[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Okay, since we’re going with personal attacks then fine, I will stop restraining myself from doing so to. And no you have never answered that most important of questions.
This is clearly amamteur hour.
You’re calling me dishonest and basically stupid because I won’t cave to your criticism? That’s the angle you want to take? Perhaps because the logic does not support your criticism.
You are introducing ‘false alternatives’.
You cannot evaluate the causal nature of something that does not have causation. You cannot evaluate the car collection of somebody who does not own cars. Your chasing ghosts. You are looking for something that isn’t there. Hell, you’re own examples call you out on this.
If there is a hole in the argument, you damn sure haven’t found it. Oh sure it sounds good on the surface until you look at the logic.
You throw logically absurd ‘truth statements’ at an argument as a way of debunking it when what you are debunking it with is a logical fallacy to begin with. ‘Causation’ with respect to the ‘uncaused’ is logically absurd.
I cannot give you a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to your statement because it’s logically absurd. You cannot evaluate the truth value of a proposition that something does not have.
This is precisely why your criticism is false despite all of your self congratulatory histrionics.
So to sum up the last 20 pages, you are wrong for the following reasons:
- Your proposition is logically absurd and a false alternative.
- The argument deals with causation not the lack of it, so you could not conclude said being is also possibly ‘uncaused’.
- You cannot explicitly determine something is uncaused by focussing on the object itself, any such attempt would render a circular argument. You could not apply a conclusion to set of premises that would make the argument circular and think that it’s an alternative conclusion. That’s an invalid argument.
- Applying an alternative conclusion makes the argument circular and therefore invalid. You cannot apply an invalid conclusion as a valid criticism.
- You cannot debunk arguments with circular reasoning.
You can call me names, tell me I am stupid and that everyone else knows classical logic better than I do. But I know enough about logic to know you cannot apply false alternative conclusion that makes an argument circular and expect it to debunk the argument. I also know enough to know that you cannot discuss, positively or negatively a property something does not have. It’s ridiculous.
If your subject is something uncaused, it’s logically absurd to discuss it’s causal potentialities. Ah, hell I know I am wasting my time.