Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pat wrote:
So:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
  3. That existence cannot not come from nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is contingent.

Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[/quote]

Everything prior to this was unnecessary–I never disputed cogito or Cartesian solipsism. Also–you kept saying that my proposition was correct? It was exactly antithetical to this, and to everything you believe. It stated that “what is, does not need a cause.” Please read it again.

Now, I am going to take this argument apart, but first you absolutely need to make it internally consistent. I keep trying to explain to you that identical terms need to be used when they have identical significations. Premises [2] and [3] are obviously a bifurcated set intended to eliminate two possibilities–believed by you to be the only two, I add–vis-a-vis the precisely same notion. You keep saying “be a factor of”–this is an imprecise phraseology which means exactly nothing to me. Please make the argument consistent. In other words, where you mean “cause,” say “cause,” and where you mean “contingent,” say “contingent.” The ultimate result will look like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot [have caused/be contingent upon] itself.
  3. That something cannot [have been caused by/be contingent upon] nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is [contingent/caused].

So, choose whichever you prefer and I will proceed.

62

Also, premise 3 has a very important typo, I believe.

Edit: And let’s keep our posts to their bare essentials, like these last few.

63

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
  3. That existence cannot not come from nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is contingent.

Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[/quote]

Everything prior to this was unnecessary–I never disputed cogito or Cartesian solipsism. Also–you kept saying that my proposition was correct? It was exactly antithetical to this, and to everything you believe. It stated that “what is, does not need a cause.” Please read it again.

Now, I am going to take this argument apart, but first you absolutely need to make it internally consistent. I keep trying to explain to you that identical terms need to be used when they have identical significations. Premises [2] and [3] are obviously a bifurcated set intended to eliminate two possibilities–believed by you to be the only two, I add–vis-a-vis the precisely same notion. You keep saying “be a factor of”–this is an imprecise phraseology which means exactly nothing to me. Please make the argument consistent. In other words, where you mean “cause,” say “cause,” and where you mean “contingent,” say “contingent.” The ultimate result will look like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot [have caused/be contingent upon] itself.
  3. That something cannot [have been caused by/be contingent upon] nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is [contingent/caused].

So, choose whichever you prefer and I will proceed.[/quote]

Okay, so now you do not dispute that something exists and that, that is not an assumption? Am I correct there?

To be ‘caused’ or ‘contingent’ are synonymous in this case. Both are causal, as is the word ‘factor’. If I say water and sunlight are factors in a plant’s growth, it means that they are causal in a fragmented sense. Sunlight and water are necessary for a plant to grow, but they are not wholly responsible for it. So I don’t know what your issue is with understanding that word in context.
You can use either one, I will use them interchangeably in the case of causation. So long as you understand ‘cause’ not to be constrained by space-time then it doesn’t matter. So you pick, and we can move forward. Or better yet, use both we can discuss the formulation of each.

And yes, there are only two options. Something is either caused, or it’s not. A third option would still be causal, hence it is binary.

64

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
  3. That existence cannot not come from nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is contingent.

Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[/quote]

Everything prior to this was unnecessary–I never disputed cogito or Cartesian solipsism. Also–you kept saying that my proposition was correct? It was exactly antithetical to this, and to everything you believe. It stated that “what is, does not need a cause.” Please read it again.

Now, I am going to take this argument apart, but first you absolutely need to make it internally consistent. I keep trying to explain to you that identical terms need to be used when they have identical significations. Premises [2] and [3] are obviously a bifurcated set intended to eliminate two possibilities–believed by you to be the only two, I add–vis-a-vis the precisely same notion. You keep saying “be a factor of”–this is an imprecise phraseology which means exactly nothing to me. Please make the argument consistent. In other words, where you mean “cause,” say “cause,” and where you mean “contingent,” say “contingent.” The ultimate result will look like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot [have caused/be contingent upon] itself.
  3. That something cannot [have been caused by/be contingent upon] nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is [contingent/caused].

So, choose whichever you prefer and I will proceed.[/quote]

Okay, so now you do not dispute that something exists and that, that is not an assumption? Am I correct there?

