the first event in the history of the universe but had to be, among other things, outside of the universe (which you’ve identified as nonsensical).
Indeed, the strangest thing about this debate is that it was the critics of the cosmological argument who were arguing that the uncaused could exist, whereas the theist was defending a kind of totalitarian causality and then exempting from it a being arbitrarily endowed with the traditional characteristics of God. But my proposition–the universe is uncaused–is perfectly compatible with your proof, so long as my proposition is taken to mean that the universe is a chain with an uncaused first cause which is included within the definition of it.
For example, say the initial singularity is the uncaused cause, the cosmic exception. Then comes the boom–and with it, a causal chain of contingent events and beings. This seems perfectly compatible with your proof, if your proof is accepted.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Find a problem and point precisely to it. Otherwise, things seem to have been tied up.
If you construct the argument the other way:
Premises 2 & 3 are invalid because something that is uncaused cannot premises for or against it’s causal properties. It’s uncaused, and hence uncaused at all. To say ‘That something cannot have caused itself’ is implicit in the fact that the object in question is uncaused. You cannot discuss the positive or negative causal properties of something that does not have causal properties.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, as we all pointed out there is a flaw in this argument. Can you fix it or at least give a new one in a similar format that we can reference, so we can stop using the flawed version?
So this would be true for something like “An Apple” but false for “God”. A valid argument needs to be true for anything you plug into the unknown.[/quote]
Well I don’t think you have found a flaw. You ask good questions, but that does not indicate it as a flaw. Because something is a variable as in this case ‘X’ we can still know things about it. The premises tell us something about the object in question.
It’s important to understand fully what ‘uncaused’ means. It means not caused at all. So to discuss the causal properties of something that has no causal properties is absurd.
If we were talking for instance about ‘God’, I.E. and Uncaused-cause which is more appropriate in this case the premises would have to be different.
You cannot determine an uncaused entity explicitly because any attempt to establish it becomes circular. You cannot discuss the causal properties of something that has no causal properties. Like smh’s example of a circle with 90 degree angles. You cannot question the circle’s 90 degree angles because it doesn’t have any. By the very fact of a circle being round, it’s absurd to discuss properties it could not have had in the first place.
We aren’t describing the circle, we’re arguing what a circle is. By definition it has no 90 degree angles, nor flowers or pink elephants.
The thing is, and I tried to explain it to smh, but it didn’t take. An argument is a framework. It needs to be explained to understand it.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This is the first actually interesting and worthwhile ‘existence of God’ thread in, like, forever…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I’ll dig one up from google if you’d like. I don’t feel like reinventing the wheel. Feel free to present an argument that the universe is a brute fact that requires no cause. [/quote]
I will wait for the argument.
More importantly: As I have said many, many, many times, I am not arguing the proposition that the universe does not have a cause. I am arguing that the proposition that the universe does not have a cause is an assumption, exactly like its negation, and cannot be disproved without fallacy and/or assumptive maxims, and have thus far been correct in that it absolutely has not been disproved.[/quote]
I’m through page three but I’d like to ask a question. smh, you are arguing that the ‘the universe does not have a cause’ is an assumption. Can you agree that there are only two choices:
If you do agree that there are only two possible cases, then you must either say that both of these are assumptions (which it seems is what is being said in the quoted portion above), or neither are assumptions. They are both equivalent opposites (negation, you called it).
If they are both assumptions, then it leaves you nowhere. If they are not assumptions there is a right and wrong answer. You (plural) do not act as if they are assumptions, and therefore while perhaps technically formally correct it is practically speaking worthless. Nobody has ever proven that ‘other people have minds’ philosophically, and yet everyone acts as if it were the case. To take the extreme skeptic’s position that nobody else has a mind is essentially hypocritical because you act as if they do–as if you are interacting with other minds. At some point induction comes into it unless you are willing to be said hypocrite skeptic. The same, I would argue, goes for the universe, if and only if your statement that both propositions 1 and 2 are assumptions is valid.
You’ll have to forgive me, the technical philosopher’s ‘analytical/symbolic logic’ jargon is long since forgotten because my head is crammed full of science jargon. Hopefully the point is clear.[/quote]
Of course it’s an assumption because ‘the universe’ is an assumption. Granted, very strong empirical evidence for it’s existence, but still an assumption. The way out of assumptions is to deal with metaphysics which are absolutes. Once you establish the framework, then you can discuss the assumptions on which the reasoning is based.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The disputed argument can still be strongly cogent, but not formally valid.
