Proof of God, Continued

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:
Goal, to establish causation as a necessary condition for the existence of all else save for the uncaused-cause.
[/quote]

I think this is something of a misstatement of the goal. The goal is whether or not the proof you offered is valid, because the point of contention between us is simply whether or not you can prove the PSR or causation premise of whatever cosmological argument you are trying to make.

That is, I argue that what you say must have been caused by God, cannot be proved to have been caused at all. But this still leaves room for “the uncaused”–the uncaused simply being what you refer to as “creation.”

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, I am not flatly declaring victory for no reason. Whether you refuse to see it or not, I have shown your argument to be invalid. You can resist this for the next century, but until you offer a cogent countercritique of my critique, it will not have changed. This is not to mention the fact that everyone involved in this thread, with the possible exception of Kamui–but I don’t think so–has shown to you that you are not offering, and have not at any point offered, a proof of God’s existence.[/quote]

Argumentum ad populum. Having a cheering section doesn’t make your objection correct.
Nobody has demonstrated knowledge of what an uncaused entity must be to exist and be uncaused. When you get that, then you will understand why Z isn’t applicable to the discussion.[/quote]

Indeed, I don’t contend that anybody else’s opinion makes me right–though, in the event that one of the good doctors, Matt and S, holds a similar position to mine, I am comforted.

Now, I think that I can go a little farther than I have in the past. You seem to be claiming, here, that Z is impossible. That is fine–you will have to prove that, of course, but you’re perfectly within your right to try. However, until you show that Z is impossible, your argument remains invalid. I am pretty sure that you do see and understand this.

Now, say you do show that Z is impossible–that proof will be added to argument A, and then argument A will be valid. But it won’t be the original argument A anymore.

Thus, whether because you can correct it, or add to it, to prove ~Z, or because you cannot correct it and the entire contention is abandoned, argument A, as it is in its precise present form, is not a valid argument.

The problem now, of course, is that you must prove ~Z. From scratch, of course. This will entail a logical proof the conclusion of which is: X cannot be uncaused, X being the [something] identified earlier.[/quote]

See, I didn’t insert Z in to the equation, you did. I will try to explain. For others reading I am long handing it so they know what the hell we are talking about.
Z=Uncaused entity, correct?
You contention is, ‘what if the ‘something’ in this argument were uncaused?’ correct? Then you could say 1. Something exists. 2. That something did not cause itself. 3. That something was not caused by nothing. But come to the conclusion that something is caused.

Now what I am saying is simply this. A ‘something’ that is uncaused cannot reasonably have it’s causation questioned at all. It has no cause at all. The tentacle property of causation that applies to everything caused, an uncaused entity does not posses by definition. So to question what didn’t cause it is absurd. An infinite amount of things didn’t cause an uncaused entity. Questioning the causal properties of something uncaused is logically absurd and therefore not applicable to the argument.

That’s why I keep harping on the fact that you have to understand what it means to be uncaused. At least understand one thing about the uncaused. In a logical setting, you cannot even call into question the topic of causation. Like a circle does not have 90 degree angles. Uncaused entities or beings do not have causation as a property set to even question. You cannot even ask the question.

[smh_23]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Yes; there is a nice discussion of PSR in the second link which I posted in my first response here which I admit have not read thoroughly but have skimmed.

Also here.
https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/LCA.html[/quote]

My problem with this is that it seems to be more of an evasion tactic than anything else. When Craig makes claim A and then finds himself unable to prove claim A–though I grant, as I’ve explained, that he gives good reason to suspect that claim A is true–he makes the point that his opponents act like claim A is true when they play basketball and have sex and take their children to piano lessons?

Of course, none of what this opponent believes, or acts like he believes, or occasionally believes, matters at all. Craig’s claim wasn’t that his opponents assume the PSR when they walk their dogs, and it wasn’t that they assume the PSR when they go to work, and it wasn’t that they assume the PSR when they sit down to type up objections to his arguments. It was that the PSR holds for everything, and the truth or falsity of it rests on his ability to prove exactly that.

In other words, he has a name for it and he calls it a fallacy, but it’s got nothing to do with the task at hand, which is to prove the claim he’s made.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Goal, to establish causation as a necessary condition for the existence of all else save for the uncaused-cause.
[/quote]

I think this is something of a misstatement of the goal. The goal is whether or not the proof you offered is valid, because the point of contention between us is simply whether or not you can prove the PSR or causation premise of whatever cosmological argument you are trying to make.