To be ‘caused’ or ‘contingent’ are synonymous in this case. Both are causal, as is the word ‘factor’. If I say water and sunlight are factors in a plant’s growth, it means that they are causal in a fragmented sense. Sunlight and water are necessary for a plant to grow, but they are not wholly responsible for it. So I don’t know what your issue is with understanding that word in context.
You can use either one, I will use them interchangeably in the case of causation. So long as you understand ‘cause’ not to be constrained by space-time then it doesn’t matter. So you pick, and we can move forward. Or better yet, use both we can discuss the formulation of each.

And yes, there are only two options. Something is either caused, or it’s not. A third option would still be causal, hence it is binary.[/quote]

A misunderstanding reared its head somewhere along the way, because I never challenged the assumption that the universe exists. I’m talking about deeper assumptions here.

OK, I will just choose one, because, again, these arguments have to be perfectly internally consistent.

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Premise [3]–why? Is it because [nothing] has no extension or property, and therefore no capacity to act, and therefore no power to cause? If yes, then a simple “yes” will do. If not, can you explain the reasoning, briefly?

*I am off the the gym now, and then some work, but I will respond before tonight, and look forward the the continuation of this line of debate.

65

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
  3. That existence cannot not come from nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is contingent.

Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[/quote]

Everything prior to this was unnecessary–I never disputed cogito or Cartesian solipsism. Also–you kept saying that my proposition was correct? It was exactly antithetical to this, and to everything you believe. It stated that “what is, does not need a cause.” Please read it again.

Now, I am going to take this argument apart, but first you absolutely need to make it internally consistent. I keep trying to explain to you that identical terms need to be used when they have identical significations. Premises [2] and [3] are obviously a bifurcated set intended to eliminate two possibilities–believed by you to be the only two, I add–vis-a-vis the precisely same notion. You keep saying “be a factor of”–this is an imprecise phraseology which means exactly nothing to me. Please make the argument consistent. In other words, where you mean “cause,” say “cause,” and where you mean “contingent,” say “contingent.” The ultimate result will look like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot [have caused/be contingent upon] itself.
  3. That something cannot [have been caused by/be contingent upon] nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is [contingent/caused].

So, choose whichever you prefer and I will proceed.[/quote]

Okay, so now you do not dispute that something exists and that, that is not an assumption? Am I correct there?

To be ‘caused’ or ‘contingent’ are synonymous in this case. Both are causal, as is the word ‘factor’. If I say water and sunlight are factors in a plant’s growth, it means that they are causal in a fragmented sense. Sunlight and water are necessary for a plant to grow, but they are not wholly responsible for it. So I don’t know what your issue is with understanding that word in context.
You can use either one, I will use them interchangeably in the case of causation. So long as you understand ‘cause’ not to be constrained by space-time then it doesn’t matter. So you pick, and we can move forward. Or better yet, use both we can discuss the formulation of each.

And yes, there are only two options. Something is either caused, or it’s not. A third option would still be causal, hence it is binary.[/quote]

A misunderstanding reared its head somewhere along the way, because I never challenged the assumption that the universe exists. I’m talking about deeper assumptions here.

OK, I will just choose one, because, again, these arguments have to be perfectly internally consistent.

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Premise [3]–why? Is it because [nothing] has no extension or property, and therefore no capacity to act, and therefore no power to cause? If yes, then a simple “yes” will do. If not, can you explain the reasoning, briefly?

*I am off the the gym now, and then some work, but I will respond before tonight, and look forward the the continuation of this line of debate.[/quote]

Yes.

The gym does not exist… :slight_smile:

66

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
  3. That existence cannot not come from nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is contingent.

Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[/quote]

Everything prior to this was unnecessary–I never disputed cogito or Cartesian solipsism. Also–you kept saying that my proposition was correct? It was exactly antithetical to this, and to everything you believe. It stated that “what is, does not need a cause.” Please read it again.

Now, I am going to take this argument apart, but first you absolutely need to make it internally consistent. I keep trying to explain to you that identical terms need to be used when they have identical significations. Premises [2] and [3] are obviously a bifurcated set intended to eliminate two possibilities–believed by you to be the only two, I add–vis-a-vis the precisely same notion. You keep saying “be a factor of”–this is an imprecise phraseology which means exactly nothing to me. Please make the argument consistent. In other words, where you mean “cause,” say “cause,” and where you mean “contingent,” say “contingent.” The ultimate result will look like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot [have caused/be contingent upon] itself.
  3. That something cannot [have been caused by/be contingent upon] nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is [contingent/caused].

