Proof of God, Continued

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:

[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?

1. X exists.
2. X cannot have caused itself.
3. X cannot have been caused by nothing.
4. Therefore, X is caused.

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]

You skipped over my more important question so I’ll reference this one

1. X exists.
2. X cannot have caused itself.
3. X cannot have been caused by nothing.
4. Therefore, X is caused.

Question…

How do you determine if #2 is true for false before moving on to 3 and 4?

You said its invalid (or false) for something uncaused, so don’t you NEED to know if its caused or uncaused to answer the question and move on?

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

we still need to ask “is there something outside this universe?” ;).

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:

a causal chain cannot be of infinite length

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]

Well no, Kamui is right, though I disagree with his initial argument on contingent being being caused. Of course they are caused if they are contingent.

Ah, but the infinite regress. Here’s why it’s impossible, it’s reduction, not division. You can divide infinitely but you cannot reduce.
In the case of an argument, there are 2 reasons why infinite regress is logically impossible.1) It will inevitably become circular, i.e. one way or another the thing itself will be a premise for itself, which cannot be.
2) You cannot have an argument with infinite premises. The argument can never reach a conclusion and is therefore not an argument.

Infinite is not the problem, regress is the problem.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:
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]

This is the entire point of the thread (I think). You were supposed to give an argument of PROOF. An “argument as a framework” is just code for “you need some faith to jump to its conclusion” which is what everyone has been trying to say (not just me and smh).

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Find a problem and point precisely to it. Otherwise, things seem to have been tied up.

1. Argument A states that

      [i]----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.[/i]
   

2. If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].

3. Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.

4. However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.

5. If P, then ~4’

6. Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]

If you construct the argument the other way:

1. Something exists.
2. That something cannot have caused itself.
3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
4. Therefore, that something is uncaused.

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]

I have explained to you that this is a nonsensical critique. I literally mean nonsensical.

Your argument is invalid because its premises can be true and its conclusion still false. This is not an opinion, and I am not going to make it any clearer to you.

My counter-proposition is a proposition, not a proposed conclusion of your invalid argument. It is an “but if X, then Y, in which case ~Z” progression. It is not intended to be, and is not, and will never be, the conclusion of the argument that it decimates. I don’t know where you got the method of plugging an objection into an invalid argument as its conclusion in order to resist the said objection, but things don’t work that way.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:
You cannot have an argument with infinite premises. The argument can never reach a conclusion and is therefore not an argument.
[/quote]

Yes you can, its just not a valid proof, its still a valid argument that could be true. It’s just a framework as you would say.

[smh_23]

^Pat, I am going to suggest, at the risk of sounding like a dick, that you become more familiar with the basics of logical debate and counterdebate before proceeding. I am no expert on the matter, and don’t intend to imply that I am, but I’ve got a good enough understanding of classical logic to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is utterly no sense in what you just did here.

–Your original argument went 1, 2, 3, therefore 4.

–I said, “but wait, if Z, then 1, 2, 3, and ~4.”

–And your response is that “1, 2, 3, therefore Z”–an argument you arbitrarily constructed–“is invalid.”

Do you not understand that it was never averred, never even barely hinted at that Z was logically entailed by premises 1, 2, and 3? And that it does not in any possible universe need to be so entailed, in order for my critique of your original 1, 2, 3, therefore 4 argument to be spot, and I mean spot, on?

Edit: This refers to the posts directly before Sufi’s, not Sufi’s.

[Aragorn]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You cannot have an argument with infinite premises. The argument can never reach a conclusion and is therefore not an argument.
[/quote]

Yes you can, its just not a valid proof, its still a valid argument that could be true. It’s just a framework as you would say.[/quote]

I don’t believe so, no. An argument must by definition have a conclusion supposedly entailed by its premise(s). If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion and therefore it is not an argument OR a proof. And it is definitionally not valid because to be valid it must entail the conclusion (which it does not even have) 100% of the time given the premises (which it never has enough of).

[sufiandy]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?

[Sloth]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

Then we’ll all have to scroll down for an infinite amount of to read it?

[Aragorn]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

I’m afraid I don’t quite take your meaning. My point is that it is formally impossible to make an argument with an infinite number of premises.

[sufiandy]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

I’m afraid I don’t quite take your meaning. My point is that it is formally impossible to make an argument with an infinite number of premises.[/quote]

I think you and pat are saying 2 different things which I only meant to challenge his idea.

You - an infinite regress cannot be used in an argument

Pat - an infinite regress is impossible

[pat]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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]

It’s the opposite, it’s a deductive argument.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
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]

This is the entire point of the thread (I think). You were supposed to give an argument of PROOF. An “argument as a framework” is just code for “you need some faith to jump to its conclusion” which is what everyone has been trying to say (not just me and smh).[/quote]

Arguments are proof when all things are equal, but in reality they are typically succinct and require that the participants are all on the same page when it comes to the meaning of things.

