Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]

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

If X is uncaused:

Premise 1 is true.

Premise 2 is true.

Premise 3 is true.

The conclusion is false.

Nothing more needs to be said. The argument is invalid and needs to be scrapped or changed. If you add to it a proof that X cannot be uncaused, the argument will be valid. If you want to try that, I’ll be waiting, but I won’t dance around this issue any longer, because it is plain as day.

302

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
“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.[/quote]

Well, you’re not presenting an argument, you’re presenting an objection. But let’s look at it:

“The man who was not hit by a car was not hit by a Lexus.” ← [u]Sure this statement is true[/u]…[/quote]

That’s it. It is a true proposition. If your argument cannot accommodate it, your argument is invalid. There is no more to say.

303

Okay another good question for Pat

X=an uncaused entity

You say that does not satisfy your argument, fine. So how about an example that does reach the conclusion “Therefore X is caused”? Surely there must be at least 1 otherwise the argument is kind of pointless.

304

Consider:

If the shoe is size 11:

  1. It is true that the shoe exists.

  2. It is true that the shoe is not size 9.

  3. It is true that the shoe is not size 10.

  4. It is not true that the shoe is size 12.

Therefore, the argument is invalid–because the premises can be true and the conclusion still false.

This is exactly what you’ve done. It is exactly as legitimate to say that “Uncaused entity X did not cause itself” as it is to say that “the size 11 shoe is not a size 9 shoe.” We know that uncaused X did not cause itself in exactly the same way that we know that the size 11 shoe is not a size 9 shoe. It doesn’t matter. They are true propositions.

The premises are true, and the conclusion is false. The argument is invalid. You are intelligent, and all of this is relatively simple, so if you choose to disagree any further, it is because you don’t want to have been proved wrong–which is unavoidable, because it’s already happened–and not because you believe what you’re saying. For this reason, I won’t be posting about this particular argument anymore–because it’s settled. If you want to make the argument valid, you must prove that X cannot have been uncaused. If you don’t feel like doing that, then things can tie up here and now.

305

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Consider:

If the shoe is size 11:

  1. It is true that the shoe exists.

  2. It is true that the shoe is not size 9.

  3. It is true that the shoe is not size 10.

  4. It is not true that the shoe is size 12.

Therefore, the argument is invalid–because the premises can be true and the conclusion still false.

This is exactly what you’ve done. It is exactly as legitimate to say that “Uncaused entity X did not cause itself” as it is to say that “the size 11 shoe is not a size 9 shoe.” We know that uncaused X did not cause itself in exactly the same way that we know that the size 11 shoe is not a size 9 shoe. It doesn’t matter. They are true propositions.

The premises are true, and the conclusion is false. The argument is invalid. You are intelligent, and all of this is relatively simple, so if you choose to disagree any further, it is because you don’t want to have been proved wrong–which is unavoidable, because it’s already happened–and not because you believe what you’re saying. For this reason, I won’t be posting about this particular argument anymore–because it’s settled. If you want to make the argument valid, you must prove that X cannot have been uncaused. If you don’t feel like doing that, then things can tie up here and now.[/quote]

I’m not sure that works because there are more than 2 possibilities for the variable. I think anything that fits this format is an example of his flawed argument.

  • P has 2 possible values, A and ~A
  • X exists
  • X is not <insert dictionary definition of ~A>
  • Therefore X is A

All hes really doing is defining words by a double negative or something like that, hardly a proof.

306

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

I’m not sure that works because there are more than 2 possibilities for the variable. I think anything that fits this format is an example of his flawed argument.

  • P has 2 possible values, A and ~A
  • X exists
  • X is not <insert dictionary definition of ~A>
  • Therefore X is A

All hes really doing is defining words by a double negative or something like that, hardly a proof.[/quote]

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying, Sufi. It doesn’t matter how many possible shoe sizes there are. What matters is that the premises of the argument can be true and the conclusion can still be false–that the conclusion is not necessarily entailed by the premises–and this that the argument is invalid.

