Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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]

It does because it reduces the margin of error.
The job is to prove that contingent things exist to the exclusion of non-contingent things without eliminating the existence of a non-contingent being. It’s made more difficult because I have to protect it against absurd notions.

482

[quote]pat wrote:

It does because it reduces the margin of error.
The job is to prove that contingent things exist to the exclusion of non-contingent things without eliminating the existence of a non-contingent being. It’s made more difficult because I have to protect it against absurd notions.[/quote]

Nobody is offering you any absurd notions. The argument is invalid for the reasons we’ve all been outlining. It’s that simple. No internal contradictions, no fallacies, no absurdities. It’s easy to see.

Just think about it. Can you prove to me that something is caused without addressing the possibility that it is uncaused? Of course not. That’s the whole thing.

483

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I’m not sure I like the pencil example and I tried to avoid using everyday objects in this thread. If you backtrack where the pencil came from you get a huge casual chain which is really just collections of atoms formed in different ways. Really all we are concerned about is where the building blocks of the universe came from so for all we know the pencil could be made up of entirely uncaused components

So X = an elementary particle in one of the atoms of your pencil

Then is X caused or uncaused?

484

[quote]kamui wrote:

[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]
Correct the inquiry starts with the empirical, but I am not so much concerned with where it starts but where it ends, with certain propositions.
For something to be, does it not need to first exist?

Let me ask you this, if causation is discussed and something uncaused does not possess causation, does not the act of discussing it’s causal properties thusly eliminate the possibility that what you are discussing is uncaused?

485

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It does because it reduces the margin of error.
The job is to prove that contingent things exist to the exclusion of non-contingent things without eliminating the existence of a non-contingent being. It’s made more difficult because I have to protect it against absurd notions.[/quote]

Nobody is offering you any absurd notions. The argument is invalid for the reasons we’ve all been outlining. It’s that simple. No internal contradictions, no fallacies, no absurdities. It’s easy to see.

Just think about it. Can you prove to me that something is caused without addressing the possibility that it is uncaused? Of course not. That’s the whole thing.[/quote]

Discussing the causal properties of something uncaused is absurd.

486

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It does because it reduces the margin of error.
The job is to prove that contingent things exist to the exclusion of non-contingent things without eliminating the existence of a non-contingent being. It’s made more difficult because I have to protect it against absurd notions.[/quote]

Nobody is offering you any absurd notions. The argument is invalid for the reasons we’ve all been outlining. It’s that simple. No internal contradictions, no fallacies, no absurdities. It’s easy to see.

Just think about it. Can you prove to me that something is caused without addressing the possibility that it is uncaused? Of course not. That’s the whole thing.[/quote]

Sure you can. It just depends on how.

487

Again, the term “discussed” is too vague here.

If causation is affirmed, it eliminate the possibility that what you are discussing is uncaused.

But causation isn’t affirmed in the first step of your argument.
Existence is.

To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first.

488

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It does because it reduces the margin of error.
The job is to prove that contingent things exist to the exclusion of non-contingent things without eliminating the existence of a non-contingent being. It’s made more difficult because I have to protect it against absurd notions.[/quote]

Nobody is offering you any absurd notions. The argument is invalid for the reasons we’ve all been outlining. It’s that simple. No internal contradictions, no fallacies, no absurdities. It’s easy to see.

Just think about it. Can you prove to me that something is caused without addressing the possibility that it is uncaused? Of course not. That’s the whole thing.[/quote]

Discussing the causal properties of something uncaused is absurd.[/quote]

You keep saying this. It doesn’t mean anything. Literally, it has no bearing on this debate and is too vague to have any signification. It has been proved to you beyond any doubt that the premises are true and the conclusion is false if X is uncaused. This renders the argument invalid. Kamui has told you so, I’ve told you so, Aragorn has told you so, Sufi has told you so, Matt has told you so. More importantly, we’ve shown why.

489

[quote]kamui wrote:
To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first.