That is, I argue that what you say must have been caused by God, cannot be proved to have been caused at all. But this still leaves room for “the uncaused”–the uncaused simply being what you refer to as “creation.”
[/quote]

Then what we have to deal with is the uncaused. So what I would ask you to do here is simply answer what something has to be to both exist and be uncaused? Let’s discuss that. Then we can circle back around. To Z. This is the factor on which all this hinges.

Of course, all are welcome. And don’t let the back and forth fool any of you. I consider smh a friend and a overall good and intelligent guy (at least as can be determined internet wise So while the discussions may get heated, I consider him a friend and a worthy foe.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, I am not flatly declaring victory for no reason. Whether you refuse to see it or not, I have shown your argument to be invalid. You can resist this for the next century, but until you offer a cogent countercritique of my critique, it will not have changed. This is not to mention the fact that everyone involved in this thread, with the possible exception of Kamui–but I don’t think so–has shown to you that you are not offering, and have not at any point offered, a proof of God’s existence.[/quote]

Argumentum ad populum. Having a cheering section doesn’t make your objection correct.
Nobody has demonstrated knowledge of what an uncaused entity must be to exist and be uncaused. When you get that, then you will understand why Z isn’t applicable to the discussion.[/quote]

Indeed, I don’t contend that anybody else’s opinion makes me right–though, in the event that one of the good doctors, Matt and S, holds a similar position to mine, I am comforted.

Now, I think that I can go a little farther than I have in the past. You seem to be claiming, here, that Z is impossible. That is fine–you will have to prove that, of course, but you’re perfectly within your right to try. However, until you show that Z is impossible, your argument remains invalid. I am pretty sure that you do see and understand this.

Now, say you do show that Z is impossible–that proof will be added to argument A, and then argument A will be valid. But it won’t be the original argument A anymore.

Thus, whether because you can correct it, or add to it, to prove ~Z, or because you cannot correct it and the entire contention is abandoned, argument A, as it is in its precise present form, is not a valid argument.

The problem now, of course, is that you must prove ~Z. From scratch, of course. This will entail a logical proof the conclusion of which is: X cannot be uncaused, X being the [something] identified earlier.[/quote]

See, I didn’t insert Z in to the equation, you did. I will try to explain. For others reading I am long handing it so they know what the hell we are talking about.
Z=Uncaused entity, correct?
You contention is, ‘what if the ‘something’ in this argument were uncaused?’ correct? Then you could say 1. Something exists. 2. That something did not cause itself. 3. That something was not caused by nothing. But come to the conclusion that something is caused.

Now what I am saying is simply this. A ‘something’ that is uncaused cannot reasonably have it’s causation questioned at all. It has no cause at all. The tentacle property of causation that applies to everything caused, an uncaused entity does not posses by definition. So to question what didn’t cause it is absurd. An infinite amount of things didn’t cause an uncaused entity. Questioning the causal properties of something uncaused is logically absurd and therefore not applicable to the argument.

That’s why I keep harping on the fact that you have to understand what it means to be uncaused. At least understand one thing about the uncaused. In a logical setting, you cannot even call into question the topic of causation. Like a circle does not have 90 degree angles. Uncaused entities or beings do not have causation as a property set to even question. You cannot even ask the question.
[/quote]

And what I am saying is that none of this addresses my argument in the slightest way. It is literally not a cogent criticism. “You can’t talk about causation”–this is nonsense. The premise “If something is uncaused, it was not caused by itself” is a perfectly cogent and true logical proposition. You don’t get to “rule it out.”

We should stick to precision. I have formulated an argument which shows yours to be invalid. You need to identify a premise and show why it is false. Will you do that? It would look like this: “Premise 3 of your argument is false because…” and then it would give a lucid, brief, and non-assumptive reason for the objection.

I have asked for this many, many times, and the fact that you have ignored my requests indicates to me that you are aware of the fact that you cannot deliver on them.

By the way, you do understand that my whole argument is really just a way to say that you’re not going to prove that X is caused without proving that X is not uncaused, right? That you think that you can formulate a proof that X is caused without mentioning or objecting to or ruling out the proposition that X is uncaused–this is so very strange.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

Of course, all are welcome. And don’t let the back and forth fool any of you. I consider smh a friend and a overall good and intelligent guy (at least as can be determined internet wise So while the discussions may get heated, I consider him a friend and a worthy foe. [/quote]

This ^ is emphatically seconded.