All you’d have to do to see that the argument is invalid is to just look at the thing. “We’ve got some unknown entity. It isn’t caused by itself, and it isn’t caused by [nothing]. Therefore it’s caused? Wait, what if it’s uncaused?”

At this point, the person who made the argument must prove that “it can’t be uncaused.” Thus, he needs to expand his argument–because it is invalid as it stands.

307

Adjusting for number, though that is not necessary. Note that this corresponds with the 4 from the other argument–caused, uncaused, self-caused, caused by [nothing].

  1. One of the horsemen of the apocalypse is in my living room.
  2. It is not Death.
  3. It is not Famine.
  4. Therefore, it is War.

But, if the horseman in my living room is Conquest:

  1. Conquest is in my living room. True.

  2. Conquest is not Death. True.

  3. Conquest is not Famine. True.

  4. Conquest is War. False.

Therefore, the argument is invalid. It is exactly the same, and exactly as sel-evident, to say that the horseman called Conquest is not the horseman called Death as it is to say that uncaused entity X did not cause itself. It doesn’t matter. Both are propositions, both are true. The argument is invalid.

Now, what Pat wants to do is to prove that X also cannot have been uncaused. If he were to do that, the argument would, in its new form, be valid.

Until then, it is invalid.

OK, now this really was my last post on the matter.

308

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]

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

If X is uncaused:

Premise 1 is true.

Premise 2 is true.

Premise 3 is true.

The conclusion is false.

Nothing more needs to be said. The argument is invalid and needs to be scrapped or changed. If you add to it a proof that X cannot be uncaused, the argument will be valid. If you want to try that, I’ll be waiting, but I won’t dance around this issue any longer, because it is plain as day.[/quote]

This is in response to your previous post but I am quoting this one.

The problem is there is still disagreement on “Premise 2 is true”. Pat said its false when X is uncaused. I understand what your saying but it won’t make sense to him since your assumptions are wrong (according to him).

309

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]

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

If X is uncaused:

Premise 1 is true.

Premise 2 is true.

Premise 3 is true.

The conclusion is false.

Nothing more needs to be said. The argument is invalid and needs to be scrapped or changed. If you add to it a proof that X cannot be uncaused, the argument will be valid. If you want to try that, I’ll be waiting, but I won’t dance around this issue any longer, because it is plain as day.[/quote]

This is in response to your previous post but I am quoting this one.

The problem is there is still disagreement on “Premise 2 is true”. Pat said its false when X is uncaused. I understand what your saying but it won’t make sense to him since your assumptions are wrong (according to him).[/quote]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

He may have said that at one point, but I believe he has now admitted that he was wrong, or at least given up.

Now, he is saying something else. Something about “value” and “reasonable” awhich is not an argument based in logic and which isn’t cogent at all and which therefore I won’t try to characterize here.

But, to address your point a final time, just in case: It is true that “If something is not caused, it did not cause itself.” There is no more to argue here–it is plain, in exactly the same way that it is plain that “If something did not jump, it did not jump 6 feet in the air,” and “If he was not hit by a car, he was not hit by a lexus,” and “If the Horseman is Conquest, he is not Death,” and “If the shoe is size 11, it is not size 10.”

These propositions are all true and they all render the arguments of which I made them a part clearly invalid, just as Pat;s is clearly invalid.

Now–lol–now I will stop arguing the point.

310

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
“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.[/quote]

Well, you’re not presenting an argument, you’re presenting an objection. But let’s look at it:

“The man who was not hit by a car was not hit by a Lexus.” ← [u]Sure this statement is true[/u]…[/quote]

That’s it. It is a true proposition. If your argument cannot accommodate it, your argument is invalid. There is no more to say.[/quote]

Sufi–the statement of Pat’s that I emboldened should put that to rest. I was creating propositions exactly like the one in question and calling them true, and he responded with “sure.” That’s all I need: It is a proposition, and it is true. From there, my argument is valid and sound and done and over with.