[/quote]

This. This is my criticism, in most elegant form.

It’s hard to believe that I’ve been arguing this for something like ten pages.

490

[quote]kamui wrote:

Again, the term “discussed” is too vague here.

If causation is affirmed, it eliminate the possibility that what you are discussing is uncaused.

But causation isn’t affirmed in the first step of your argument.
Existence is.

To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first.

[/quote]

Is it required that it is the first premise? The latter premises discuss causation which is an absurd notion to apply to something uncaused. Again, it’s not to say that everything is caused or uncaused, but that something is.

491

[quote]pat wrote:
The latter premises discuss causation which is an absurd notion to apply to something uncaused. [/quote]

There is literally nothing absurd about saying that something uncaused did not cause itself, or was not caused by something. They are true logical propositions–this was shown earlier, conclusively. And since they are true logical propositions, your argument is invalid–conclusively.

492

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]

Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]

Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction.
[/quote]

It is not a contradiction. You may decide to maintain it is irrelevant, but it is not a contradiction. Not anywhere close.

It is the same as saying “thing A does not have property T. Because T(f) is a sub-property of T, thing A does not have T(f) either”. This is hardly contradictory. [/quote]

Yep, exactly correct. In fact it is among the things you encounter in the very beginning of a course in logic.[/quote]

Even if just irrelevant, it’s still a fallacy. However, 'does not own supposes that the subject does own a car, which the subject does not. Even if just irrelevant, your objection is still false, because it’s based on a fallacy. Certainly I have been struggling to find the exact fallacy. But even if irrelevant conclusion it’s still a fallacy.[/quote]

It is not a fallacy. Not every problem an argument can have is a fallacy. And besides which, very similar reasoning is used in mathematics and the discussion of sets and other things so if you’re seriously going to argue that it’s a fallacy then you have a bone to pick with centuries of math.

493

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The latter premises discuss causation which is an absurd notion to apply to something uncaused. [/quote]

There is literally nothing absurd about saying that something uncaused did not cause itself, or was not caused by something. They are true logical propositions–this was shown earlier, conclusively. And since they are true logical propositions, your argument is invalid–conclusively.[/quote]

The affirmation is pointless, since it’s already true by being uncaused.

494

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Kamui, I would ask your input on this one further matter.

Pat’s argument was that

  1. X exists
  2. X cannot have caused itself
  3. X cannot have been caused by [nothing]–Because [nothing] has no causal power
  4. therefore, x is caused

I said that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if x is uncaused because if x is uncaused

  1. it exists
  2. it was not caused by itself
  3. it was not caused by [nothing]

but it is not caused

Which is:

T
T
T

F

Which is an invalid argument. For the conclusion to follow, it must be shown that X cannot be uncaused

Would you weigh in on this?[/quote]

Let’s clean it up for accuracy’s sake:

  1. Something exists.
  2. Something cannot cause itself.
  3. something cannot be caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, something is caused.

[/quote]

Just to be clear, we are NOT considering “something cannot be uncaused” as an equivalent substitution to #3 correct?

495

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Kamui, I would ask your input on this one further matter.

Pat’s argument was that

  1. X exists
  2. X cannot have caused itself
  3. X cannot have been caused by [nothing]–Because [nothing] has no causal power
  4. therefore, x is caused

I said that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if x is uncaused because if x is uncaused

  1. it exists
  2. it was not caused by itself
  3. it was not caused by [nothing]

but it is not caused

Which is:

T
T
T

F

Which is an invalid argument. For the conclusion to follow, it must be shown that X cannot be uncaused

Would you weigh in on this?[/quote]

Let’s clean it up for accuracy’s sake:

  1. Something exists.
  2. Something cannot cause itself.
  3. something cannot be caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, something is caused.

[/quote]

Just to be clear, we are NOT considering “something cannot be uncaused” as an equivalent substitution to #3 correct? [/quote]

Correct. Something cannot be caused by nothing /= something cannot be uncaused.

