[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Given what you’ve been told today, by me and everyone else, it or is it not a true proposition that Uncaused thing X was not caused by itself? Yes, or no?[/quote]
Asked and answered. [/quote]
Great.
So, if the something is uncaused, your first premise is true. Because it exists. T.
If the something is uncaused, your second premise is true. You just said this–it’s true. T
If the something is uncaused, it was not caused by[nothing]. T
If the something is uncaused, it is not caused. F
So, there is a case in which your premises are true and your conclusion is false. Your argument is invalid. You have already admitted that the T’s are correct in their places. This is not a point that is up for debate. The conclusion states that X is caused without ruling out that it was uncaused. It is obviously invalid. This is settled and done.
If you want to prove that the something is caused, you must prove that it cannot be uncaused. This should be obvious to you.
And that’s it. You fought tooth and nail over nonsense and it got us exactly nowhere. I explained all of this to you like 2 weeks ago.
Actually, I already did, but it has been lost in the middle of the multiple socratic games of this thread.
So, let’s do it again :
this argument
Then how do we determine X is a contingent being? The problem is the argument doesn’t deal with anything. It discusses causal potentialities. Because it discusses causal propeties, by default an uncaused entity is eliminated is it not?
You guys have WAAAAAYYYYY more patience with this than I ever will. I read the first couple pages, skipped to the end, and can’t imagine the ridiculousness contained therein.
Then how do we determine X is a contingent being? The problem is the argument doesn’t deal with anything. It discusses causal potentialities. Because it discusses causal propeties, by default an uncaused entity is eliminated is it not?[/quote]
No. Think specifically about what it does. It takes something. It eliminates the possibility that that something was caused by itself. It eliminates the possibility that that that something was caused by [nothing] (again, because [nothing] has no power by which to cause). And it concludes that that something must be caused.
But it ignores the possibility that that something is uncaused, as in not caused at all–by neither itself, nor [nothing]. Which means that it hasn’t eliminated every alternative, which means that it cannot be conclusively claimed that the something is caused. Which means that the conclusion is not necessarily entailed by the premises. Which makes it invalid.
Actually, I already did, but it has been lost in the middle of the multiple socratic games of this thread.
So, let’s do it again :
this argument
Then how do we determine X is a contingent being?[/quote]
Something is contingent when its existence is non-necessary.
It can exist or not exist.
Usually we prove that something is contingent by pointing the (empirical) fact this thing hasn’t always existed, or can be destroyed.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Given what you’ve been told today, by me and everyone else, it or is it not a true proposition that Uncaused thing X was not caused by itself? Yes, or no?[/quote]
Asked and answered. [/quote]
Great.
So, if the something is uncaused, your first premise is true. Because it exists. T.
If the something is uncaused, your second premise is true. You just said this–it’s true. T
If the something is uncaused, it was not caused by[nothing]. T
If the something is uncaused, it is not caused. F
So, there is a case in which your premises are true and your conclusion is false. Your argument is invalid. You have already admitted that the T’s are correct in their places. This is not a point that is up for debate. The conclusion states that X is caused without ruling out that it was uncaused. It is obviously invalid. This is settled and done.
If you want to prove that the something is caused, you must prove that it cannot be uncaused. This should be obvious to you.
And that’s it. You fought tooth and nail over nonsense and it got us exactly nowhere. I explained all of this to you like 2 weeks ago.[/quote]
Because you still cannot conclude an uncaused cause from the premises because you cannot question the causation of the uncaused.
I would like to avoid empiricism if at all possible. Proving only what we know can exist. I chose a cartesian reductionism to prove that ‘something’ exists by deduction. That it exists for a reason, thusly eliminating anything uncaused to do it.
Could you conclude from the presented premises, something uncaused exists, since the premises deal with causation, though negatively.