Strong and weak arguments are, in my opinion, why belief in God takes faith. They are also why “faith” =/= “blind faith” or “irrational faith” or “irrational reasoning” or any combination of the above. When people do not understand induction they resort to claims like “blind faith” and so forth because they only live in a world of deductive, Holmesian logic. However, this as Dr. Matt has put it is insufficient to the world in which we find ourselves in and the reason inductive rationale must be used.[/quote]
I agree, though in my experience, people usually assign the term “blind faith” to specifics–Adam and Eve, the serpent, Lord Krishna, Nirvana, etc. I, for one, would not characterize theism itself as “blind faith”–at least not derogatorily, and no more than any ultimate set of beliefs is taken blindly on faith.
However, to claim that God’s existence is a proved and settled matter? This is the kind of reach that always ends badly.[/quote]
I never said it was settled. A settled matter is one in which their is consensus. And a settled matter can be logically wrong and still have universal agreement. Argumentum ad populum is what it’s called. Just because people agree with something does not mean it’s right. Just agreed upon.
‘Everybody thinks O.J. is a murderer.’ ← He probably is, but everybody agreeing he is, does not make him one. Him murdering somebody makes him one.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The disputed argument can still be strongly cogent, but not formally valid.
Strong and weak arguments are, in my opinion, why belief in God takes faith. They are also why “faith” =/= “blind faith” or “irrational faith” or “irrational reasoning” or any combination of the above. When people do not understand induction they resort to claims like “blind faith” and so forth because they only live in a world of deductive, Holmesian logic. However, this as Dr. Matt has put it is insufficient to the world in which we find ourselves in and the reason inductive rationale must be used.[/quote]
Well certainly belief in God takes faith, because much of what we know is revealed by revelation which cannot be logically or empirically verified. However, establishing the existence of and Uncaused-cause, which we can inductively understand as being God (by which I mean the creator, or reason for existence itself) is logically verifiable.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Wow! A lot to get to, unfortunately I am busy. I may choose to address all the concerns in one post, but it may be long. It’s clear I have to explain this from the core to how the conclusion is made and why it must be true.
A brief snippet is that philosophy studies itself and it’s history more than any other discipline, and the reason for that is so that one doesn’t ‘reinvent the wheel’. It means I have to explain from the core of what philosophy is to the conclusion of the presented argument.
[/quote]
Also, Pat, you do not have to do any of this. I think I can speak for Matt and Sufi when I say that we are all very familiar with the fundamentals of logic and philosophy. Our problem is not that we don’t understand you–it’s that you’re not making a cogent argument. This discussion has arrived at a very specific place for a very specific set of reasons, and I think you should stick with these. I, for one, will not be coming along for the ride if we’re going to circle back around, only to come once again to the place where you are forced to look upon the invalidity of your arguments.
In other words–and call this intransigent if you want, but I did not meticulously craft these criticisms for them to be abandoned when they can’t be answered–I’m going to bow out if you don’t intend to get into the how and why of your (invalid) argument.
I say this without animosity, by the way. It has been very fun–one of the better God discussions I’ve participated in on this site. I just do not have the time or the patience for another trip around the block, only to end up exactly here once again.[/quote]
And that’s what I mean. You don’t understand what I am saying because our foundation of understanding is different. That’s why, in the course of the argument it’s most important to understand what something that is ‘uncaused’ must be. If you understand that, you will understand why the argument we are discussing cannot lead to the conclusion of an uncaused entity. You cannot address the causal properties of something that has no causal properties, so it is eliminated by default…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think theism is exactly as rational as atheism.
However, a theist and an atheist who argue their positions with certainty are both irrational to the extreme.[/quote]
I think atheism is irrational precisely because it necessitates ‘something from nothing’. Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called ‘A Universe from Nothing’, but he made a crucial error. He said, ‘It depends on what you mean by nothing’. His definition of ‘nothing’ is a burbling vacuum of quantum particles popping in and out of existence. And as it have been pointed out to him, even by Colbert, or even his athiest peers like Dennett, ‘That’s not nothing’.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s all I have time for boys and girls. Good evening and best wishes. I will address anything I have missed maybe tomorrow.