So, choose whichever you prefer and I will proceed.[/quote]

Okay, so now you do not dispute that something exists and that, that is not an assumption? Am I correct there?

To be ‘caused’ or ‘contingent’ are synonymous in this case. Both are causal, as is the word ‘factor’. If I say water and sunlight are factors in a plant’s growth, it means that they are causal in a fragmented sense. Sunlight and water are necessary for a plant to grow, but they are not wholly responsible for it. So I don’t know what your issue is with understanding that word in context.
You can use either one, I will use them interchangeably in the case of causation. So long as you understand ‘cause’ not to be constrained by space-time then it doesn’t matter. So you pick, and we can move forward. Or better yet, use both we can discuss the formulation of each.

And yes, there are only two options. Something is either caused, or it’s not. A third option would still be causal, hence it is binary.[/quote]

A misunderstanding reared its head somewhere along the way, because I never challenged the assumption that the universe exists. I’m talking about deeper assumptions here.

OK, I will just choose one, because, again, these arguments have to be perfectly internally consistent.

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Premise [3]–why? Is it because [nothing] has no extension or property, and therefore no capacity to act, and therefore no power to cause? If yes, then a simple “yes” will do. If not, can you explain the reasoning, briefly?

*I am off the the gym now, and then some work, but I will respond before tonight, and look forward the the continuation of this line of debate.[/quote]

67

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
  3. That existence cannot not come from nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is contingent.

Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[/quote]

Everything prior to this was unnecessary–I never disputed cogito or Cartesian solipsism. Also–you kept saying that my proposition was correct? It was exactly antithetical to this, and to everything you believe. It stated that “what is, does not need a cause.” Please read it again.

Now, I am going to take this argument apart, but first you absolutely need to make it internally consistent. I keep trying to explain to you that identical terms need to be used when they have identical significations. Premises [2] and [3] are obviously a bifurcated set intended to eliminate two possibilities–believed by you to be the only two, I add–vis-a-vis the precisely same notion. You keep saying “be a factor of”–this is an imprecise phraseology which means exactly nothing to me. Please make the argument consistent. In other words, where you mean “cause,” say “cause,” and where you mean “contingent,” say “contingent.” The ultimate result will look like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot [have caused/be contingent upon] itself.
  3. That something cannot [have been caused by/be contingent upon] nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is [contingent/caused].

So, choose whichever you prefer and I will proceed.[/quote]

Okay, so now you do not dispute that something exists and that, that is not an assumption? Am I correct there?

To be ‘caused’ or ‘contingent’ are synonymous in this case. Both are causal, as is the word ‘factor’. If I say water and sunlight are factors in a plant’s growth, it means that they are causal in a fragmented sense. Sunlight and water are necessary for a plant to grow, but they are not wholly responsible for it. So I don’t know what your issue is with understanding that word in context.
You can use either one, I will use them interchangeably in the case of causation. So long as you understand ‘cause’ not to be constrained by space-time then it doesn’t matter. So you pick, and we can move forward. Or better yet, use both we can discuss the formulation of each.

And yes, there are only two options. Something is either caused, or it’s not. A third option would still be causal, hence it is binary.[/quote]

A misunderstanding reared its head somewhere along the way, because I never challenged the assumption that the universe exists. I’m talking about deeper assumptions here.

OK, I will just choose one, because, again, these arguments have to be perfectly internally consistent.

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Premise [3]–why? Is it because [nothing] has no extension or property, and therefore no capacity to act, and therefore no power to cause? If yes, then a simple “yes” will do. If not, can you explain the reasoning, briefly?

*I am off the the gym now, and then some work, but I will respond before tonight, and look forward the the continuation of this line of debate.[/quote]

Yes.

The gym does not exist… :)[/quote]

Haha my life would be easier if that were true and I didn’t have to go bust myself up there every day.

OK, so:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

The problem is pervasive, but Premise 3 is a good place for us to focus. I am going to change [nothing] to what you’ve said is its definition and the reason for its inclusion–[nothing, which is without extension, properties, and capacity to act]. The argument, in this form, looks like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by [nothing, which is without extension, properties, and capacity to act].
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Now, I do not argue that premise 3 is incorrect. I argue instead that it does not address the counter-proposition, which also happens to be the missing alternative that your argument has ignored. Namely, the the universe was not caused. Note that to say that the universe was not caused is not to say that it was caused by [nothing, which is without extension, properties, and capacity to act].

