[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]
How do you affirm the causation of something without explanation? From where do you get ‘something contingent exists’ concluding it does exist? Is perhaps PSR all one needs?
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
I’m not allowed to commend posters for their patience? I don’t see how a compliment is uncalled for. I also noticed none of them took offense to the joke either. If one of them feels hurt by my comment, I will apologize to them.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
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]
Okay maybe we are getting somewhere now.
If its paradoxical, why is it even a premise? Is that even allowed?
Can that statement ever be false? If so what is an example
“___ cannot be caused by nothing” is false
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.[/quote]
The fact that something uncaused is not caused by an infinite amount of things is already known by the very fact that that something is uncaused. Do you deny that?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.[/quote]
The fact that something uncaused is not caused by an infinite amount of things is already known by the very fact that that something is uncaused. Do you deny that?[/quote]
No, I don’t.
Edit: And “Uncaused X is not caused by an infinite number of things” is a true logical proposition. And if it sinks an argument–as its analog has done to yours–then it sinks an argument.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
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]
Okay maybe we are getting somewhere now.
[quote]
“___ cannot be caused by nothing” is false[/quote]
No it’s never false. Unless you talk to somebody like Lawrence Krauss who states “It depends on what you mean by nothing” Which to him is a quantum vacuum filled with particles.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.[/quote]
The fact that something uncaused is not caused by an infinite amount of things is already known by the very fact that that something is uncaused. Do you deny that?[/quote]
No, I don’t.
Edit: And “Uncaused X is not caused by an infinite number of things” is a true logical proposition. And if it sinks an argument–as its analog has done to yours–then it sinks an argument.[/quote]
Then if it’s true, then what’s the point of bringing up something specific that didn’t cause something uncaused?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.[/quote]
The fact that something uncaused is not caused by an infinite amount of things is already known by the very fact that that something is uncaused. Do you deny that?[/quote]
No, I don’t.
Edit: And “Uncaused X is not caused by an infinite number of things” is a true logical proposition. And if it sinks an argument–as its analog has done to yours–then it sinks an argument.[/quote]
And what of this:
Unless it is explicitly impossible for something to have a cause, then it must have a cause? If not, what are the options?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.[/quote]
The fact that something uncaused is not caused by an infinite amount of things is already known by the very fact that that something is uncaused. Do you deny that?[/quote]
No, I don’t.
Edit: And “Uncaused X is not caused by an infinite number of things” is a true logical proposition. And if it sinks an argument–as its analog has done to yours–then it sinks an argument.[/quote]
Then if it’s true, then what’s the point of bringing up something specific that didn’t cause something uncaused?[/quote]
Pat, the point is that that is how it fits into the argument. We didn’t “bring anything up.” We took your argument, fed into it a valid, logical, propositional possibility that you didn’t exclude, and analyzed the results. This is logic. This is argumentation. This is how arguments are assaulted and defended.
You persist in using these vague terms that don’t have any relevant signification within the context of argumentation. There is nothing vague about any of this. You need not concern yourself with “pointlessness,” or really any of the things you are talking about. All that you need to do is look at the “TTT F” pattern, understand that we’ve shown conclusively that the propositions are valid and the premises true, and accept that the the thing is therefore necessarily and inescapably invalid.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
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]
Okay maybe we are getting somewhere now.
[quote]
“___ cannot be caused by nothing” is false[/quote]
No it’s never false. Unless you talk to somebody like Lawrence Krauss who states “It depends on what you mean by nothing” Which to him is a quantum vacuum filled with particles.[/quote]
Okay good, now what about this one, using my original question
How do you evaluate “X cannot be caused by itself” as true or false without knowing if X is caused or uncaused?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.[/quote]
The fact that something uncaused is not caused by an infinite amount of things is already known by the very fact that that something is uncaused. Do you deny that?[/quote]
No, I don’t.
Edit: And “Uncaused X is not caused by an infinite number of things” is a true logical proposition. And if it sinks an argument–as its analog has done to yours–then it sinks an argument.[/quote]
Then if it’s true, then what’s the point of bringing up something specific that didn’t cause something uncaused?[/quote]
Pat, the point is that that is how it fits into the argument. We didn’t “bring anything up.” We took your argument, fed into it a valid, logical, propositional possibility that you didn’t exclude, and analyzed the results. This is logic. This is argumentation. This is how arguments are assaulted and defended.