I leave you with questions to think about and hopefully answer:
-In the case of causation what are your options?
-Why can you not ask ‘why’ in the case of that which is uncaused?
And as I presented to Dr. Matt, Leibniz’s question,
-Why does something exist, rather than nothing?
I got lot’s of questions for you Dr. Matt, let me know if you have time for me to ask them. Is your email still good? The one I have? I know you have been super, super busy.[/quote]
Absolutely, you should always feel free to e-mail me. I want to hear more about this mustang!
[/quote]
Will do…It’s a new one. 5.0 in the front, 6 on the floor, goes like a stabbed rat. I have done some naughty things in that car… I’d love to talk about your plans for the Camaro. Just remember 572 
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, you are not understanding the point of contention. I do not propose a third option to “caused/uncaused.” Rather, your argument ignores the second option, by not even addressing the proposition that what exists is uncaused. Take a careful look at it and you should see. I really don’t want to keep hammering the point home. We have now gone like 15 posts wherein I am identifying a very specific problem and you are simply ignoring it, either to buy time or because you don’t take my meaning.
Again, please deal with the argument that I made that proves your invalid.[/quote]
You cannot determine something is uncaused by eliminating the possibilities of what caused it. You create a paradox, but not an unsolvable one. You just have to give the right answer.[/quote]
Yes, but proving the answer that you provide is another matter entirely, which you have shown unable to do. You may well have given the right answer in this case: God exists and is uncaused. That is definitely a possible right answer, but if you are claiming it is the one and only answer, you must prove it, without logical leaps and assuming unproven facts. Otherwise all you have is a philosophical argument, a strong one to be sure, but not a proven argument.[/quote]
Well, we’re just dealing with one of the premises right now, not the cosmological argument, just causation. But let’s look at it real quick:
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.
Starting with number 1, something exists. Now of course there are those who disagree with premise 1. You have people who believe ‘nothing’ exists. But they’re wrong of course, because they only apply this notion to physical existence and the faulty perception there of.
We can establish that something exists by virtue of a Cartesian reduction. Even if you are wrong about the nature of what exists, the very act of being able reason it out establishes that their exists something rather than nothing.
So premise 2. What we can deduce to exist, even if we are wrong about it could not have caused itself. The reason is that to make the assertion you engage in circular reasoning, I.E. begging the question. The immutable laws of logic dictate that premise 2 must be true.
Premise 3, contrary to Dr. Krauss’s claim of ‘it depends on what you mean by nothing’, nothing does not exist. If it lacks existence, it lacks the ability to act. Nothing cannot cause anything. So premise 3 is correct.
Now for the conclusion which appears to be the point of contention. Smh is claiming that the argument can conclude 2 possible ways: That something caused exists. And/ or something uncaused exists.
The latter is eliminated by default. You cannot discuss the properties of something that does not possess those properties. You cannot premise the conclusion of a circle by saying it does not have 90 degree angles or four sides of equal length since it is implicit in the object in question. So you cannot deduce something uncaused by discussing positively or negatively, it’s causal properties. It has no causal properties to eliminate. By definition, it’s uncaused. So saying ‘Something uncaused, could not have caused itself’ is absurd from the get go. It’s like saying ‘Something uncaused is not a naked lady’, causation is irrelevant to an uncaused entity.
You cannot eliminate causation from the conclusion, because it would make the argument circular. It would conclude that ‘Something exists’, we already know that. So the only possible solution, the only conclusion you can draw is that ‘something is caused’.
I agree with you in that an argument alone is not enough to justify it’s validity, it requires explanation as to why it’s true. An argument alone does not mean anything without justifying why the premises or conclusion are true or false. I tried to explain that many times, but smh demanded a formal argument, so he got one.
My only concern was to establish causation as a necessary condition of existence. Personally I didn’t care how it was done. I could use Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley Kant, Spinoza, even Hume, etc.
I wanted an argument from metaphysics, so that we could avoid the pitfalls of empiricism.
Do you agree or disagree with the explanation I gave? If disagree then with what?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The disputed argument can still be strongly cogent, but not formally valid.