Because you still cannot conclude an uncaused cause from the premises because you cannot question the causation of the uncaused. [/quote]
Surely you can see that I am not “concluding an uncaused cause.” I am pointing out that you cannot conclude that something is caused with the argument you provided because it does not deny that that something is uncaused. Hence its invalidity–because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.
Nope.
“Uncaused” is a logical variable of “caused”. (just like “caused by itself”, “caused by something else”, and “caused by nothing”)
If you exclude it by default, you end up “proving” that “everything is caused”, which is both false and the opposite of what you want to demonstrate.
[/quote]
Exactly correct.
And if you don’t exclude it as a variable–which describes Pat’s argument precisely–then you leave it open as a possibility, and you don’t prove the conclusion at all.
Nope.
“Uncaused” is a logical variable of “caused”. (just like “caused by itself”, “caused by something else”, and “caused by nothing”)
If you exclude it by default, you end up “proving” that “everything is caused”, which is both false and the opposite of what you want to demonstrate.
[/quote]
But I was not trying to demonstrate everything is caused, just that something a single thing, is. You cannot prove an uncaused being as the subject since any attempt. I wasn’t excluding it by default, the premises dealt with causation thus excluding uncausation since it has no causal properties to make comment on.
[quote]AceRock wrote:
You guys have WAAAAAYYYYY more patience with this than I ever will. I read the first couple pages, skipped to the end, and can’t imagine the ridiculousness contained therein.
Don’t feed the trolls.[/quote]
This is uncalled for. Just because someone has taken a stand that is contradictory does not make them a troll. This forum could use more civil discussions like this.
Because you still cannot conclude an uncaused cause from the premises because you cannot question the causation of the uncaused. [/quote]
Surely you can see that I am not “concluding an uncaused cause.” I am pointing out that you cannot conclude that something is caused with the argument you provided because it does not deny that that something is uncaused. Hence its invalidity–because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.[/quote]
If you don’t eliminate it then it’s a possible conclusion, which cannot be derived from those premises because it doesn’t follow. Which is why initially I introduced the cartesian reduction to make it clear, that’s the something we were talking about. Somehow that got tossed by the wayside.
It seems rather than isolated, it got expanded, or just plain lost.
We know something exists. If you eliminate all margins of error, and remove all potential for misguidance through perception or paradigm, we still know something exists because it an be perceived even if not understood.
We know that this is some sort of knowledge, or information. So let me think on it and see if I can come up with a more specific argument then.
[quote]pat wrote:
I wasn’t excluding it by default, the premises dealt with causation thus excluding uncausation since it has no causal properties to make comment on.[/quote]
No. Again, think precisely. Me pencil exists. My pencil did not cause itself. My pencil was not caused by [nothing].
Does it follow necessarily that my pencil was caused? No. If it is uncaused, then it 1) exists, 2) did not cause itself, and 3) was not caused by [nothing]. And yet it still denies your conclusion. This makes your argument invalid. This is how this particular discipline works–it does not bend itself to these arbitrary parameters you’re inventing.
If you want to prove that the pencil or the something or the X was caused, you have to understand what I just wrote and incorporate into your argument a denial that it is uncaused–otherwise, you could never say for certain that the thing was caused.
Because you still cannot conclude an uncaused cause from the premises because you cannot question the causation of the uncaused. [/quote]
Surely you can see that I am not “concluding an uncaused cause.” I am pointing out that you cannot conclude that something is caused with the argument you provided because it does not deny that that something is uncaused. Hence its invalidity–because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.[/quote]
If you don’t eliminate it then it’s a possible conclusion, which cannot be derived from those premises because it doesn’t follow. Which is why initially I introduced the cartesian reduction to make it clear, that’s the something we were talking about. Somehow that got tossed by the wayside. [/quote]
Nothing about the Cartesian reduction changes any of this. Read my last post because it’s all there and it’s rather simple.
[quote]pat wrote:
I wasn’t excluding it by default, the premises dealt with causation thus excluding uncausation since it has no causal properties to make comment on.[/quote]
No. Again, think precisely. Me pencil exists. My pencil did not cause itself. My pencil was not caused by [nothing].