You persist in using these vague terms that don’t have any relevant signification within the context of argumentation. There is nothing vague about any of this. You need not concern yourself with “pointlessness,” or really any of the things you are talking about. All that you need to do is look at the “TTT F” pattern, understand that we’ve shown conclusively that the propositions are valid and the premises true, and accept that the the thing is therefore necessarily and inescapably invalid.[/quote]
It’s fair to say I didn’t exclude it. I can include it:
But I like it less…We can work on the argument to make it less vague. What would you do to it to make it more sound?
It seems to me that the way we determine X as existing would thusly eliminate the question of uncausedness.
edit: nevermind, hadn’t seen your last post. So, all this time, and now you concede that the argument was invalid as was.
Now you have to prove the new premise.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
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]
Okay maybe we are getting somewhere now.
It’s not reasonable to ask what caused something uncaused, so it is eliminated by definition. An uncaused entity is not caused by an infinite amount of things, let alone itself.
X being a caused entity, cannot have caused itself because it’s circular. It begs the question and is therefore false.
[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]
Thank you. I had actually typed this out on page 18 but at the moment thought I would only like to address one thing. Pat’s argument does not deal with “caused” things, it deals with “existing” things and as such that is a perfectly valid criticism.
If this is the new argument, then X needs to be filled in.
“The universe,” in the way the Kamui defined it earlier?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[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]
Thank you. I had actually typed this out on page 18 but at the moment thought I would only like to address one thing. Pat’s argument does not deal with “caused” things, it deals with “existing” things and as such that is a perfectly valid criticism.
[/quote]
Indeed.
Here we arrive back at a point that was argued literally weeks ago.
[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]
That’s because as eloquent as you can be, you’re still nowhere near as prefectly and concisely eloquent as kamui. I don’t think anybody is here, actually. He can say more in a couple sentences than I could in a page.
Also it’s worth noting, as yet another thing that I did not include in my page 18 responses, that you can take Pat’s argument and instead of affirming “4. X is caused”, you can affirm “4. X has always existed and never NOT existed”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If there is a case wherein your argument can read…
[…] T
[…] T
[…] T
Therefore […] F
…then your argument is invalid. This is not an item that can be debated. You have already accepted that the premises are satisfied by the relevant true proposition. That’s all there is.
Again, you will never prove that something is caused without proving that it can’t be uncaused. Or, you cannot confirm that it’s caused without infirming that it’s uncaused. This is obvious.[/quote]
The fact that something uncaused is not caused by an infinite amount of things is already known by the very fact that that something is uncaused. Do you deny that?[/quote]
No, I don’t.
Edit: And “Uncaused X is not caused by an infinite number of things” is a true logical proposition. And if it sinks an argument–as its analog has done to yours–then it sinks an argument.[/quote]
Then if it’s true, then what’s the point of bringing up something specific that didn’t cause something uncaused?[/quote]
Pat, the point is that that is how it fits into the argument. We didn’t “bring anything up.” We took your argument, fed into it a valid, logical, propositional possibility that you didn’t exclude, and analyzed the results. This is logic. This is argumentation. This is how arguments are assaulted and defended.
You persist in using these vague terms that don’t have any relevant signification within the context of argumentation. There is nothing vague about any of this. You need not concern yourself with “pointlessness,” or really any of the things you are talking about. All that you need to do is look at the “TTT F” pattern, understand that we’ve shown conclusively that the propositions are valid and the premises true, and accept that the the thing is therefore necessarily and inescapably invalid.[/quote]
It’s fair to say I didn’t exclude it. I can include it:
But I like it less…We can work on the argument to make it less vague. [/quote]
You really needed to have phrased it precisely like that in order for it to be valid. If you are wanting to not assume anything then you cannot implicitly assume a premise to be true (#4) and not state it. This argument is formally valid but open to attack.
What do you mean? Soundness is only a property of true AND valid arguments. First it must be proved the premises are true in addition to being valid formally. Only then can a deductive argument be sound.
[quote]It seems to me that the way we determine X as existing would thusly eliminate the question of uncausedness.
[/quote]
And in order for this statement to be true and made into an argument, it must be supported with premises and then defended to prove its validity.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
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]
Okay maybe we are getting somewhere now.
It’s not reasonable to ask what caused something uncaused, so it is eliminated by definition. An uncaused entity is not caused by an infinite amount of things, let alone itself.
X being a caused entity, cannot have caused itself because it’s circular. It begs the question and is therefore false.[/quote]
That is true, HOWEVER you still have to determine whether the something was caused or uncaused. Only once its uncausedness is determined can you say what you did.