So, in other words, your argument has assumed the principle of causality by assuming, without foundation, that the universe needs a cause which must be identified and found. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because the premises have not exhausted every proposed possibility.

In still other words, one can easily dismiss your argument in the following manner:

  1. Yes, something exists.

  2. No, that which exists did not cause itself.

  3. No, that which exists was not caused by nothing.

  4. That which exists was not caused.

Now, if you object, you will have to show–by argument, I hope–why premise 4 here cannot be. But–and this is the key–you can’t do it by proving that [nothing] cannot have caused the universe, because it is absolutely not being averred that [nothing] caused the universe, but rather than the universe is simply without cause.

68

Just to make this is as simple as possible.

It didn’t cause itself: Check. It wasn’t caused by nothing, because nothing has no causal power: Check. So, something caused it: No check. It wasn’t caused at all.

69

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That existence cannot be a factor of itself.
  3. That existence cannot not come from nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is contingent.

Notice in this case that the first premise comes from the conclusion of the previous argument. These arguments were purposely designed to avoid assumption.
[/quote]

Everything prior to this was unnecessary–I never disputed cogito or Cartesian solipsism. Also–you kept saying that my proposition was correct? It was exactly antithetical to this, and to everything you believe. It stated that “what is, does not need a cause.” Please read it again.

Now, I am going to take this argument apart, but first you absolutely need to make it internally consistent. I keep trying to explain to you that identical terms need to be used when they have identical significations. Premises [2] and [3] are obviously a bifurcated set intended to eliminate two possibilities–believed by you to be the only two, I add–vis-a-vis the precisely same notion. You keep saying “be a factor of”–this is an imprecise phraseology which means exactly nothing to me. Please make the argument consistent. In other words, where you mean “cause,” say “cause,” and where you mean “contingent,” say “contingent.” The ultimate result will look like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot [have caused/be contingent upon] itself.
  3. That something cannot [have been caused by/be contingent upon] nothing.
  4. Therefore, that existence is [contingent/caused].

So, choose whichever you prefer and I will proceed.[/quote]

Okay, so now you do not dispute that something exists and that, that is not an assumption? Am I correct there?

To be ‘caused’ or ‘contingent’ are synonymous in this case. Both are causal, as is the word ‘factor’. If I say water and sunlight are factors in a plant’s growth, it means that they are causal in a fragmented sense. Sunlight and water are necessary for a plant to grow, but they are not wholly responsible for it. So I don’t know what your issue is with understanding that word in context.
You can use either one, I will use them interchangeably in the case of causation. So long as you understand ‘cause’ not to be constrained by space-time then it doesn’t matter. So you pick, and we can move forward. Or better yet, use both we can discuss the formulation of each.

And yes, there are only two options. Something is either caused, or it’s not. A third option would still be causal, hence it is binary.[/quote]

A misunderstanding reared its head somewhere along the way, because I never challenged the assumption that the universe exists. I’m talking about deeper assumptions here.

OK, I will just choose one, because, again, these arguments have to be perfectly internally consistent.

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Premise [3]–why? Is it because [nothing] has no extension or property, and therefore no capacity to act, and therefore no power to cause? If yes, then a simple “yes” will do. If not, can you explain the reasoning, briefly?

*I am off the the gym now, and then some work, but I will respond before tonight, and look forward the the continuation of this line of debate.[/quote]

Yes.

The gym does not exist… :)[/quote]

Haha my life would be easier if that were true and I didn’t have to go bust myself up there every day.

OK, so:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

The problem is pervasive, but Premises 3 is a good place for us to focus. I am going to change [nothing] to what you’ve said is its definition and the reason for its inclusion–[that without extension, properties, and capacity to act]. The argument, in this form, looks like this:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by [that without extension, properties, and capacity to act].
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Now, I do not argue that premise 3 is incorrect. I argue instead that it does not address the counter-proposition, which also happens to be the missing alternative that your argument has ignored. Namely, the the universe was not caused. Not that to say that the universe was not caused is not to say that it was caused by [that without extension, properties, and capacity to act].

So, in other words, your argument has assumed the principle of causality by assuming, without foundation, that the universe needs a cause which must be identified and found. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because the premises have not exhausted every proposed possibility.

