[quote]florelius wrote:
Just for fun, I want to see how much of german I remember.
Sloth wrote:
Ich heisse Sloth, und Ich komme aus die Vereinigten Staaten.
florelius wrote:
My name is Sloth and I come from The Us of A.[/quote]
Sehr gut!
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Heute ist das Wetter heiss, und ist der Himmel blau! Und, es ist gar nicht windig oder wolkig. Das Thermometer zeigt dreiundzwanzig Grad.
florelius:
The weather is good/or/and/ hot( ? ) and the sky is blue! And its windy( ? ).
The termostat shows the temperatur too be 33 degrees.[/quote]
“It is not at all (gar nicht) windy or cloudy.” And, yeah, 23 degrees as zecarlo said.
[quote]
Sloth:
Ich lerne Deustch denn es ist interessant. Heute morgen gehe Ich in die Vorlesungen. Ich mache jetzt Hausaufgaben. Morgen habe Ich keine Vorlesungen.
Florelius:
I am Learning German and think it is interresting. Good morning and something, I am doing or I have a home-asignment. Tomorrow ( ? ) …[/quote]
This morning I go to lectures. Yep, “I now do homework.” Tomorrow I have no (not any) lectures.
[quote]
Sloth:
Ein Jahr reise Ich nach Deutschland, oder Scweiz, oder Osterreich.
Wie bist du?
florelius:
In one year ( or in some year ) I am going to Germany, Switzerland and Austria.
Where do you live( or where are you ? ) ?[/quote]
Should be more like …“Germany, or Switzerland, or Austria.” Who knows though, maybe I’ll make it to all three in my lifetime. Oder being “or.”
Yeah, as zecarlo also said, “How are you?”
[quote]florelius wrote:
Just for fun, I want to see how much of german I remember.
Sloth wrote:
Ich heisse Sloth, und Ich komme aus die Vereinigten Staaten.
florelius wrote:
My name is Sloth and I come from The Us of A.[/quote]
Sehr gut!
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Heute ist das Wetter heiss, und ist der Himmel blau! Und, es ist gar nicht windig oder wolkig. Das Thermometer zeigt dreiundzwanzig Grad.
florelius:
The weather is good/or/and/ hot( ? ) and the sky is blue! And its windy( ? ).
The termostat shows the temperatur too be 33 degrees.[/quote]
“It is not at all (gar nicht) windy or cloudy.” And, yeah, 23 degrees as zecarlo said.
[quote]
Sloth:
Ich lerne Deustch denn es ist interessant. Heute morgen gehe Ich in die Vorlesungen. Ich mache jetzt Hausaufgaben. Morgen habe Ich keine Vorlesungen.
Florelius:
I am Learning German and think it is interresting. Good morning and something, I am doing or I have a home-asignment. Tomorrow ( ? ) …[/quote]
This morning I go to lectures. Yep, “I now do homework.” Tomorrow I have no (not any) lectures.
All I can say is much is forgotten and I was never superb in german to begin With. I wish I had taken german more seriously when I was in high School. I had the chance to be tri-lingual, but blew it. Oh whell, live and learn. Fun excercise though.
Btw: the 33/23 thing was a mix up, I know zwanzig is twenty, I made a mistake there. Perhaps because you come off as a bit older than 23 in Your posts.
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]
You said “There is no reason to believe that the uncaused cause which it refers to was not something like the initial singularity.” ← Without providing a reason for why or how it can even be true. You could replace ‘singularity’ with pink elephants and simply say that the retort requires proof.
You’ve given no argument that the Uncaused-cause could be something like a singularity. You haven’t provided any proof, so why should anybody else?
[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]
Save your accusations of what I am doing. I am simply pointing out that a true or false statement where it is not applicable has no bearing on the argument.
Perhaps it’s you who is being intellectually dishonest here. Applying that which is not applicable renders to the truth or falseness of the statement irrelevant.
You arguing the truth of a statement about something that does not posses the property which you are commenting about.
You cannot say ‘The cat did not bark at the door when the mailman came by’ because a cat cannot bark. You cannot say something uncaused, wasn’t cause by something because it has no property of causation to discuss.
Relevance matters. It’s precisely why your criticism is false. It does not have the property in question, hence it cannot even be questioned.
[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.
[/quote]
The very act of questioning the causal properties of a thing means that you are not discussing something uncaused. Something uncaused does not have any causal properties to even question.
The most important point here is that nobody seems to understand the implications of what an uncaused entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. This is crucial, unless you understand that, you will not understand the rest.
That’s actually irrelevant. The very nature of metaphysics is that it is not constrained by time. All of it is necessarily etneral, but yet are finite beings. A number, or a ‘law’ are metaphysical entities that is not constrained by time. It’s eternal yet finite. They exist, they are limited by definition, but are temporally eternal. I.E. time has no effect on their existence.
In your example, you demonstrate the problem well. No other numbers or properties are relevent to the numerical set or it’s properties. No other numbers or properties could invalidate it. The only thing that could is if the properties are false or the numerical set is somehow false. a,b,c, or d could be true for other numbers, but a,b,c,and d could not be true for anything other than 5 numbers between 1-100.
The properties all together only need be true for a set of 5 numbers between 1-100. a could be true for other things as well, so can b, c, or d. But 5 set of numbers between 1-100 must be the result of a,b,c and d as it’s property set.
[quote]
The same is true if I say “for any ‘thing’…”, only now it is not just numbers.[/quote]
[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]
Except you haven’t proved that at all. You’re arguing that something irrelevant to the argument makes it false. That’s not a valid claim though you’ve run yourself in circles trying to assert that.
