Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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]

Why would I go further, if you won’t accept what has already been proved? There is nothing for you to disagree with. You can disagree with me when I say that ass > tits, or that cocaine is the most whimsical narcotic, or that gay people are better at blackjack than straight people, or that mars is made of marshmallows. By contrast, there is nothing in the present case with which you can disagree. I showed, meticulously, that each proposition was in fact a proposition, and true. This is not a matter about which controversy exists. I showed, meticulously, that these, in sum, rendered your argument invalid. Again, this is not a matter about which controversy exists.

It is not a matter of opinion–and you are not permitted to deny–that an argument whose premises can be true and its conclusion false is an invalid argument.

In other words, why would I go on, if you were capable of doing what you did here–of losing, soundly, spectacularly, and then dodging for a week, and, in the end of it all, simply refusing to accept what is? Of ignoring the arguments of everyone else?

In still other words, I have no reason to believe, going forward, that when I make a point and prove it, that point will be accepted by you.

542

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

I said, plainly, that you couldn’t prove that something is caused without disproving that it is uncaused. This is exactly what Kamui’s proposition says–that the argument is invalid because it fails to exclude a possibility–and it’s been beaten to death for days and days. The objection was raised literally more than a week ago–the exactly same objection.

543

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
Would you weigh in on this?[/quote]

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

I tried to tell them all this. Lord knows I tried!

544

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]What can we know to exist?
Let’s figure that out.[/quote]

Define “know”.
Tiribulus wins. In abstentia. [/quote]

Meh. If we’re going say that too is an assumption, than what argument could be made!

If “know” and “existence” are just assumptions, that is. You’re unspoken premises are always assumed, before you list your explicit premises. Madness!

545

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]What can we know to exist?
Let’s figure that out.[/quote]

Define “know”.
Tiribulus wins. In abstentia. [/quote]

Meh. If we’re going say that too is an assumption, than what argument could be made!

If “know” and “existence” are just assumptions, that is. You’re unspoken premises are always assumed, before you list your explicit premises. Madness!
[/quote]

Definitions are not assumptions. They are conventions.
Many arguments could be made if people agreed to agree. For a change.

546

Let’s take the argument you proposed a long time ago, Kamui.

I objected that that thing you defined as uncaused could be the initial singularity. You objected that that is “physical” and thus cannot be the uncaused thing.

My questions are, what does it mean to be physical, and why does the initial singularity necessarily satisfy this definition? And, why can that which is physical not be the uncaused conclusion of the argument?

547

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Let’s take the argument you proposed a long time ago, Kamui.

I objected that that thing you defined as uncaused could be the initial singularity. You objected that that is “physical” and thus cannot be the uncaused thing.

My questions are, what does it mean to be physical, and why does the initial singularity necessarily satisfy this definition? And, why can that which is physical not be the uncaused conclusion of the argument?[/quote]

Forget about its physicality.The application of the notions of matter, space and time become a bit tricky at scale smaller than Planck length and “before” Planck time.

But there is no need to wander there :
we have determined that every contingent thing is caused by something else.
So we can affirm that the uncaused cause is non-contingent.

In other words, our uncaused cause necessarily exists, in the same way 2+2=4 is necessarily true.

The singularity doesn’t exist anymore, so it fails to satisfy this criterium.

Even if the singularity is the “first thing” or the “first move”, chronologically, it doesn’t mean it is the uncaused cause.

The uncaused cause is a metaphysical entity, by definition.

The theists are right when they affirm that the uncaused cause has a few “godlike” characteristics, like eternal existence and (some kind of) omnipotence.

They are wrong the second after, when they start singing “transcendance, omniscience and omnibenevolence”.

548

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Let’s take the argument you proposed a long time ago, Kamui.

I objected that that thing you defined as uncaused could be the initial singularity. You objected that that is “physical” and thus cannot be the uncaused thing.

My questions are, what does it mean to be physical, and why does the initial singularity necessarily satisfy this definition? And, why can that which is physical not be the uncaused conclusion of the argument?[/quote]

Forget about its physicality.The application of the notions of matter, space and time become a bit tricky at scale smaller than Planck length and “before” Planck time.

