[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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]
It wasn’t that I thought the argument was perfect in as much as I disagreed with your objection. After all, I whipped it out in 5 minutes. I still don’t necessarily agree that it applies to the uncaused. It may be a legitimate statement but I don’t agree its necessarily applicable to this case. We still have the issues to deal with which is why I prefer explanation far more than arguments. You have to deal with each premise anyway which requires explanation. Arguments don’t mean much on their own.
That’s the problem with it. Proving the new premise.
So how do we determine what X is?
We know that if we eliminate all ‘pollution’ from our perception, preconceived notions and beliefs we have, what do know still exists? In other words, what can we know exists, sans all bullshit?
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]
It is, so how do we determine something that exists is caused or uncaused?
[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?
[/quote]
It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.
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]
So is this statement true or false?
“An elementary particle cannot be caused by itself”
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]
It is, so how do we determine something that exists is caused or uncaused?[/quote]
Well, now we’re getting to the fun part about all of this
[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?
[/quote]
It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.
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.[/quote]
Same question I asked SMH, what can we know exists? Eliminating beliefs, preconceived notions and perception since all of them are possibly errored. What do we know exists without error, without doubt?
[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?
[/quote]
It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.
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]
So is this statement true or false?
“An elementary particle cannot be caused by itself”[/quote]
That is true. It’s a finite and as Kamui puts it, non-essential thing that could not exist if our perception and understanding is incorrect.
[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?
[/quote]
It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.
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.[/quote]
More importantly “caused” is the conclusion. So before you even get to the conclusion you need to know the conclusion to answer steps 2 and 3.
It wasn’t that I thought the argument was perfect in as much as I disagreed with your objection.[/quote]
This isn’t a question of perfection or agreement. It is much simpler and much less vague than you keep making it out to be. You offered an argument, I showed that it was invalid, you resisted for a dozen pages, many more people came in and told you I was correct, and now it seems that you’ve accepted (not that your acceptance changes anything: It’s been invalid since you typed the words out, conclusively so) that your argument was invalid, and I was correct, and you were not. If this seems petty, well I invested a lot of time and thought in that debate, so I allow myself it.
Now, I don’t know what you want X to be. It’s your argument. I honestly don’t have the first clue as to how you would specify X, prove the new premise, and come out with a sound argument. I will tell you, in fairness, that I don’t in any way think it can be done, and I will not consider it cheap if you let the thing go. This is not arrogance: I am literally telling you I don’t think it’s possible.
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]
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]
In fairness, that wasn’t argued until today.[/quote]
No. “To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first” is a pithy restatement of what I have been arguing since the first time you posted your formulation. It is simply a quick and elegant way of saying that your argument is invalid because its conclusion is not entailed by its premises. This is literally exactly what I’ve been saying since the first shot rang out.
It wasn’t that I thought the argument was perfect in as much as I disagreed with your objection.[/quote]
This isn’t a question of perfection or agreement. It is much simpler and much less vague than you keep making it out to be. You offered an argument, I showed that it was invalid, you resisted for a dozen pages, many more people came in and told you I was correct, and now it seems that you’ve accepted (not that your acceptance changes anything: It’s been invalid since you typed the words out, conclusively so) that your argument was invalid, and I was correct, and you were not. If this seems petty, well I invested a lot of time and thought in that debate, so I allow myself it.
Now, I don’t know what you want X to be. It’s your argument. I honestly don’t have the first clue as to how you would specify X, prove the new premise, and come out with a sound argument. I will tell you, in fairness, that I don’t in any way think it can be done, and I will not consider it cheap if you let the thing go. This is not arrogance: I am literally telling you I don’t think it’s possible.[/quote]
I still disagree with that objection for the same reasons, but happy to let it go in order to move forward.
I want you to participate in it. Formulate something cohesive argument for the pursuit of pure knowledge. It’s not what I want it to be, but what must it be. What can we know to exist?
Let’s figure that out.
[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?
[/quote]
It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.
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]
So is this statement true or false?