Does it follow necessarily that my pencil was caused? No. If it is uncaused, then it 1) exists, 2) did not cause itself, and 3) was not caused by [nothing]. And yet it still denies your conclusion. This makes your argument invalid. This is how this particular discipline works–it does not bend itself to these arbitrary parameters you’re inventing.
If you want to prove that the pencil or the something of the X was caused, you have to understand what I just wrote and incorporate into your argument a denial that it is uncaused–otherwise, you could never say for certain that the thing was caused.[/quote]
We don’t know your pencil exists, it could be a mistaken perception. That’s what I am trying to avoid. With something like a pencil there is too many variables so the premises do not suffice, were we’re dealing only with existence and causation. If I were starting with a pencil, it would be much easier to provide an argument. We’re dealing with something far more abstract and real.
[quote]pat wrote:
[EDIT] I here by retract and say that the statement is false and cannot be true. While it is true statements can be logically valid and false and logically invalid and true, that is not the case in this example. To determine the kind of car a man does not own is false. Because he does not own one, you cannot determine the kind. Therefore the statement is false.
P = does not own a car
Q = does not own a Lexus
P & Q = False
P & ~Q = True
~P & Q = True (if he owns a different kind of car)
~P & ~Q = False ( he cannot both own and not own a lexus.
[/quote]
You are just adding quantifiers to make the premises non-binary. The same could be done with the borrowed car example. Either way the statements are not equal which was my point, the first one P & Q is the only one that matters.
Internal contradiction = P & Q is always false because both P and P cannot be true at the same time
So…
IF
“I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.” is an internal contradiction
THEN
“the man who was does not own a car does not own a Lexus” is not.
BECAUSE
they have different truth tables (even with using the one you made)
[quote]I would like to avoid empiricism if at all possible. Proving only what we know can exist. I chose a cartesian reductionism to prove that ‘something’ exists by deduction. That it exists for a reason, thusly eliminating anything uncaused to do it.
Could you conclude from the presented premises, something uncaused exists, since the premises deal with causation, though negatively.[/quote]
You can’t completely avoid empiricism here.
Because existence is not a true predicate. (Kant wins again).
Since existence is not “included” in the concept of something, it can’t be deduced from the concept of this thing.
And you will never be able to conclude that something exists by pure deduction.
even Descartes’s “cogito ergo sum” starts with an empirical cogito.
[quote]pat wrote:
I wasn’t excluding it by default, the premises dealt with causation thus excluding uncausation since it has no causal properties to make comment on.[/quote]
No. Again, think precisely. Me pencil exists. My pencil did not cause itself. My pencil was not caused by [nothing].
Does it follow necessarily that my pencil was caused? No. If it is uncaused, then it 1) exists, 2) did not cause itself, and 3) was not caused by [nothing]. And yet it still denies your conclusion. This makes your argument invalid. This is how this particular discipline works–it does not bend itself to these arbitrary parameters you’re inventing.
If you want to prove that the pencil or the something of the X was caused, you have to understand what I just wrote and incorporate into your argument a denial that it is uncaused–otherwise, you could never say for certain that the thing was caused.[/quote]
We don’t know your pencil exists, it could be a mistaken perception. That’s what I am trying to avoid. With something like a pencil there is too many variables so the premises do not suffice, were we’re dealing only with existence and causation. If I were starting with a pencil, it would be much easier to provide an argument. We’re dealing with something far more abstract and real.[/quote]
You have missed the point. I said “pencil” to make it simpler for you, as a mere example. This was clear when I said “the pencil or something or X.” It doesn’t matter what it is. Whatever the X is. Just leave it at X or something of the reduction or whatever you prefer and reread the post. It’s all right there.
The point is that the argument is simply and clearly invalid, because the conclusion is not necessarily entailed by the premises, because the negation of the conclusion is not excluded by the premises as a possibility.