[quote]florelius wrote:
I have nothing to add of substance since philosophy( or Math as some of the arguments in here looks like LOL ) is not one of my strength. I only wants to give kudos to SMH23 for creating a thread wich both includes Matt and Kamui. In essence I enjoy this thread, please carry one. [/quote]
Your observation is a good one. Philosophy, i.e. logic is very similar in function to math. Math is actually a branch off of philosophy. It’s the closest thing to deductive arguments in that mathematical equations are deductive arguments.
[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.
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.[/quote]
I believe PSR is a necessary truth and is self evident and can constitute a properly basic belief.
However for one who disputes it, its much easier to show that affirmation of PSR is more plausible than its negation.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s sufficient to just ‘dispute’ it. One has to at least be able to show it possibly not true in theory. I haven’t seen any disputes that successfully do that. But it is, like anything else, good to dispute it so that it may be strengthened by eliminating it’s possible refutations.
Some form of PSR or CP holds or is true.
~3. If 3 is false X existence can be inexplicable but than we should expect violations of PSR or CP and it follows if PSR or CP is false there is no antecedent probability that allows PSR or CP to hold most of the time or in the universe itself but not in the creation of other universes.
Self causation is impossible/incoherent.
4*. Its special pleading to say that 3 holds for everything else except X and is taxicabing at X.
What causes or explains the existence of X must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains X must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.[/quote]
Word up.
Like I said before, it revolves around what an uncaused-causing entity must be to exist, be uncaused and causal.
Knowing the basic framework of that principle eliminates a lot of nonsense that can be plugged into what the Uncaused-cause is.
Unfortunately, God leaves us hanging here a bit. Because the only way we can determine that the Uncaused-cause = God is through revelation. Revelation cannot be deductively proven. We can then only say “If the God of revelation is true, he fits the definition of being an Uncaused-cause”. It’s a good inference, but only an inference.
Actually, there is.
The initial singularity is a physical thing, and as such it has all the characteristics of a contingent thing.
So it must be caused, like any other contingent thing.
Even if the uncaused cause is not God, it must be a non-contingent thing. A “first principle” that caused the initial singularity. But not the initial singularity itself.
[/quote]
I would say that you’d have to prove this.
“The initial singularity is a physical thing, and as such it has all the characteristics of a contingent being.” What exactly makes something physical, and why must everything physical be contingent?
In other words, if there is a proof for “The initial singularity must have a cause,” I would be grateful if you would offer a formulation of it.[/quote]
Your shifting the burden of proof here. You brought up the singularity as a possibly being the Uncaused-cause without providing sufficient proof that it’s anything of the sort, at all. You must first put forth a decent argument or reasoning that the singularity is uncaused and causal, assuming it exists before Kamui could provide a proof that it is not. So first provide a proof that a singularity can sufficiently be an uncaused-causing entity.
Actually, there is.
The initial singularity is a physical thing, and as such it has all the characteristics of a contingent thing.
So it must be caused, like any other contingent thing.
Even if the uncaused cause is not God, it must be a non-contingent thing. A “first principle” that caused the initial singularity. But not the initial singularity itself.
[/quote]
I would say that you’d have to prove this.
“The initial singularity is a physical thing, and as such it has all the characteristics of a contingent being.” What exactly makes something physical, and why must everything physical be contingent?
In other words, if there is a proof for “The initial singularity must have a cause,” I would be grateful if you would offer a formulation of it.[/quote]
Your shifting the burden of proof here. You brought up the singularity as a possibly being the Uncaused-cause without providing sufficient proof that it’s anything of the sort, at all. You must first put forth a decent argument or reasoning that the singularity is uncaused and causal, assuming it exists before Kamui could provide a proof that it is not. So first provide a proof that a singularity can sufficiently be an uncaused-causing entity.[/quote]
No I don’t. I’m not saying it is or isn’t–I’m saying the argument doesn’t give anybody any reason to choose one way or another.
Edit: And my challenge was that Kamui prove a statement he had just made. The burden of proof rests with the maker of the positive statement.
[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?
X exists.
X cannot have caused itself.
X cannot have been caused by nothing.
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
X exists.
X cannot have caused itself.
X cannot have been caused by nothing.
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?[/quote]
If:
X= Uncaused entity.