In still other words, one can easily dismiss you argument in the following manner:

  1. Yes, something exists.

  2. No, that which exists did not cause itself.

  3. No, that which exists was not caused by nothing.

  4. That which exists was not caused.

Now, if you object, you will have to show–by argument, I hope–why premise 4 here cannot be. But–and this is the key–you can’t do it by proving that [nothing] cannot have caused the universe, because it is absolutely not being averred that [nothing] caused the universe, but rather than the universe is simply without cause.[/quote]

We’re not talking about the universe. The universe is not in play, it need not exist. Whether the universe exists or not doesn’t matter in this conversation. If you want to discuss the universe as a brute fact vs. caused entity we can, but it’s a different conversation. If you want to stay on task, then put the universe aside. If you want to talk about the universe instead, then we can, but that’s not the topic here. And we’ve already proven the universe is acted upon and therefore caused. The introduction of ‘the universe’ is a red herring.

The problem with your contention is that it is applying the fallacy of false alternatives. In that where you claim bifurcation, which technically is splitting a body in to two parts; we’re not doing that here. You posit that their are potentially more alternatives than just that something is caused or uncaused. There are no alternatives. Any other possible alternative would in fact be causal hence again reducing the possibilities to one of two alternatives. One alternative is that it is caused another that it is uncaused.

Now as to dismantling the premises, certainly can be done when you dismantle the ‘something’ in this argument from the Cartesian reduction that determined that ‘something’. The Cartesian reduction concluded a contingent something, not just a something. Why don’t we call it the ‘Cartesian Particular’. The definition of the ‘Cartesian Particular’ is something that exists for a reason, or something that exists that is caused.

Now for the bifurcation problem:

  1. Something that exists can have a cause.
  2. Something that exists can have no cause.
  3. Therefore something that exists is either caused or uncaused.

I put this in argument form for you. I don’t feel it necessary as stated previously arguments are beginnings not ends.
Further I object to the suffix you added in place of ‘nothing’, [that without extension, properties, and capacity to act]. Mainly the word ‘that’, that indicates something, not nothing. Nothing doesn’t exist. It doesn’t lack capacity, it does not exist. It’s not even an it. Language does no justice to how devoid nothing is because it isn’t. It is not an existence that lacks certain properties, it doesn’t exist at all.

Now without the Cartesian argument the above argument makes a little less sense, because the argument for something existing, indicates something dependent existing. So we could say something like this. It may be a bit crude, keep in mind people will work months on a 3 line argument so it’s possible it may need polishing to get right.

To support the Cartesian Particular:

  1. Something exists.
  2. It is reasonable to ask where this something came from.
  3. It is reasonable to ask why this something exists.
  4. The definition of something does not prevent it from determining it’s origin.
  5. Something exists for a reason.
  6. Therefore the existence of something is caused.

This is not to be confused with:

  1. Something exists
  2. The Uncaused-cause is something.
  3. Therefore something is uncaused.

The Uncaused-cause is something, but it’s not the same something as the Cartesian Particular, that is a different something. So we have to identify the ‘somethings’ we are talking about, because they are not just anything. ‘Something’ in the original argument is the something derived from another argument. It’s a specific something not a random something.

70

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just to make this is as simple as possible.

It didn’t cause itself: Check. It wasn’t caused by nothing, because nothing has no causal power: Check. So, something caused it: No check. It wasn’t caused at all.[/quote]

What’s the ‘it’ in this statement?

71

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just to make this is as simple as possible.

It didn’t cause itself: Check. It wasn’t caused by nothing, because nothing has no causal power: Check. So, something caused it: No check. It wasn’t caused at all.[/quote]

What’s the ‘it’ in this statement?[/quote]

“That which exists.”

I read your last post. I want to re-explain my objection, because I don’t think you fully got it. The argument you provided therein is invalid, and none of it addressed my concern directly either. Do you know exactly what I’m saying? Note also that if you dont like the phrasing of [nothing], then make it: [nothing, which is without extension, property, or power to act.]

I’m going to quickly explain again:

Your argument dealt with three alternatives: That what is, is caused by itself; that what is, is caused by something [that is not itself]; that what is, is caused by nothing. (The last clause you take literally: As in, [nothingness] actually causing something.) You do not deal with the alternative: What is, is uncaused. Thus you have assumed the causal principle without grounds, and thus the original argument is invalid.