But there is no need to wander there :
we have determined that every contingent thing is caused by something else.
So we can affirm that the uncaused cause is non-contingent.

In other words, our uncaused cause necessarily exists, in the same way 2+2=4 is necessarily true.

The singularity doesn’t exist anymore, so it fails to satisfy this criterium.

[/quote]

If the initial singularity is “the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe,” it doesn’t seem to me like it doesn’t exist anymore. It’s changed–into the horsehead, into the solar system, into you and me. But it isn’t gone.

Edit: In other words, if the singularity is just a state of the universe, then it cannot be said with certainty that the universe does not necessarily exist.

549

That brings up, in my mind, the problems of intracontingency and change. 2 + 2 = 4 cannot change. But does it follow that everything uncontingent must be purely unvarying?

If we allow that it is logically possible that the God of Genesis, uncontingent and uncaused, created the heavens and the Earth, then we must allow that the uncontingent can change, because to create is to act and to act is to initiate or undergo a specific, temporary change. A soccer ball cannot be kicked without a set of very specific, temporary changes within its kicker.

550

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[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]

Sorry I guess I should have been clearer, I meant the don’t feed the trolls part. Thought that seemed obvious.

551

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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]

Why would I go further, if you won’t accept what has already been proved? There is nothing for you to disagree with. You can disagree with me when I say that ass > tits, or that cocaine is the most whimsical narcotic, or that gay people are better at blackjack than straight people, or that mars is made of marshmallows. By contrast, there is nothing in the present case with which you can disagree. I showed, meticulously, that each proposition was in fact a proposition, and true. This is not a matter about which controversy exists. I showed, meticulously, that these, in sum, rendered your argument invalid. Again, this is not a matter about which controversy exists.

It is not a matter of opinion–and you are not permitted to deny–that an argument whose premises can be true and its conclusion false is an invalid argument.

In other words, why would I go on, if you were capable of doing what you did here–of losing, soundly, spectacularly, and then dodging for a week, and, in the end of it all, simply refusing to accept what is? Of ignoring the arguments of everyone else?

In still other words, I have no reason to believe, going forward, that when I make a point and prove it, that point will be accepted by you.[/quote]

You made lots of points, you just failed to make the right point. It would help if you saved all the histrionics. As you see, when presented with a fact I cannot deny, I don’t try to defend.
You may have been right about the argument, you just picked the wrong objection. I see what is wrong with it now. Screaming and shouting and calling me names wasn’t going to change my mind. I only needed the correct explanation, that’s it.
You may have known what you meant, but you didn’t explain it well. Those objections, focusing on 2 and 3 I still disagree with.

Sometimes it takes ten pages. These arguments always get heated. Don’t be all put out now. I offer the olive branch of peace. I was wrong and I apologize.

552

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

I said, plainly, that you couldn’t prove that something is caused without disproving that it is uncaused. This is exactly what Kamui’s proposition says–that the argument is invalid because it fails to exclude a possibility–and it’s been beaten to death for days and days. The objection was raised literally more than a week ago–the exactly same objection.[/quote]

No matter, the fix is simple. Kamui pointed out where the problem was. It was in premise 1, not 2 or 3. I can still argue that you cannot discuss the causal properties of that which is not caused.

If premise 1 is ‘something exists that is not uncaused’. Then it satisfies the objection.
The proof is that when you drill down on what you can only know. That what is left is some bit of information whose existence is contingent. It may only be contingent on being perceived, but is contingent none the less.
It should fix the whole problem.

553

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

The problem is proving a contingent x exists as a premise.

554

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Let’s take the argument you proposed a long time ago, Kamui.

I objected that that thing you defined as uncaused could be the initial singularity. You objected that that is “physical” and thus cannot be the uncaused thing.

My questions are, what does it mean to be physical, and why does the initial singularity necessarily satisfy this definition? And, why can that which is physical not be the uncaused conclusion of the argument?[/quote]

Forget about its physicality.The application of the notions of matter, space and time become a bit tricky at scale smaller than Planck length and “before” Planck time.

