Proof of God, Continued

[Dr_Matt581]

[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]

The problem is not with you commending posters for their patience, but with calling Pat a troll which was indeed uncalled for. If he was a troll, we all would have simply ignored him like we with conservativedog or pittbull when they tried to join in rather than engage him in a debate. He is very invested in this argument and with insisting that it is a proof when it is not, but rather an argument but that does not make him a troll.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I do think it must be in premise 1 and not an additional premise as it set’s the tone for the other premises.
Okay, well it’s because something in this case is conditional. We have to be able to perceive it. This something requires that we be able to perceive it which is a condition in itself which is causal, which is sufficient to meet the criteria of causation. And it also meets the criteria for PSR.
I guess the question now is that is it sufficient to call it ‘something’. Or should it because ‘something we know to exist’.
It has to exist, it has to be able to be perceived, which makes it necessary that one of it’s properties is that it be perceivable, which is a condition imposed, which is causal.
So I guess we can reformulate the argument in two ways

1.Something exists that is not uncaused
2.Something cannot cause itself.
3.Something cannot be caused by nothing
4.therefore something is caused.

Or,
1.Something we can know to exist, is not uncaused.
2.Something cannot cause itself.
3.Something cannot be caused by nothing
4.therefore something is caused.

Poke away, because I would like to make sure it’s sound.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[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]

The problem is not with you commending posters for their patience, but with calling Pat a troll which was indeed uncalled for. If he was a troll, we all would have simply ignored him like we with conservativedog or pittbull when they tried to join in rather than engage him in a debate. He is very invested in this argument and with insisting that it is a proof when it is not, but rather an argument but that does not make him a troll. [/quote]

Hey Dr. Matt! How are you?
I hope you stick around. There are questions about singularities and such. It would be great if you could keep us on track making sure we don’t massacre the science.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Just a quick observation :

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”.

And obviously, you can’t have it both ways. [/quote]

Agreed. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like making arguments, I prefer to defend existing ones. But I was asked to make one, I made several but only one was the focal point.

I put forth one based on PSR:

1. Something exists.
2. It has no condition that prevents it from ascertaining it’s cause.
3. Since it’s cause can potentially be determined, it cannot be uncaused.
4. Therefore something is caused.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[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.

• 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.

• Can that statement ever be false? If so what is an example

“___ 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?

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]

It’s true because it’s logically impossible for it to have caused itself. That’s circular reasoning. Logic is that master, all the rest are it’s subjects.
If you say the elementary particle caused itself, you make this proposition. An elementary particle exists, because it exists.
Nothing that exists has the demonstrative property of making itself exist.

As far as it being non-essential. It doesn’t have to exist, it could be a dubious trick of the mind.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

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.

Which is an observation I like very much.

[sufiandy]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

This is what I was getting at earlier. Everything that makes up the universe was at some point caused, or itself was uncaused. Then it changed form until you see the end result today. This does not involve some infinite or really long causal chain in either direction.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

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

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

lol!
Something whose truth cannot be denied necessarily. But I think you already knew that.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[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.

• 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.

• Can that statement ever be false? If so what is an example

“___ 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?

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]

It’s true because it’s logically impossible for it to have caused itself. That’s circular reasoning. Logic is that master, all the rest are it’s subjects.
If you say the elementary particle caused itself, you make this proposition. An elementary particle exists, because it exists.
Nothing that exists has the demonstrative property of making itself exist.

As far as it being non-essential. It doesn’t have to exist, it could be a dubious trick of the mind. [/quote]

So to answer that question you need to know if its uncaused, why is it uncaused?

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

This is what I was getting at earlier. Everything that makes up the universe was at some point caused, or itself was uncaused. Then it changed form until you see the end result today. This does not involve some infinite or really long causal chain in either direction.
[/quote]
Agreed, so what are you getting at?

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[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]

The problem is not with you commending posters for their patience, but with calling Pat a troll which was indeed uncalled for. If he was a troll, we all would have simply ignored him like we with conservativedog or pittbull when they tried to join in rather than engage him in a debate. He is very invested in this argument and with insisting that it is a proof when it is not, but rather an argument but that does not make him a troll. [/quote]

I was defending a specific notion. But now I am interested in making the argument more sound.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

This is what I was getting at earlier. Everything that makes up the universe was at some point caused, or itself was uncaused. Then it changed form until you see the end result today. This does not involve some infinite or really long causal chain in either direction.
[/quote]
Agreed, so what are you getting at?[/quote]

No infinite causal chain, that seemed to be a problem a few pages back…

[kamui]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

If the initial singularity is a state of being, in a world made of states of beings, then it’s definetely gone.