As for the discussion about what something must be for it to be uncaused and extant, I would love to have it. I am curious as to where it is headed. I do ask, however, that you to offer me a specific critique of my argument before we move on from it.

Edit: Ah, semantic imprecision. *It is returned in kind, not seconded. I don’t intend to praise and make nice with myself here–though circularity has been a persistent theme.

[pat]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Yes; there is a nice discussion of PSR in the second link which I posted in my first response here which I admit have not read thoroughly but have skimmed.

Also here.
https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/LCA.html[/quote]

Well, you certainly know I am a fan of the PSR. I think people really misunderstand it.
I have taken a slightly different tactic, it’s probably the main underlying point of contention. I kinda took a look at all these arguments and subarguments and made dealt with the question of certainly. I looked at it in terms of ‘Why are people taking deductive arguments and applying a probability to it?’ That didn’t make sense save for the case of politeness. If you can determine something is true and it’s true in all possible ‘worlds’, I.E. its necessarily true why are we talking about it in terms of ‘more probably true, than false’. For instance, we know 4+4=8 isn’t probably true, it’s necessarily true and nothing can make it be false.
Why are we afraid of certainty?
Yes, I most definitely expected to be challenged on that, and no I don’t expect people to agree. It’s a little more hardcore, then people have been in the past. We have the tools to be certain about somethings, granted very little, but some.
What do you think, care to jump in to the icy waters of certainty about certain propositions?
You’ll be unpopular, sure, but should we be afraid of truth? I decided not to be afraid of true. I will apply probability where it exists, and apply certainty where it exists…
I am curious about your opinion.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, I am not flatly declaring victory for no reason. Whether you refuse to see it or not, I have shown your argument to be invalid. You can resist this for the next century, but until you offer a cogent countercritique of my critique, it will not have changed. This is not to mention the fact that everyone involved in this thread, with the possible exception of Kamui–but I don’t think so–has shown to you that you are not offering, and have not at any point offered, a proof of God’s existence.[/quote]

Argumentum ad populum. Having a cheering section doesn’t make your objection correct.
Nobody has demonstrated knowledge of what an uncaused entity must be to exist and be uncaused. When you get that, then you will understand why Z isn’t applicable to the discussion.[/quote]

Indeed, I don’t contend that anybody else’s opinion makes me right–though, in the event that one of the good doctors, Matt and S, holds a similar position to mine, I am comforted.

Now, I think that I can go a little farther than I have in the past. You seem to be claiming, here, that Z is impossible. That is fine–you will have to prove that, of course, but you’re perfectly within your right to try. However, until you show that Z is impossible, your argument remains invalid. I am pretty sure that you do see and understand this.

Now, say you do show that Z is impossible–that proof will be added to argument A, and then argument A will be valid. But it won’t be the original argument A anymore.

Thus, whether because you can correct it, or add to it, to prove ~Z, or because you cannot correct it and the entire contention is abandoned, argument A, as it is in its precise present form, is not a valid argument.

The problem now, of course, is that you must prove ~Z. From scratch, of course. This will entail a logical proof the conclusion of which is: X cannot be uncaused, X being the [something] identified earlier.[/quote]

See, I didn’t insert Z in to the equation, you did. I will try to explain. For others reading I am long handing it so they know what the hell we are talking about.
Z=Uncaused entity, correct?
You contention is, ‘what if the ‘something’ in this argument were uncaused?’ correct? Then you could say 1. Something exists. 2. That something did not cause itself. 3. That something was not caused by nothing. But come to the conclusion that something is caused.

Now what I am saying is simply this. A ‘something’ that is uncaused cannot reasonably have it’s causation questioned at all. It has no cause at all. The tentacle property of causation that applies to everything caused, an uncaused entity does not posses by definition. So to question what didn’t cause it is absurd. An infinite amount of things didn’t cause an uncaused entity. Questioning the causal properties of something uncaused is logically absurd and therefore not applicable to the argument.