But there is no need to wander there :
we have determined that every contingent thing is caused by something else.
So we can affirm that the uncaused cause is non-contingent.

In other words, our uncaused cause necessarily exists, in the same way 2+2=4 is necessarily true.

The singularity doesn’t exist anymore, so it fails to satisfy this criterium.

Even if the singularity is the “first thing” or the “first move”, chronologically, it doesn’t mean it is the uncaused cause.

The uncaused cause is a metaphysical entity, by definition.

The theists are right when they affirm that the uncaused cause has a few “godlike” characteristics, like eternal existence and (some kind of) omnipotence.

They are wrong the second after, when they start singing “transcendance, omniscience and omnibenevolence”.
[/quote]

Omniscience and omnibenevolence, yes. Transcendence, no. I think that is a necessary condition for an Uncaused-cause to be what it is. And the reason for that is the second part, the causing part. It’s one thing to exist uncaused, it’s another to cause without any kind of compulsion.

Since it is uncaused and necessary and metaphysical, it transcends space and time at least. And should be able to transcend anything else it caused.

555

[quote]pat wrote:

You made lots of points, you just failed to make the right point. It would help if you saved all the histrionics. As you see, when presented with a fact I cannot deny, I don’t try to defend.
You may have been right about the argument, you just picked the wrong objection.[/quote]

That is complete and utter bullshit and I’m absolutely sure you’re aware of this. You lost this debate because your argument was invalid and your argument was invalid because its conclusion was not necessarily entailed by its premises and we knew this because there was a case wherein its premises were true and its conclusion was false. When Kamui said that you must infirm uncausality before you confirm causality, he was saying exactly this: That your three premises eliminated two possibilities and did not address one, so your conclusion could not stand as a necessary consequence thereof.

I wrote this to you on January 28th, more than two weeks ago:

[quote]
Your argument concludes that X is caused without having ruled out that X is uncaused.[/quote]

This expresses literally exactly the same sentiment as, you must infirm uncausality before you confirm causality.

I told you many, many, many times that in order for your argument to be valid you would have to address and deny that the extant X was uncaused.

So what this, right here, your post, is called is sore losing. If you want to talk about histrionics, well consider that we were both exchanging expressions of certainty and digs at the other’s ability. It’s just that yours turned out to be silly and empty, because you were wrong.

556

[quote]pat wrote:

No matter, the fix is simple. Kamui pointed out where the problem was. It was in premise 1, not 2 or 3. I can still argue that you cannot discuss the causal properties of that which is not caused.

If premise 1 is ‘something exists that is not uncaused’. Then it satisfies the objection.
The proof is that when you drill down on what you can only know. That what is left is some bit of information whose existence is contingent. It may only be contingent on being perceived, but is contingent none the less.
It should fix the whole problem.[/quote]

Jesus, you really don’t get this.

The problem wasn’t in premise 1 specifically. It was that uncausality was missing. It doesn’t matter whether you put uncausality in premise one or as a separate premise. That isn’t the point, at all. The point is that uncausality was missing. I told you this weeks ago. That’s literally there there is–you fought like hell, and have now arrived at what I told you 15 pages ago.

And no, it doesn’t fix the whole problem, because you have to prove why it must be uncaused.

557

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You made lots of points, you just failed to make the right point. It would help if you saved all the histrionics. As you see, when presented with a fact I cannot deny, I don’t try to defend.
You may have been right about the argument, you just picked the wrong objection.[/quote]

That is complete and utter bullshit and I’m absolutely sure you’re aware of this. You lost this debate because your argument was invalid and your argument was invalid because its conclusion was not necessarily entailed by its premises and we knew this because there was a case wherein its premises were true and its conclusion was false. When Kamui said that you must infirm uncausality before you confirm causality, he was saying exactly this: That your three premises eliminated two possibilities and did not address one, so your conclusion could not stand as a necessary consequence thereof.