Strong and weak arguments are, in my opinion, why belief in God takes faith. They are also why “faith” =/= “blind faith” or “irrational faith” or “irrational reasoning” or any combination of the above. When people do not understand induction they resort to claims like “blind faith” and so forth because they only live in a world of deductive, Holmesian logic. However, this as Dr. Matt has put it is insufficient to the world in which we find ourselves in and the reason inductive rationale must be used.[/quote]
Well certainly belief in God takes faith, because much of what we know is revealed by revelation which cannot be logically or empirically verified. However, establishing the existence of and Uncaused-cause, which we can inductively understand as being God (by which I mean the creator, or reason for existence itself) is logically verifiable.[/quote]
Are you sure? You cannot logically validate an inductive argument. By definition, it is not formally valid because it is inductive rather than deductive.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So you agree the case is strong? What do you need to make it fool proof?
For the record, I to agree that the case is strong. Strong being subjective, of course. Which, again, is why I describe myself as an agnostic theist.
The problem is that strong is not settled or proved or foolproof. And these things it will never be.[/quote]
Nothing will ever be settled. People will always disagree to the absurd. We do after all, still have flat earthers. I just have to go with what the logic dictates.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
smh, do you understand his question below? It may be an attempt to address the question you keep bringing up but I’m not really sure where hes going with it as I don’t understand the question. One way around circular logic is to make the circle so big you don’t realize when you’ve come back around again which I have a feeling where this is headed again.
What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? [/quote]
No no, I have no idea where that is headed. I just reread my reply to Pat and saw that when I said “I’m willing to go down that road,” it seemed like I knew where that road was going. I don’t. I think I might be able to guess, but the reason that I didn’t is that…well, you know. This thread is great but it is also a nightmare, twirling often toward vague and only semi-relevant muck, and let’s just say: Why go for the two-point conversion when you’re up 13 with 0:01 on the clock?
In other words, until Pat can show that my proof of his argument’s invalidity fails (that’s a hell of a clause), I can’t bring myself to offer him further routes of escape.[/quote]
The answer to that question, is why the argument stands as is. Something uncaused, has no cause at all. It serves no purpose, there is no point in discussing the properties that something does not have. If something has no cause, you have no grounds on which to deal with it’s causal properties. So to say ‘Something uncaused, could not have caused itself’ is absurd. Well, duh, it’s uncaused.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^BTW, yessir, I suspect that this is headed in an enormous circle. In which case I will be hopping off the carousel. I have an argument, it directly attacks his own by proving it invalid–I would like for that to be dealt with before moving on.
If I had to answer, my answer would be simply: What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? It must exist and be uncaused.[/quote]
And as you can see, that’s circular. That’s why you cannot argue it explicitly.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The disputed argument can still be strongly cogent, but not formally valid.
Strong and weak arguments are, in my opinion, why belief in God takes faith. They are also why “faith” =/= “blind faith” or “irrational faith” or “irrational reasoning” or any combination of the above. When people do not understand induction they resort to claims like “blind faith” and so forth because they only live in a world of deductive, Holmesian logic. However, this as Dr. Matt has put it is insufficient to the world in which we find ourselves in and the reason inductive rationale must be used.[/quote]
I agree, though in my experience, people usually assign the term “blind faith” to specifics–Adam and Eve, the serpent, Lord Krishna, Nirvana, etc. I, for one, would not characterize theism itself as “blind faith”–at least not derogatorily, and no more than any ultimate set of beliefs is taken blindly on faith.
However, to claim that God’s existence is a proved and settled matter? This is the kind of reach that always ends badly.[/quote]
I never said it was settled. A settled matter is one in which their is consensus. And a settled matter can be logically wrong and still have universal agreement. Argumentum ad populum is what it’s called. Just because people agree with something does not mean it’s right. Just agreed upon.
‘Everybody thinks O.J. is a murderer.’ ← He probably is, but everybody agreeing he is, does not make him one. Him murdering somebody makes him one.[/quote]
This is a semantic quibble. Change “settled” to “proved with a valid and sound a priori argument,” if that suits you.