[Aragorn]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

I’m afraid I don’t quite take your meaning. My point is that it is formally impossible to make an argument with an infinite number of premises.[/quote]

I think you and pat are saying 2 different things which I only meant to challenge his idea.

You - an infinite regress cannot be used in an argument

Pat - an infinite regress is impossible
[/quote]

No, this time I think Pat is right–he said in the part that I quoted with that reply that you cannot have an argument with infinite premises because it is definitionally impossible to call it a logical argument (it never reaches its conclusions). This is the same thing as what I was saying.

[sufiandy]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

I’m afraid I don’t quite take your meaning. My point is that it is formally impossible to make an argument with an infinite number of premises.[/quote]

I think you and pat are saying 2 different things which I only meant to challenge his idea.

You - an infinite regress cannot be used in an argument

Pat - an infinite regress is impossible
[/quote]

No, this time I think Pat is right–he said in the part that I quoted with that reply that you cannot have an argument with infinite premises because it is definitionally impossible to call it a logical argument (it never reaches its conclusions). This is the same thing as what I was saying.
[/quote]

I was referring to the previous page when he replied to dr matt. There was never any argument with infinite premises on this thread but he keeps bringing it up for some reason, which makes it an invalid response to whatever he was commenting on.

[smh_23]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

I’m afraid I don’t quite take your meaning. My point is that it is formally impossible to make an argument with an infinite number of premises.[/quote]

I think you and pat are saying 2 different things which I only meant to challenge his idea.

You - an infinite regress cannot be used in an argument

Pat - an infinite regress is impossible
[/quote]

No, this time I think Pat is right–he said in the part that I quoted with that reply that you cannot have an argument with infinite premises because it is definitionally impossible to call it a logical argument (it never reaches its conclusions). This is the same thing as what I was saying.
[/quote]

There are good reasons to doubt* the possibility of an infinite regress–namely, that such a thing involves the traversal of an infinite distance–but it is unclear how or why this is one. What argument involves an infinite number of premises? A valid logical proposition of fewer than ten words can aver an infinite regress. Whether it is true or not is a different question, but it relies on no such argument as is being referenced here.

*Doubt, as in, I think and not I know

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^Pat, I am going to suggest, at the risk of sounding like a dick, that you become more familiar with the basics of logical debate and counterdebate before proceeding. I am no expert on the matter, and don’t intend to imply that I am, but I’ve got a good enough understanding of classical logic to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is utterly no sense in what you just did here.

–Your original argument went 1, 2, 3, therefore 4.

–I said, “but wait, if Z, then 1, 2, 3, and ~4.”

–And your response is that “1, 2, 3, therefore Z”–an argument you arbitrarily constructed–“is invalid.”

Do you not understand that it was never averred, never even barely hinted at that Z was logically entailed by premises 1, 2, and 3? And that it does not in any possible universe need to be so entailed, in order for my critique of your original 1, 2, 3, therefore 4 argument to be spot, and I mean spot, on?

Edit: This refers to the posts directly before Sufi’s, not Sufi’s.[/quote]

Yeah, that sounds dickish and I can turn that right back on you. It’s rather uncalled for. Because I have addressed both scenarios. The problem is you don’t understand your objection is flat wrong and nonsensical. You seem to treat each premise as mutually exclusive and they are not they work together to reach a conclusion.

It goes back to one simple thing, you don’t understand what it means to be uncaused. It trashes your whole objection from the get go. Until you do, you won’t get it and you will continue to repeat this same false assertion and I will continue to tell you that you are wrong. No amount of ad hominem, or declarations of victory will change that fact.

I addressed the situation in both ways, but since you don’t get what uncaused means you don’t get why, so I will try to explain with little hope of it taking.

If Z, then 1, not 2 not 3 and not 4. Because of 1,2 and 3, Z isn’t the subject of the argument.
Z is not the subject of the argument and it’s not possible for it to be the subject. The premises deal with something caused, not uncaused. It’s nonsensical to say:
-Something is uncaused.
-Something uncaused is not caused by itself. ← No, it’s not caused by anything, it’s uncaused. To say that something that is uncaused is not caused by something is self evident. Something uncaused is not caused by itself, something else, or nothing. It’s not caused at all. Causation is not part of it’s existence. It makes no sense listing all the things that didn’t cause it because causation isn’t a property of an uncaused entity. You can list an infinite number of things that didn’t cause an uncaused entity. It’s uncaused. Do you understand? If 1,2,3 then not Z, but only 4.

Probably not.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

I’m afraid I don’t quite take your meaning. My point is that it is formally impossible to make an argument with an infinite number of premises.[/quote]

I think you and pat are saying 2 different things which I only meant to challenge his idea.