That’s why I keep harping on the fact that you have to understand what it means to be uncaused. At least understand one thing about the uncaused. In a logical setting, you cannot even call into question the topic of causation. Like a circle does not have 90 degree angles. Uncaused entities or beings do not have causation as a property set to even question. You cannot even ask the question.
[/quote]

And what I am saying is that none of this addresses my argument in the slightest way. It is literally not a cogent criticism. “You can’t talk about causation”–this is nonsense. The premise “If something is uncaused, it was not caused by itself” is a perfectly cogent and true logical proposition. You don’t get to “rule it out.”

We should stick to precision. I have formulated an argument which shows yours to be invalid. You need to identify a premise and show why it is false. Will you do that? It would look like this: “Premise 3 of your argument is false because…” and then it would give a lucid, brief, and non-assumptive reason for the objection.

I have asked for this many, many times, and the fact that you have ignored my requests indicates to me that you are aware of the fact that you cannot deliver on them.

By the way, you do understand that my whole argument is really just a way to say that you’re not going to prove that X is caused without proving that X is not uncaused, right? That you think that you can formulate a proof that X is caused without mentioning or objecting to or ruling out the proposition that X is uncaused–this is so very strange.[/quote]

I think we can rule it out. And here’s why, lets take another example.

Something= X

1. X exists.
2. X has 4 sides of equal length.
3. X has 4 90 degree angles
4. Therefore, X is square.

With the case of premise 1, X at this point can be anything. But the subsequent premises limit what X can be. Premises 2 and 3 eliminate the possibility that X is a circle.

Let’s look at another scenario:

1. X exists
2. X is not round.
3. X has no curvature
4. Therefore, X is not a circle.

We don’t know what X is, but we know it’s not a circle.

Now let’s look at an uncaused entity.

U= Uncaused entity, or uncaused something

1. U exists
2. U does not have causal properties.
3. U does not have any cause.
4. Therefore, U does not have a causal reference. (not sure I am totally happy with the wording here, but concept is what I am interested in)

So looking back at the original argument:

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

Now while it may be obvious that U did not cause itself or was not caused by nothing, the problem is that U’s causation cannot even be broached. It’s not addressable, at all. It isn’t that U wasn’t caused by an infinite amount of potential causes. U has no causation to comment about either positively or negatively. I.E., we cannot discuss at all what did or did not cause it because the concept does not exist for U. It’s not reasonable to say 'it was not caused by nothing[/i] because it wasn’t caused at all.
It’s nuanced, but real nonetheless. I look at the word ‘caused’ in the argument the the presence of that word is what eliminates U as a possibility.

[sufiandy]

So looking back at the original argument:

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

I don’t think you are even trying to make an argument, more like defining words. It’s really nothing more than this

1. X exists
2. X is ~P
3. Therefore X is P

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:
U has no causation to comment about either positively or negatively. I.E., we cannot discuss at all what did or did not cause it because the concept does not exist for U. It’s not reasonable to say 'it was not caused by nothing[/i] because it wasn’t caused at all.
[/quote]

Thank you for setting your thoughts down clearly.

The quoted portion is the hinge of your argument. It is incorrect.

Not only is it reasonable to say of an uncaused entity that it was not caused by X–X being whatever you’d like–it’s true. “Uncaused weather event W was not caused by any change in atmospheric pressure.” This is a logically cogent proposition–it is not irrational, and it is true.

You seem to have a skewed and far too fuzzy sense of what constitutes a cogent logical proposition. There is no official designation of “unreasonable.” There are propositions, and not propositions. A proposition is simply a declarative sentence that is either true or false. In other words, it must have a subject, a predicate, and a possible truth value. My proposition satisfies each of these requirements. Let’s prove this, using premise 2 as an example:

Uncaused entity U was not caused by itself.

1. “Uncaused entity U” is a subject.

2. “Was not caused by itself” is the predicate.

3. The statement has a truth value.

To illustrate the point, the following are logical propositions:

[i]Circles are bashful.

The president is tautological.

Nostalgia deadlifts more than bumper stickers’ wives.

2 X 2 = 1,098

Willie Nelson is Barack Obama’s foot.[/i]

Now, you must admit that my proposition is a proposition. Next, you must determine whether it is true or not. Is it true that “An uncaused entity is not caused by itself?” If not, then it is true that “An uncaused entity is caused by itself.” Which do you choose?

If you choose the former, then my argument is valid and your argument A is done away with, at least in its present form.