311

Sufi, just to hammer that last point home: Uncaused X was not caused by itself is a proposition with a subject, predicate, and truth value.

If it is not true that Uncaused X was not caused by itself, then it is true that Uncaused X was caused by itself. Since the latter is false and always will be, the former is true.

In the same vein, the following propositions are all true:

Uncaused X was not caused on Tuesday

Uncaused X was not caused by a wrench

Uncaused X was not caused by sexual intercourse

Uncaused X was not caused under a picnic table

Uncaused X was not caused in France, Germany, and Singapore

Uncaused X was not caused by a fiddle-playing deity OR Julius Caesar was a green martian with a foot fetish

Uncaused X was not caused by SMH OR Michael Voris has a DVD collection which includes over ten thousand hours of gay male pornography

312

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]

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

If X is uncaused:

Premise 1 is true.

Premise 2 is true.

Premise 3 is true.

The conclusion is false.

Nothing more needs to be said. The argument is invalid and needs to be scrapped or changed. If you add to it a proof that X cannot be uncaused, the argument will be valid. If you want to try that, I’ll be waiting, but I won’t dance around this issue any longer, because it is plain as day.[/quote]

Whether or not a statement is true does not speak to it’s applicability. ‘Cherries are a fruit’ is a true statement too, but not applicable to the argument. An uncaused entity not being caused by itself or from nothing is a true statement but not applicable to the argument. A statement being true does not speak to it’s applicability to the argument. The statement is true, but not applicable. The argument deals with caused things, not uncaused things.
You cannot simply insert random truths in to any argument and they be valid. That’s the point.

313

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Okay another good question for Pat

X=an uncaused entity

You say that does not satisfy your argument, fine. So how about an example that does reach the conclusion “Therefore X is caused”? Surely there must be at least 1 otherwise the argument is kind of pointless.[/quote]

Well sure there are lots of arguments for causation.
Here’s a good read. You need to understand that the arguments themselves don’t mean much and are a source of much confusion (as you could see).
Here’s a good overview though if you are interested.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

314

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
“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.[/quote]

Well, you’re not presenting an argument, you’re presenting an objection. But let’s look at it:

“The man who was not hit by a car was not hit by a Lexus.” ← [u]Sure this statement is true[/u]…[/quote]

That’s it. It is a true proposition. If your argument cannot accommodate it, your argument is invalid. There is no more to say.[/quote]

But it’s an irrevent point. It lends nothing to an argument to put in true statements that are irrelevant. Relevance matters. If you think irrelevant true statements matter to an argument then there’s a problem.
You cannot discuss the kind of car a person was not hit by. A kind of car is irrelevant because the person was not hit by a car, he was stabbed with a frozen rat.

315

[quote]kamui wrote:

Yes. It would be more accurate to conclude “therefore a contingent thing is caused by something else”.

So let’s do it again :

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 by something else
a causal chain cannot be of infinite length
therefore a first uncaused cause must exist.

(there is still some problems here :
-as i said earlier, the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is logical, not ontological.
-it doesn’t adress the theoretical possibility of a causal loop (as in Dr Skeptix’s moebius ring)
[/quote]
Well that sounds like ‘a chicken or the egg’ kind of scenario and is a causal question in itself. Is the ontological subject to the logical or the logical subject to the ontological. It seems apparent that logic rules the ontological… Hell, you cannot even spell ‘ontological’ without the word logic. Logic is higher up in the pecking order.

I think it’s a cowardly conclusion, honestly. It does not really matter whether ‘the universe’ is eternal, a causal loop, or the result of a series of causation relating to the Uncaused-cause. The universe is conditional, it is contingent upon the rules that it follows.

316

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]

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

If X is uncaused:

Premise 1 is true.

Premise 2 is true.