If the initial singularity is an event, in a world made of facts, then it’s gone.

If the initial singularity is a thing, in a world made of things, it may still be “there”, but it has changed.

If the initial singularity is a whole, in a world made of parts, it is still there, and it may not even have changed. But on the other hand, it is not really initial, after all.

Etc…

At this point, we can say many things, but most of them will make no sense until we clarify the fundamentals of ontology.

[kamui]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

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

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[/quote]

is indeed invalid.

And if it were true, it would actually defeat Pat’s purpose.

If X was really an X, as in “any thing”, it would include things like “God” or “2+2=4”.
In God’s case, the conclusion (therefore God is caused) would be the opposite of the propositon of the cosmological argument.

Pat’s answer is that God being uncaused by defintion, you can’t “discuss” it’s cause, and it should somehow be excluded of X.
And I have to disagree :

The only way to solve this is to propose a more accurate X, from the beginning.

That’s why i reformulated the argument like this :

1. A contingent X exists
2. A contingent X can’t have caused itself
3. A contingent X can’t have been caused by nothing
4. A contingent X can’t be uncaused
5. Therefore, a contingent X is caused by something else.

this is the first step of the cosmological argument.
Then you refute the possibility of infinite regress and causal loop, and you affirm the existence of at least one non-contingent being.

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

The problem is proving a contingent x exists as a premise.[/quote]

Which is harder than it looks.
That’s why i concluded my first post in this thread (page 8) by “…if a contingent thing exists”.

Strategically, the easiest way to do that should be to use reductio ad absurdum.
“Let’s say no contingent thing exist, at all, what would change ?”

The problem is that the answer may very well be … nothing.

[Sloth]

Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?

[kamui]

Another thing, about the singularity.
Being the first cause of the chain doesn’t make it the cause of the whole chain.
Actually, the initial singularity doesn’t have any “causal privilege” here.

The uncaused cause of all existence may be a final cause.
A goal.

For all we know, every event since the initial singularity could be a huge cosmic conspiracy to make Justin Bieber exist.

[Sloth]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Strategically, the easiest way to do that should be to use reductio ad absurdum.
“Let’s say no contingent thing exist, at all, what would change ?”

The problem is that the answer may very well be … nothing.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t you expect chaos?

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[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]

The problem is not with you commending posters for their patience, but with calling Pat a troll which was indeed uncalled for. If he was a troll, we all would have simply ignored him like we with conservativedog or pittbull when they tried to join in rather than engage him in a debate. He is very invested in this argument and with insisting that it is a proof when it is not, but rather an argument but that does not make him a troll. [/quote]

Hey Dr. Matt! How are you?
I hope you stick around. There are questions about singularities and such. It would be great if you could keep us on track making sure we don’t massacre the science.[/quote]

I am well, just concentrating most of my time on mastering the Norwegian language (I really should start saying norsk, but it is a habit). I have been following the thread, though and there are some things that I will be commenting on within the next few days or so probably. Particularly, there was a comment not long ago about the differences between propositional and predicate logic and another one about the Plank scale that absolutely need to be addressed but I need to first find time to formulate a proper post and decide on how much into detail on each that I want to go.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?[/quote]

The short answer is yes it is possible, and there are several theories about the conditions of the singularity that posit this and give some evidence of this but it is not a set in stone yes.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[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]

The problem is not with you commending posters for their patience, but with calling Pat a troll which was indeed uncalled for. If he was a troll, we all would have simply ignored him like we with conservativedog or pittbull when they tried to join in rather than engage him in a debate. He is very invested in this argument and with insisting that it is a proof when it is not, but rather an argument but that does not make him a troll. [/quote]

I was defending a specific notion. But now I am interested in making the argument more sound. [/quote]

I really don’t think that the cosmological argument can be made much more sound than it already is. It is a very strong argument, but it does fall short of being a proof.