So, I have now shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the argument you offered was entirely inadequate. Invalid, actually, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I am sure that you see this. (And I think you’re starting to see my point in this whole thread.) It needs to be changed, and this altered version needs not to assume the causal principle, and it needs to address the possibility that [i]The universe does not have a cause[/i].

So, as ever, I await a valid argument that is neither assumptive nor fallacious. You gave an argument in your last post, but I don’t think it’s worth attacking because it is very weak. If you want that to be it, though, then just let me know and I’ll go for it. Either way, we’ve come this far: If this thing can be proved, as you say, then the time has come to prove it.

72

[quote]pat wrote:

The problem with your contention is that it is applying the fallacy of false alternatives. In that where you claim bifurcation, which technically is splitting a body in to two parts; we’re not doing that here. You posit that their are potentially more alternatives than just that something is caused or uncaused.[/quote]

No. Not at all, not in the least. It is essential at this point that we be very precise. Your argument presented two possibilities–that what is, is caused by something, and that it is caused by nothing. I pointed out that you were entirely dodging the issue by ignoring the proposition–that what is, is uncaused–that you should be paying attention to, which is absolutely not the same thing as the two you chose. Within the confines of my objection, though, there are still only two alternatives: That what is is caused, and that it was not.

73

A final clarification: the concept of nothing–extensionless, formless, property-less, powerless nothing–as the physical cause of that which exists, is not the same as, and indeed not at all similar to, the concept of that which exists as uncaused.

So let’s take your argument:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Now lets set our counter-proposition up on the field of play and see how it fares. What is, is uncaused. Which can really be restated as:

[i]“What is” did not cause itself, and was not “caused by nothing,” but instead is uncaused.[/i] The proposition satisfies each of your argument’s premises and yet denies your argument’s conclusion without committing any fallacy or internal logical contradiction; therefore, your argument is invalid.

74

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just to make this is as simple as possible.

It didn’t cause itself: Check. It wasn’t caused by nothing, because nothing has no causal power: Check. So, something caused it: No check. It wasn’t caused at all.[/quote]

What’s the ‘it’ in this statement?[/quote]

“That which exists.”

I read your last post. I want to re-explain my objection, because I don’t think you fully got it. The argument you provided therein is invalid, and none of it addressed my concern directly either. Do you know exactly what I’m saying? Note also that if you dont like the phrasing of [nothing], then make it: [nothing, which is without extension, property, or power to act.]
[/quote]
First, your objections were duly noted, but as explained your objections dealt with the argument in a vacuum, that is to say that the afore mentioned ‘something’ wasn’t a random something i.e. the something that is defined in Cartesian reduction. So while you can apply your obejctions to a random ‘something’, we are not dealing with a random something. We’re dealing with the ‘something’ that was derived from the Cartesian reduction which we will from now call the Cartesian Particular, or CP for short. That arguement deals with the CP which is a contingent something.

As far as ‘nothing’ it will get no qualification as it needs none. It doesn’t exist, therefore there is nothing to qualify.

There are only 2 options, self caused, though invalid, is casual, and thus reducible to a cause. There are only 2 options, caused and uncaused.

The universe is a red herring. It is not at all applicable and has no bearing on the conversation. If you want to talk about the universe that is a different conversation with a completely different set of maxims, we’re dealing with bare bones existence. That you can determine a priori to exist. The universe is an a posteriori where we will have to deal with empirical facts, not deductive truths. Those two things are vastly different.
All you did was isolate the initial premise from which it came from and made it a random ‘something’ when I clearly denoted origionally that the ‘something’ was the ‘something’ of Cartesian reduction, or the CP.
All you served to destroy was a strawman of your own making. You basically killed your own argument. Not the one I made.

[quote]
So, as ever, I await a valid argument that is neither assumptive nor fallacious. You gave an argument in your last post, but I don’t think it’s worth attacking because it is very weak. If you want that to be it, though, then just let me know and I’ll go for it. Either way, we’ve come this far: If this thing can be proved, as you say, then the time has come to prove it.[/quote]
Well you shot down a strawman, deal with what was presented first, correctly addressing the right thing. The CP, not a random something.