Premise 3 is true.

The conclusion is false.

Nothing more needs to be said. The argument is invalid and needs to be scrapped or changed. If you add to it a proof that X cannot be uncaused, the argument will be valid. If you want to try that, I’ll be waiting, but I won’t dance around this issue any longer, because it is plain as day.[/quote]

Whether or not a statement is true does not speak to it’s applicability. ‘Cherries are a fruit’ is a true statement too, but not applicable to the argument. An uncaused entity not being caused by itself or from nothing is a true statement but not applicable to the argument. A statement being true does not speak to it’s applicability to the argument. The statement is true, but not applicable. The argument deals with caused things, not uncaused things.
You cannot simply insert random truths in to any argument and they be valid. That’s the point.[/quote]

You are incorrect and I have shown why in the plainest and simplest language available to me.

317

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[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[/quote]

I don’t know if I can, but I can give it a shot.

  1. X exists.
  2. X requires an explanation for it’s existence.
  3. X can not cause itself.
  4. X did not come from nothing.
  5. Therefore X is caused.

It seems to me a more wordy version of what was previously presented. Certainly, like with any arguments, the premises require justification. This is the case for all logical arguments though.

318

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
“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.[/quote]

Well, you’re not presenting an argument, you’re presenting an objection. But let’s look at it:

“The man who was not hit by a car was not hit by a Lexus.” ← [u]Sure this statement is true[/u]…[/quote]

That’s it. It is a true proposition. If your argument cannot accommodate it, your argument is invalid. There is no more to say.[/quote]

But it’s an irrevent point. It lends nothing to an argument to put in true statements that are irrelevant. Relevance matters. If you think irrelevant true statements matter to an argument then there’s a problem.
You cannot discuss the kind of car a person was not hit by. A kind of car is irrelevant because the person was not hit by a car, he was stabbed with a frozen rat. [/quote]

It makes the argument invalid. That’s it. I won’t post on the matter again, because all that can be said has been said. If Matt or Kamui would be so kind as to weigh in on the particulars of this discussion that has been going on between Pat and I for the last couple pages, that might help us resolve this difference. Either way, my case has been made to my utter satisfaction and any repetition of it will be a waste of both our times.

319

[quote]kamui wrote:

PRECISELY

320

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Yes. It would be more accurate to conclude “therefore a contingent thing is caused by something else”.

So let’s do it again :

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 by something else
a causal chain cannot be of infinite length
therefore a first uncaused cause must exist.

(there is still some problems here :
-as i said earlier, the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is logical, not ontological.
-it doesn’t adress the theoretical possibility of a causal loop (as in Dr Skeptix’s moebius ring)

A “careful” conclusion could be : the universe can be an infinite chain of causes and effects, a causal loop or the effect of an uncaused cause. Only the last possibility can be expressed without logical fallacy or radical skepticism.)

[/quote]

Disregarding the fact that the conclusion is weakened by the “carefulness” and that this is therefore not strictly speaking a proof, this poses another problem for the cosmological argument as argument for God: There is no reason to believe that the uncaused cause which it refers to was not something like the initial singularity. You earlier defined the universe as–to paraphrase–“all that is.” But if God is averred to be extra-physical and extra-universal, then this argument is silent on the question of God or no God. It is, in fact, silent on that question either way.

It depends, of course, upon how near the theist is trying to come to his definition of God.[/quote]

Not true. The argument doesn’t address it. It makes no attempt to explain or define what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ is. It only determines that one must exist.
A singularity does not fit this definition unless you can prove that the nature of a singularity fits the definition of being both uncaused and causal in nature.
The ‘Uncaused-cause’ has the benefit of already, by definition sufficient to conclude the argument.
You would have to address how a singularity could fit the definition of being an uncaused-cause as it’s not implicit to what it is. It’s sufficient to ask ‘what caused the sigularity’ it’s not sufficient to ask ‘what caused the Uncaused-cause’