I wrote this to you on January 28th, more than two weeks ago:

[quote]
Your argument concludes that X is caused without having ruled out that X is uncaused.[/quote]

This expresses literally exactly the same sentiment as, you must infirm uncausality before you confirm causality.

I told you many, many, many times that in order for your argument to be valid you would have to address and deny that the extant X was uncaused.

So what this, right here, your post, is called is sore losing. If you want to talk about histrionics, well consider that we were both exchanging expressions of certainty and digs at the other’s ability. It’s just that yours turned out to be silly and empty, because you were wrong.[/quote]

Truce! I apologize. I was wrong and I am sorry.

558

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No matter, the fix is simple. Kamui pointed out where the problem was. It was in premise 1, not 2 or 3. I can still argue that you cannot discuss the causal properties of that which is not caused.

If premise 1 is ‘something exists that is not uncaused’. Then it satisfies the objection.
The proof is that when you drill down on what you can only know. That what is left is some bit of information whose existence is contingent. It may only be contingent on being perceived, but is contingent none the less.
It should fix the whole problem.[/quote]

Jesus, you really don’t get this.

The problem wasn’t in premise 1 specifically. It was that uncausality was missing. It doesn’t matter whether you put uncausality in premise one or as a separate premise. That isn’t the point, at all. The point is that uncausality was missing. I told you this weeks ago. That’s literally there there is–you fought like hell, and have now arrived at what I told you 15 pages ago.

And no, it doesn’t fix the whole problem, because you have to prove why it must be uncaused.[/quote]

You mean why it must be caused? Right?

559

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You made lots of points, you just failed to make the right point. It would help if you saved all the histrionics. As you see, when presented with a fact I cannot deny, I don’t try to defend.
You may have been right about the argument, you just picked the wrong objection.[/quote]

That is complete and utter bullshit and I’m absolutely sure you’re aware of this. You lost this debate because your argument was invalid and your argument was invalid because its conclusion was not necessarily entailed by its premises and we knew this because there was a case wherein its premises were true and its conclusion was false. When Kamui said that you must infirm uncausality before you confirm causality, he was saying exactly this: That your three premises eliminated two possibilities and did not address one, so your conclusion could not stand as a necessary consequence thereof.

I wrote this to you on January 28th, more than two weeks ago:

[quote]
Your argument concludes that X is caused without having ruled out that X is uncaused.[/quote]

This expresses literally exactly the same sentiment as, you must infirm uncausality before you confirm causality.

I told you many, many, many times that in order for your argument to be valid you would have to address and deny that the extant X was uncaused.

So what this, right here, your post, is called is sore losing. If you want to talk about histrionics, well consider that we were both exchanging expressions of certainty and digs at the other’s ability. It’s just that yours turned out to be silly and empty, because you were wrong.[/quote]

Truce! I apologize. I was wrong and I am sorry.[/quote]

I apologize too. Especially for the harsher tone. Truce is accepted and takes effect immediately.

I did mean, by the way, everything about enjoying this. It doesn’t get much more fun than debating these kinds of things. It’s just that the stakes become high.

560

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No matter, the fix is simple. Kamui pointed out where the problem was. It was in premise 1, not 2 or 3. I can still argue that you cannot discuss the causal properties of that which is not caused.

If premise 1 is ‘something exists that is not uncaused’. Then it satisfies the objection.
The proof is that when you drill down on what you can only know. That what is left is some bit of information whose existence is contingent. It may only be contingent on being perceived, but is contingent none the less.
It should fix the whole problem.[/quote]

Jesus, you really don’t get this.

The problem wasn’t in premise 1 specifically. It was that uncausality was missing. It doesn’t matter whether you put uncausality in premise one or as a separate premise. That isn’t the point, at all. The point is that uncausality was missing. I told you this weeks ago. That’s literally there there is–you fought like hell, and have now arrived at what I told you 15 pages ago.

And no, it doesn’t fix the whole problem, because you have to prove why it must be uncaused.[/quote]

You mean why it must be caused? Right?
[/quote]

Yeah sorry. Why it must not be uncaused is what I meant to type, or why it must be caused.