75

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The problem with your contention is that it is applying the fallacy of false alternatives. In that where you claim bifurcation, which technically is splitting a body in to two parts; we’re not doing that here. You posit that their are potentially more alternatives than just that something is caused or uncaused.[/quote]

No. Not at all, not in the least. It is essential at this point that we be very precise. Your argument presented two possibilities–that what is, is caused by something, and that it is caused by nothing. I pointed out that you were entirely dodging the issue by ignoring the proposition–that what is, is uncaused–that you should be paying attention to, which is absolutely not the same thing as the two you chose. Within the confines of my objection, though, there are still only two alternatives: That what is is caused, and that it was not.[/quote]

Again the ‘something’ proposed in the argument was the something that was derived by the previous argument which was a contingent something, not a random something. It’s a particuar something thought we’re loathed to define precisely what it is.
So we will reformulate the argument. You did that in the next post.

76

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
A final clarification: the concept of nothing–extensionless, formless, property-less, powerless nothing–as the physical cause of that which exists, is not the same as, and indeed not at all similar to, the concept of that which exists as uncaused.

So let’s take your argument:

  1. Something exists.
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is caused.

Now lets set our counter-proposition up on the field of play and see how it fares. What is, is uncaused. Which can really be restated as:

[i]“What is” did not cause itself, and was not “caused by nothing,” but instead is uncaused.[/i] The proposition satisfies each of your argument’s premises and yet denies your argument’s conclusion without committing any fallacy or internal logical contradiction; therefore, your argument is invalid.[/quote]

Let’s reformulate the argument so that is dealing with the correct thing.

  1. Something contingent exists (as derived by Cartesian reduction).
  2. That something is not contignent upon itself.
  3. That something cannot be contingent on nothing.
  4. Therefore, that something is contingent.

Now if you want to deal with the random ‘something’, I put forth the following argument:

  1. Something exists.
  2. It is reasonable to ask where this something came from.
  3. It is reasonable to ask why this something exists.
  4. The definition of something does not prevent it from determining it’s origin.
  5. Something exists for a reason.
  6. Therefore the existence of something is caused.

This would be a more proper way to deal with any something and including the CP. This argument may need polishing, whipping out arguments ad hoc is not easy. I don’t think you understand that you can deal with the logic indepently.

77

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just to make this is as simple as possible.

It didn’t cause itself: Check. It wasn’t caused by nothing, because nothing has no causal power: Check. So, something caused it: No check. It wasn’t caused at all.[/quote]

So now that have clarification on what ‘it’ is let’s look at your proposition.

  1. That which exists, exists.
    2That which exist did not cause itself.
  2. That which exists was not caused and does not cause.
  3. Therefore that which exists, exists.

Hmmm… Nope that’s a circular argument. The conclusion is also a premise. It exists because it exists. It begs the questions an is therefore fallacious.

But supposing it was true, how then?

[EDIT] Nevermind. There is no how, it’s fallacious from the start.

78

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just to make this is as simple as possible.

It didn’t cause itself: Check. It wasn’t caused by nothing, because nothing has no causal power: Check. So, something caused it: No check. It wasn’t caused at all.[/quote]

So now that have clarification on what ‘it’ is let’s look at your proposition.

  1. That which exists, exists.
    2That which exist did not cause itself.
  2. That which exists was not caused and does not cause.
  3. Therefore that which exists, exists.

Hmmm… Nope that’s a circular argument. The conclusion is also a premise. It exists because it exists. It begs the questions an is therefore fallacious.

But supposing it was true, how then?

[EDIT] Nevermind. There is no how, it’s fallacious from the start.[/quote]

What? Where did literally any of this come from?

79

Why don’t we just keep this clean?

You gave me this argument:

I showed that it is entirely invalid. You have now moved on to a new one.

What, exactly, is the new argument that you are offering? It needs to be one argument–if you’re beginning with a contingent entity, then you need to include the proof of that contingent entity from the beginning. I ask because I don’t want to spend my time attacking something that you’re going to abandon.

80

[quote]pat wrote:

  1. Something exists.
  2. It is reasonable to ask where this something came from.
  3. It is reasonable to ask why this something exists.
  4. The definition of something does not prevent it from determining it’s origin.
  5. Something exists for a reason.
  6. Therefore the existence of something is caused.
    [/quote]

If you want this to be your argument, then it needs to be changed pretty drastically.

Premises 2 and 3 have no bearing on anything whatsoever and don’t belong here.

Premise 4–what does that mean? What exactly does the first “it” refer to? This clause does not signify anything to me.

Premise 5–This is a hell of a supposition. It needs to be proved.

Edit: And, most importantly, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.