Then both premises 2 and 3 are invalid.[/quote]
No, they are not. In the case that X is an uncaused entity, premises 2 and 3 are true. What you are trying to argue has no basis in classical logic and never will.
You are hung up on this notion of “describing the properties that something doesn’t have,” but your objection is simply not acceptable. You are also using terms like “value” incorrectly. It does not make the slightest difference that you don’t like a proposition such as, “A circle has no angles.” It is a true proposition, and any argument that cannot accommodate it without being invalid is invalid. I’m going to say that again: If it is a proposition, which it is, and it is true, which it is, and it renders the conclusion of its argument invalid, which it does, then that argument is invalid.
That’s really all I can say. But I’ll elaborate a little: The proposition that “Uncaused entity X was not caused by itself” has a value–a truth value–a truth value of “true” and not “false.” It also has a subject and a predicate. It is a proposition. Furthermore, to say such a thing is exactly the same as to say that “the explosion that was caused by a gas leak was not caused by itself.” It is exactly as self-evident that X did not cause itself as it is that the explosion did not. Nevertheless, both propositions are true.
Which leaves us exactly here: You have an argument for which it is the case that all of the premises can be true while the conclusion is false. This is the precise definition of an invalid argument. It should be clear to you that if you are going to prove that X was caused, you are going to have to rule out that X was uncaused. There is no possibility of escaping this: The argument is invalid and needs to be altered or abandoned.
Prove that X cannot have been uncaused. That is the only play you have, because the argument you’ve provided is invalid.[/quote]
I will say it again. If X=uncaused entity, then this argument is not about that. This argument deals with causation, not uncausation.
You cannot make an explicit argument for the existence of an uncaused entity without it being circular. If you could it would have been done long ago.
If X is uncaused then any discussion one what did or did not cause it is [irrelevant[/i] by default. It’s uncaused and therefore you cannot address a property it does not have.
It’s like saying “Jane is married to Fred. Jane is a cheater, therefore John should divorce her” Jane is not married to John. He couldn’t divorce her even if she deserves to be divorced.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, I have a single question for you. A yes or a no is all.
Is it true that “uncaused entity X did not cause itself?”
I would appreciate a yes or a no only, because I’m only interested in the truth value. The proposition has a truth value–what is it?[/quote]
I am not going to give you a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I am going to respond to your question with a question. “Is an uncaused entity caused by anything?”[/quote]
No, it isn’t.
Now, you are being ludicrously intellectually dishonest if you do not answer the question I asked you. The phrase “uncaused entity X did not cause itself” is a proposition–subject, predicate, truth value. So is the phrase, “the man who does not own a car does not own a 1969 Ford Mustang.” Which is the truth value for each? Are they true or false?
[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?
X exists.
X cannot have caused itself.
X cannot have been caused by nothing.
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
X exists.
X cannot have caused itself.
X cannot have been caused by nothing.
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?[/quote]
If:
X= Uncaused entity.
Then both premises 2 and 3 are invalid.[/quote]
No, they are not. In the case that X is an uncaused entity, premises 2 and 3 are true. What you are trying to argue has no basis in classical logic and never will.
You are hung up on this notion of “describing the properties that something doesn’t have,” but your objection is simply not acceptable. You are also using terms like “value” incorrectly. It does not make the slightest difference that you don’t like a proposition such as, “A circle has no angles.” It is a true proposition, and any argument that cannot accommodate it without being invalid is invalid. I’m going to say that again: If it is a proposition, which it is, and it is true, which it is, and it renders the conclusion of its argument invalid, which it does, then that argument is invalid.
That’s really all I can say. But I’ll elaborate a little: The proposition that “Uncaused entity X was not caused by itself” has a value–a truth value–a truth value of “true” and not “false.” It also has a subject and a predicate. It is a proposition. Furthermore, to say such a thing is exactly the same as to say that “the explosion that was caused by a gas leak was not caused by itself.” It is exactly as self-evident that X did not cause itself as it is that the explosion did not. Nevertheless, both propositions are true.
Which leaves us exactly here: You have an argument for which it is the case that all of the premises can be true while the conclusion is false. This is the precise definition of an invalid argument. It should be clear to you that if you are going to prove that X was caused, you are going to have to rule out that X was uncaused. There is no possibility of escaping this: The argument is invalid and needs to be altered or abandoned.