More specifically, my contention was, from the very beginning, that you could not offer an argument for “God’s” existence that did not reduce to assumptive maxim and/or rely on formal or informal fallacy. As Matt put it more simply and more eloquently, that you could only give me arguments–some strong, but none of them proofs. This has been shown to my complete satisfaction, and I encourage you to read the posts of others who have chimed in over the course of the last page or so, because that is the plain and simple consensus. In fact, so far as I can tell, you are the only poster who thinks differently.
More importantly, this was a very fun debate to have, and I thank you for the sustained pressure that you put on me to do my best thinking, which is really all I’m ever after in any thread of which I’m a participant.
Edit: And I’ve shown for the last time why your proof of causation is invalid. You still refuse to precisely identify and render dubious a single of my premises, opting instead to offer critiques that are not remotely apposite to their own subject.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^BTW, yessir, I suspect that this is headed in an enormous circle. In which case I will be hopping off the carousel. I have an argument, it directly attacks his own by proving it invalid–I would like for that to be dealt with before moving on.
If I had to answer, my answer would be simply: What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? It must exist and be uncaused.[/quote]
Lol at restating the premises to answer.
Inductive logic makes this much easier to talk about. I do not believe it is possible to deductively prove God. If it were this would entail 1) that faith of ANY kind (as distinct from the irrational variety) is not involved, which is very clearly indicated to be essential via the Bible and 2) you would have been able to prove other people have minds conclusively. They are in the same epistemological boat in some ways, and nobody has yet created an airtight deductive case that other people have minds even though it is very plainly the case.
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?” ;).
At any rate the answer to Pat’s most recent question I think is going to be “in order to exist and be uncaused, the entity has to be non-contingent”[/quote]
Well, that is correct, but redundant. You don’t have to say it’s noncontingent, because it’s a noncontingent entity. Causation is a property it does not have, like a square is not round. You don’t have to say a square is not round, it’s implicit by definition.
But this isn’t a trick question. It’s the key to understanding the original argument. If you understand what ‘uncaused’ means, and know what an uncaused-entity must be to both exist and be uncaused, then you solve the problem.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
smh, do you understand his question below? It may be an attempt to address the question you keep bringing up but I’m not really sure where hes going with it as I don’t understand the question. One way around circular logic is to make the circle so big you don’t realize when you’ve come back around again which I have a feeling where this is headed again.
What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? [/quote]
No no, I have no idea where that is headed. I just reread my reply to Pat and saw that when I said “I’m willing to go down that road,” it seemed like I knew where that road was going. I don’t. I think I might be able to guess, but the reason that I didn’t is that…well, you know. This thread is great but it is also a nightmare, twirling often toward vague and only semi-relevant muck, and let’s just say: Why go for the two-point conversion when you’re up 13 with 0:01 on the clock?
In other words, until Pat can show that my proof of his argument’s invalidity fails (that’s a hell of a clause), I can’t bring myself to offer him further routes of escape.[/quote]
The answer to that question, is why the argument stands as is. Something uncaused, has no cause at all. It serves no purpose, there is no point in discussing the properties that something does not have. If something has no cause, you have no grounds on which to deal with it’s causal properties. So to say ‘Something uncaused, could not have caused itself’ is absurd. Well, duh, it’s uncaused.[/quote]
None of this is appropriate to the critique, which is simply a proof that your argument is invalid. In fact, this post has no meaning that I can identify, outside of a few assertions with very, very little cogency. Again, read the last few pages of this thread.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^BTW, yessir, I suspect that this is headed in an enormous circle. In which case I will be hopping off the carousel. I have an argument, it directly attacks his own by proving it invalid–I would like for that to be dealt with before moving on.
If I had to answer, my answer would be simply: What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? It must exist and be uncaused.[/quote]
And as you can see, that’s circular. That’s why you cannot argue it explicitly.[/quote]
Again, none of this means anything. In order for something to be correctly described as uncaused and extant, it must meet exactly two criteria. The question you’re asking is not apropos of any of this whatsoever.
[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]
Kamui!!! I was hoping you would pop up!
I have a problem with your argument though. If a contingent thing exists, we already know it’s caused, because it’s contingent which is a causal inference. So to say that something contingent is caused is circular.
I don’t want to repeat it, but if you see my response to Dr. Matt on page 9, time stamped at 10:32 EST, so that would be 4:32 PM France time, I explain the argument and how it was derived.
The point is to establish causation.