You - an infinite regress cannot be used in an argument

Pat - an infinite regress is impossible
[/quote]

No, this time I think Pat is right–he said in the part that I quoted with that reply that you cannot have an argument with infinite premises because it is definitionally impossible to call it a logical argument (it never reaches its conclusions). This is the same thing as what I was saying.
[/quote]

There are good reasons to doubt* the possibility of an infinite regress–namely, that such a thing involves the traversal of an infinite distance–but it is unclear how or why this is one. What argument involves an infinite number of premises? A valid logical proposition of fewer than ten words can aver an infinite regress. Whether it is true or not is a different question, but it relies on no such argument as is being referenced here.

*Doubt, as in, I think and not I know[/quote]

It’s logical fallacy, a poorly understood one. A regression is not a division. I think that’s were most get mixed up.
http://fallacyaday.com/2011/10/homunculus-fallacy/

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^Pat, I am going to suggest, at the risk of sounding like a dick, that you become more familiar with the basics of logical debate and counterdebate before proceeding. I am no expert on the matter, and don’t intend to imply that I am, but I’ve got a good enough understanding of classical logic to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is utterly no sense in what you just did here.

–Your original argument went 1, 2, 3, therefore 4.

–I said, “but wait, if Z, then 1, 2, 3, and ~4.”

–And your response is that “1, 2, 3, therefore Z”–an argument you arbitrarily constructed–“is invalid.”

Do you not understand that it was never averred, never even barely hinted at that Z was logically entailed by premises 1, 2, and 3? And that it does not in any possible universe need to be so entailed, in order for my critique of your original 1, 2, 3, therefore 4 argument to be spot, and I mean spot, on?

Edit: This refers to the posts directly before Sufi’s, not Sufi’s.[/quote]

Yeah, that sounds dickish and I can turn that right back on you. It’s rather uncalled for. Because I have addressed both scenarios. The problem is you don’t understand your objection is flat wrong and nonsensical. You seem to treat each premise as mutually exclusive and they are not they work together to reach a conclusion.

It goes back to one simple thing, you don’t understand what it means to be uncaused. It trashes your whole objection from the get go. Until you do, you won’t get it and you will continue to repeat this same false assertion and I will continue to tell you that you are wrong. No amount of ad hominem, or declarations of victory will change that fact.

I addressed the situation in both ways, but since you don’t get what uncaused means you don’t get why, so I will try to explain with little hope of it taking.

If Z, then 1, not 2 not 3 and not 4. Because of 1,2 and 3, Z isn’t the subject of the argument.
Z is not the subject of the argument and it’s not possible for it to be the subject. The premises deal with something caused, not uncaused. It’s nonsensical to say:
-Something is uncaused.
-Something uncaused is not caused by itself. ← No, it’s not caused by anything, it’s uncaused. To say that something that is uncaused is not caused by something is self evident. Something uncaused is not caused by itself, something else, or nothing. It’s not caused at all. Causation is not part of it’s existence. It makes no sense listing all the things that didn’t cause it because causation isn’t a property of an uncaused entity. You can list an infinite number of things that didn’t cause an uncaused entity. It’s uncaused. Do you understand? If 1,2,3 then not Z, but only 4.

Probably not.

[/quote]

Yes, it was dickish. For that I apologize, and I do mean it when I express my gratitude for this debate. However, I stand by the sentiment: You are not making cogent arguments or criticisms, and the one in response to which I said those words was spectacularly strange and invalid.

Your argument is [I am substituting X for something, for simplicity’s sake]:

1. X exists.
2. X cannot have caused itself.
3. X cannot have been caused by [nothing].
4. Therefore, X is caused.

Your argument concludes that X is caused without having ruled out that X is uncaused. It is invalid. If X is uncaused, then the premises of your argument are each satisfied and its conclusion is not true. That is, if X is uncaused, then it exists, was not caused by itself, and was not caused by [nothing].

Thus, the conclusion is not necessarily entailed by the premises. This, I have explained many times, is the precise definition of invalidity.

I usually hesitate to appeal to an outside opinion, but I wonder if a poster who is not Pat or me would give his opinion on this particular matter, because we have been over it more times than I care to admit.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you have an infinite number of premises you can never reach a conclusion
[/quote]

What if that is the conclusion you’re trying to make?[/quote]

I’m afraid I don’t quite take your meaning. My point is that it is formally impossible to make an argument with an infinite number of premises.[/quote]

I think you and pat are saying 2 different things which I only meant to challenge his idea.

You - an infinite regress cannot be used in an argument

Pat - an infinite regress is impossible
[/quote]

If it’s not logically possible, then it’s impossible. Logic is the godfather of immutable laws.