Prove that X cannot have been uncaused. That is the only play you have, because the argument you’ve provided is invalid.[/quote]
I will say it again. If X=uncaused entity, then this argument is not about that. [/quote]
What you mean to say is that if X is uncaused, then the argument fails. You’re right.
Please don’t respond to this without answering my very simple yes or no question above.
[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]
Pat, you’re really still wrong. The only way you can be correct is if you rule out the possibility that the thing was uncaused. Until you can do that you are deductively and formally invalid.
There is an alternative possibility that you did not mention in this argument. This is that X always existed–has never NOT existed. If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause. For an argument to be formally valid, you have to either a) define the set of subjects/“things” which are included in your argument, or b) defend the argument against all logically possible attacks. This does not mean “relevant” claims, it means logically possible claims. smh’s claim is logically possible, not entailed by your argument, and invalidates your argument.
If I say “for any set of 5 numbers between 1-100, inclusive, the following properties are true: a,b,c,d” and somebody brings up number 101, or a set of 6 numbers, then my argument is still valid because it defines its domain as being any 5 numbers in the set of 1-100.
However, if I say that “for any number, a,b,c,d are true” then I must defend it against all numbers real, imaginary, rational, irrational, ordinal/non-ordinal, integer/noninteger, etc. If it fails ANY defense, the argument is invalid.
The same is true if I say “for any ‘thing’…”, only now it is not just numbers.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]
What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?
Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]
What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?
Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[/quote]
Here again we come to a good argument that is not a proof. Unless you can formulate a logical proof that things must be this way and cannot be any other, then this is just a (sensible) proposition.
But I am far ahead of myself. We are already beginning to debate the correction to Pat’s argument–the correction being that the X cannot be uncaused–before Pat has even acknowledged that the argument needs this correction in order to be valid.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But I am far ahead of myself. We are already beginning to debate the correction to Pat’s argument–the correction being that the X cannot be uncaused–before Pat has even acknowledged that the argument needs this correction in order to be valid.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter, it’s self evident that it requires it whether he wants it to or not. I’d rather just move on :).
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But I am far ahead of myself. We are already beginning to debate the correction to Pat’s argument–the correction being that the X cannot be uncaused–before Pat has even acknowledged that the argument needs this correction in order to be valid.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter, it’s self evident that it requires it whether he wants it to or not. I’d rather just move on :).[/quote]
Fair enough! I was actually, with the question that I was putting to Pat earlier which he answered with a question, a single post away from declaring, without hostility, that I no longer have any interest in continuing with the thread, because once things break down to the point where an argument can be plainly shown to be invalid and yet still clung to, time is being wasted.
But if anyone is interested in moving deeper and further, I’d be happy to. The next step will be to figure out exactly what X is. The physical universe?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]
What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?
Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[/quote]
Here again we come to a good argument that is not a proof. Unless you can formulate a logical proof that things must be this way and cannot be any other, then this is just a (sensible) proposition.[/quote]
I don’t see the need, I guess.
I actually believe there is an uncaused-cause. So, I’m not really feeling compelled to say that every entity must be caused (contingent). That’s no what we even believe. I’m actually confused on the roles, here.
And I feel fairly confident that most everyone would agree that the universe relies on laws/mechanics/natural processes, whatever, for it’s continuous existence (beginning or eternal). I don’t see how a thing could even be considered for “uncaused-cause” if it is maintained in existence.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]
What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?
Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[/quote]
Here again we come to a good argument that is not a proof. Unless you can formulate a logical proof that things must be this way and cannot be any other, then this is just a (sensible) proposition.[/quote]
I don’t see the need, I guess.
I actually believe there is an uncaused-cause. So, I’m not really feeling compelled to say that every entity must be caused (contingent). That’s no what we even believe.
And I feel fairly confident that most everyone would agree that the universe relies on laws/mechanics/natural processes, whatever, for it’s continuous existence (beginning or eternal). I don’t see how a thing could even be considered for “uncaused-cause” if it is even maintained in existence.
[/quote]
Whether or not the universe relies on laws is a matter of serious contention. If a law is to the universe just a way for us describe things as they are, it is not unlike “Goodness” or “omnipotence” to God–He does not rely on these things and thus is not contingent.