[smh_23]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So looking back at the original argument:

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

I don’t think you are even trying to make an argument, more like defining words. It’s really nothing more than this

1. X exists
2. X is ~P
3. Therefore X is P[/quote]

I mean, the argument is plainly invalid. If X is uncaused, then the premises are satisfied while the conclusion is denied. It is that simple.

To resist this is to argue that if X is uncaused, then at least one of the premises are not satisfied, In which case X either must exist and not exist, be uncaused and caused by itself, or be uncaused and caused by [nothing].

Each of the underlined propositions is logically impossible. Therefore, the argument original arugment A MUST be invalid.

[smh_23]

“The man who was not hit by a car was not hit by a Lexus.” Subject, predicate, truth value. Check, check, check.

“The sheet that has no color is not red.” Check, check, check.

In other words, I reject that criticism Pat. It is not a critique because it does not prove my argument invalid, which can only be done by showing that its premises are not propositiosn, which they are, that they are not true, which they are, or that they do not entail their conclusion, which they do.

[kamui]

[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]

the rationale of “a causal chain can not be of infinite length” is the fact that such a chain could only be expressed by an infinite regress.

Granted, it doesn’t mean that such a chain doesn’t exist

But if it does, it would be unknowable.
Applied to the universe, it lead to radical skepticism.

[smh_23]

[quote]kamui wrote:

the rationale of “a causal chain can not be of infinite length” is the fact that such a chain could only be expressed by an infinite regress.

Granted, it doesn’t mean that such a chain doesn’t exist

[/quote]

I take the premise to signify that a causal chain of infinite regress cannot exist. Doesn’t the italicized portion contradict this?

[sufiandy]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
then the premises are satisfied while the conclusion is denied.
[/quote]

I disagree, I think we are still stuck on how the premises are being satisfied, the conclusion comes later. Pat has avoided my question a few times regarding this.

[smh_23]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
then the premises are satisfied while the conclusion is denied.
[/quote]

I disagree, I think we are still stuck on how the premises are being satisfied, the conclusion comes later. Pat has avoided my question a few times regarding this.[/quote]

Just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstood, when I said "this argument is plainly invalid,
I referred to Pat’s, which you were referring to, and not yours.

[kamui]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

the rationale of “a causal chain can not be of infinite length” is the fact that such a chain could only be expressed by an infinite regress.

Granted, it doesn’t mean that such a chain doesn’t exist

[/quote]

I take the premise to signify that a causal chain of infinite regress cannot exist. Doesn’t the italicized portion contradict this?[/quote]

in a way, yes.
If a “causal chain” is meant as an ontological fact, a “thing”, this proposition is innacurate and should be rephrased. (“we can not meaningfully express a causal chain of infinite length”, or something like that).
But in my mind, a “causal chain” is an epistemic model.

[sufiandy]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
then the premises are satisfied while the conclusion is denied.
[/quote]

I disagree, I think we are still stuck on how the premises are being satisfied, the conclusion comes later. Pat has avoided my question a few times regarding this.[/quote]

Just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstood, when I said "this argument is plainly invalid,
I referred to Pat’s, which you were referring to, and not yours.[/quote]

I know

[smh_23]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

the rationale of “a causal chain can not be of infinite length” is the fact that such a chain could only be expressed by an infinite regress.

Granted, it doesn’t mean that such a chain doesn’t exist

[/quote]

I take the premise to signify that a causal chain of infinite regress cannot exist. Doesn’t the italicized portion contradict this?[/quote]

in a way, yes.
If a “causal chain” is meant as an ontological fact, a “thing”, this proposition is innacurate and should be rephrased. (“we can not meaningfully express a causal chain of infinite length”, or something like that).
But in my mind, a “causal chain” is an epistemic model.

[/quote]

I prefer to treat is as an ontological fact, since what’s at heart here is the way of things, not our understandings of things.

Say we did so, and we consequently rephrased the premise as “we can not meaningfully express a causal chain of infinite length.” Would you agree that it is does not follow from “we cannot meaningfully express X” that “~X”?

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:
So looking back at the original argument:

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

Now while it may be obvious that U did not cause itself or was not caused by nothing, the problem is that U’s causation cannot even be broached. It’s not addressable, at all.
[/quote]

Pat, I think this addresses the problem. So can you please give a new argument that fits this model?

1. X exists
3. Therefore X is caused