“An elementary particle cannot be caused by itself”[/quote]
That is true. It’s a finite and as Kamui puts it, non-essential thing that could not exist if our perception and understanding is incorrect.[/quote]
Why is it true? I’m not sure where he said anything like this without there being a catch.
[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?
[/quote]
It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.
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.[/quote]
More importantly “caused” is the conclusion. So before you even get to the conclusion you need to know the conclusion to answer steps 2 and 3. [/quote]
We need to know more about X. 2 & 3 will be true despite the circumstances. If we are to eliminate uncausedness in the first premise we need to know more about what X is.
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]
In fairness, that wasn’t argued until today.[/quote]
No. “To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first” is a pithy restatement of what I have been arguing since the first time you posted your formulation. It is simply a quick and elegant way of saying that your argument is invalid because its conclusion is not entailed by its premises. This is literally exactly what I’ve been saying since the first shot rang out.[/quote]
You never objected by saying premise one deals with existence and not causation. There’s nothing I can do about that one.
many errors and misunderstandings in this thread comes from the fact that the proposed arguments and counter-arguments happily mix predicate logic and propositional logic.
It doesn’t work very well.
in predicate logic, there is no X, and no variables.
In propositional logic, there is no “discussed thing” or “property”.
[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?
[/quote]
It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.
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.[/quote]
More importantly “caused” is the conclusion. So before you even get to the conclusion you need to know the conclusion to answer steps 2 and 3. [/quote]
We need to know more about X. 2 & 3 will be true despite the circumstances. If we are to eliminate uncausedness in the first premise we need to know more about what X is.[/quote]
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]
In fairness, that wasn’t argued until today.[/quote]
No. “To affirm causation, you have to infirm uncausedness first” is a pithy restatement of what I have been arguing since the first time you posted your formulation. It is simply a quick and elegant way of saying that your argument is invalid because its conclusion is not entailed by its premises. This is literally exactly what I’ve been saying since the first shot rang out.[/quote]
You never objected by saying premise one deals with existence and not causation. There’s nothing I can do about that one.[/quote]
Both he and I did. However, it was in language that resulted in miscommunication about definitions. This is the first day it has been put down succinctly.
[quote]
We need to know more about X. 2 & 3 will be true despite the circumstances. If we are to eliminate uncausedness in the first premise we need to know more about what X is.[/quote]
3 will be true despite the circumstances, since it’s tautological.
2 is a bit more tricky.
Spinoza dedicated a whole book to demonstrate that there is actually only one existing, self-caused thing (the Substance, aka Nature, aka God), everything else being “affections” of this thing.
It wasn’t that I thought the argument was perfect in as much as I disagreed with your objection.[/quote]
This isn’t a question of perfection or agreement. It is much simpler and much less vague than you keep making it out to be. You offered an argument, I showed that it was invalid, you resisted for a dozen pages, many more people came in and told you I was correct, and now it seems that you’ve accepted (not that your acceptance changes anything: It’s been invalid since you typed the words out, conclusively so) that your argument was invalid, and I was correct, and you were not. If this seems petty, well I invested a lot of time and thought in that debate, so I allow myself it.
Now, I don’t know what you want X to be. It’s your argument. I honestly don’t have the first clue as to how you would specify X, prove the new premise, and come out with a sound argument. I will tell you, in fairness, that I don’t in any way think it can be done, and I will not consider it cheap if you let the thing go. This is not arrogance: I am literally telling you I don’t think it’s possible.[/quote]
I still disagree with that objection for the same reasons, but happy to let it go in order to move forward.
I want you to participate in it. Formulate something cohesive argument for the pursuit of pure knowledge. It’s not what I want it to be, but what must it be. What can we know to exist?
Let’s figure that out.[/quote]
I don’t think you can come up with anything of much significance. If taking the approach you have, all you come up with is “something exists” because you perceive it. However almost anything you may say you know about this something–categories, properties, quantification, etc–will depend on a possibly flawed method of perception.