496

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]

Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]

Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction.
[/quote]

It is not a contradiction. You may decide to maintain it is irrelevant, but it is not a contradiction. Not anywhere close.

It is the same as saying “thing A does not have property T. Because T(f) is a sub-property of T, thing A does not have T(f) either”. This is hardly contradictory. [/quote]

Yep, exactly correct. In fact it is among the things you encounter in the very beginning of a course in logic.[/quote]

Even if just irrelevant, it’s still a fallacy. However, 'does not own supposes that the subject does own a car, which the subject does not. Even if just irrelevant, your objection is still false, because it’s based on a fallacy. Certainly I have been struggling to find the exact fallacy. But even if irrelevant conclusion it’s still a fallacy.[/quote]

It is not a fallacy. Not every problem an argument can have is a fallacy. And besides which, very similar reasoning is used in mathematics and the discussion of sets and other things so if you’re seriously going to argue that it’s a fallacy then you have a bone to pick with centuries of math. [/quote]

You use a series of infinite negative affirmations to prove what a set does not have in it?

497

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first.

[/quote]

This. This is my criticism, in most elegant form.

It’s hard to believe that I’ve been arguing this for something like ten pages.[/quote]

I think I tried to ask Pat that a while back but he never answered. I wanted to know how to evaluate “X cannot be caused by nothing” as true or false.

According to him you can’t answer that question if X is uncaused, so you must know if its uncaused before saying its true/false right?

498

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Kamui, I would ask your input on this one further matter.

Pat’s argument was that

  1. X exists
  2. X cannot have caused itself
  3. X cannot have been caused by [nothing]–Because [nothing] has no causal power
  4. therefore, x is caused

I said that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if x is uncaused because if x is uncaused

  1. it exists
  2. it was not caused by itself
  3. it was not caused by [nothing]

but it is not caused

Which is:

T
T
T

F

Which is an invalid argument. For the conclusion to follow, it must be shown that X cannot be uncaused

Would you weigh in on this?[/quote]

Let’s clean it up for accuracy’s sake:

  1. Something exists.
  2. Something cannot cause itself.
  3. something cannot be caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, something is caused.

[/quote]

Just to be clear, we are NOT considering “something cannot be uncaused” as an equivalent substitution to #3 correct? [/quote]
Correct. Something would be a caused thing, it does not eliminate and uncaused entity, it just does not address it.

499

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first.

[/quote]

This. This is my criticism, in most elegant form.

It’s hard to believe that I’ve been arguing this for something like ten pages.[/quote]

I think I tried to ask Pat that a while back but he never answered. I wanted to know how to evaluate “X cannot be caused by nothing” as true or false.
[/quote]
Nothing doesn’t exist. The very discussion of ‘it’ is paradoxical.

[quote]
According to him you can’t answer that question if X is uncaused, so you must know if its uncaused before saying its true/false right?[/quote]
You can’t ask the question if X is uncaused. Any discussion on an uncaused entities causal potential is at the very least pointless. You can affirm an infinite amount of things did not cause it.

500

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The latter premises discuss causation which is an absurd notion to apply to something uncaused. [/quote]

There is literally nothing absurd about saying that something uncaused did not cause itself, or was not caused by something. They are true logical propositions–this was shown earlier, conclusively. And since they are true logical propositions, your argument is invalid–conclusively.[/quote]

The affirmation is pointless, since it’s already true by being uncaused.[/quote]

You’re not getting that this isn’t something that can be obfuscated by vague dodges. The propositions are true–you admitted this (after much assured bluster and denial), it was proved conclusively, it is so.

Since the premises are true and the conclusion is false in the relevant case, the argument is invalid–because there is a case wherein the conclusion is not entailed by the premises.

None of this is controversial. Each piece has been proved beyond doubt and, not without difficulty, accepted by you. The result–the inescapable result–is that, as I said many moons ago, your argument is invalid.