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.
[/quote]
Do what? Of all the things that are matters of serious contention, the fact that universe relies on it’s laws is not one of them. I’d like to see you prove that the universe does not rely on the laws of nature. If that were true, it sure would make physics a waste of time.
[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 nothing more than 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.[/quote]
But doesn’t the existence of universe rely on those laws?
Or, are you saying that the universe causes itself?
[/quote]
Doesn’t the universe rely on these things? Is that what you’re asking.
I think this is a fallacy. If the universe is contingent by the fact that it “does” gravity, then why is God not contingent by the fact that he “does” Good? And whatever it is about God that allows him to escape that contingency in your mind, why is it the case that the universe cannot make the same escape?[/quote]
One is contingent, the other is not. It’s not a difficult problem at all, nor a serious objection.
[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]
You can answer this question, which is the only intellectually honest move that you have, or we can end the discussion here. You are plainly and unambiguously wrong and have been told so by just about everyone who has entered the discussion. I will show you that you are wrong as soon as you answer my question.
Or, don’t, and the thread will die beginning here. I won’t post again unless on the substance of this question which I put to you. I will, however, remind you that you answered this question with a question of your own, and I answered that.
No–I am saying that it is not clear that things’ continued existence must have a cause.[/quote]
But we agree that natural processes (mechancis, laws, whatever) maintain the universe’s existence, no? Now we could simply shift these things under the umbrella of the universe. Though, might they remain, independent of the Universe’s existence? Even if there were no “parts” to compel? Anyways, having shifted, aren’t we arguing that the universe is causing itself to be in existence?
[/quote]
That would make it circular and thus logically fallacious.
And yes, the laws of nature exist independently of the objects they act on. Even if the physical essence of the universe did not exist, the laws would still remain, they just wouldn’t have anything to do.
[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]
You can answer this question, which is the only intellectually honest move that you have, or we can end the discussion here. You are plainly and unambiguously wrong and have been told so by just about everyone who has entered the discussion. I will show you that you are wrong as soon as you answer my question.
Or, don’t, and the thread will die beginning here. I won’t post again unless on the substance of this question which I put to you. I will, however, remind you that you answered this question with a question of your own, and I answered that.[/quote]
You didn’t answer my question. You haven’t answered any of my questions actually. Once you understand that uncaused entities do not posses the property of causation and thus what did or did not caused them cannot be entertained, you’ll understand.
Calling me names or appealing to the populous is not going to make you right. I don’t need either, logic itself dictates I am right. I just don’t think you understand it. You have not addressed what uncaused entities must be to both exist and be uncaused, though I have asked you several times to address it, you just ignored it and went on repeating the same incorrect criticism. You cannot deal logically with properties an entity does not have. An uncaused entity, has no causation. You can say an infinite amount of things didn’t cause it because it wasn’t caused. I seriously don’t see how you don’t see that, it’s a mystery to me.
And tell me, why should I answer your questions when you never answer mine?
I have dealt with all potential criticisms from all comers as much as I could in the quantity they came as honestly as I could. You avoided any questions you didn’t feel like dealing with. Calling me dishonest because I won’t capitulate is simply an ad hominem. You’ve failed to make your point logically. That’s the only thing I will accept. I don’t cave in, in the face of logic just because it’s unpopular.
Is it true that what is uncaused, has no causal properties to discuss?
[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]
[b]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.[/b]
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]
See emboldened excerpt above. I asked question A, you refused to answer question A and instead asked question B. I answered question B.
So, yes, I did answer your question. And you haven’t answered mine. Are you telling me you refuse to? If so, please make this explicit. Because if this is the case, then I am finished with the thread and satisfied with its unanimously acknowledged conclusion. If not, then please answer the question in either the affirmative or negative.
Edit: And you keep talking about argumentum ad populum. It’s fine that you don’t like the tactic, but the populum in this case happens to be composed of people who understand classical logic much better than you do, and I am making the point that they’ve all told you you’re wrong in the hope that you will admit to yourself that you are either not understanding or understanding just fine and clinging on to nonsense anyway, just because you don’t want to admit to the defeat that (whether you admit it or not) has been handed you.
So Pat, can your argument be restated as follows? And is this completely equivalent to the original?
X = things that are caused
X exists.
X cannot have caused itself.
X cannot have been caused by nothing.
Therefore, X is caused.
[/quote]
No, that argument is circular.[/quote]
But you said yourself that the premises 2 and 3 are invalid (not true or false) if X is uncaused. So without clarifying the possibilities that X can be you leave yourself with an argument that can never be evaluated.
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]
You said “There is no reason to believe that the uncaused cause which it refers to was not something like the initial singularity.” ← Without providing a reason for why or how it can even be true. You could replace ‘singularity’ with pink elephants and simply say that the retort requires proof.
You’ve given no argument that the Uncaused-cause could be something like a singularity. You haven’t provided any proof, so why should anybody else?[/quote]
[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]
Save your accusations of what I am doing. I am simply pointing out that a true or false statement where it is not applicable has no bearing on the argument.
Perhaps it’s you who is being intellectually dishonest here. Applying that which is not applicable renders to the truth or falseness of the statement irrelevant.
You arguing the truth of a statement about something that does not posses the property which you are commenting about.
You cannot say ‘The cat did not bark at the door when the mailman came by’ because a cat cannot bark. You cannot say something uncaused, wasn’t cause by something because it has no property of causation to discuss.
Relevance matters. It’s precisely why your criticism is false. It does not have the property in question, hence it cannot even be questioned. [/quote]
X exists
X did not bark at the door when the mailman came by