What do you say about the argument I’ve just shown invalid:
You offered it literally 24 hours ago. Are you already done with it? Do you want to add to it? Scrap it? Are you just taking shots in the dark at this point and then abandoning each ship when I sink it?
Whatever you want to do to it, it will suffer the same fate as the poor sucker above, because this cannot be done. You are literally trying to do the impossible, and with each new argument’s easy decimation you prove this point a little more firmly.
Now, how could 1 ever be considered a valid proposition? Because until the last hundred years or so it was, and could be proven with a strong inductive argument using what is now referred to as naive set theory. Here is a basic sketch of how such a proof would go: let A be the set of all natural numbers ( A = {1,2,3,…}) with 1 representing any event at a certain time and each successive natural number representing the cause of the event before it (this is allowable under naive set theory using first order logic but not higher order axiomatic set theories for reasons that I will explain in a moment). This can be shown by observation to hold (at the macroscopic level we have yet to find an event that cannot be contributed to a specific cause. This does not hold true for some events on sub-atomic scales). Thus by the principle of strong induction it must hold true for every event. It was arguments like this that led to the discovery of the Burali-Forti paradox (basically, this states that since a set, Q, containing all ordinal numbers, allowable under first-order naive set theory, then it has all the properties of an ordinal number and thus Q+1 is defined and is an ordinal number but this leads to the contradiction that Q+1 must already be in Q, and thus Q<Q+1 and Q+1<Q.) This was one of the catalysts that led to the development of higher order logic systems and axiomatic set theories.
*edited for translation errors.[/quote]
It’s only a problem of space and time is it not, at least as initially stated? Not a problem of contingency. Q represents a set of ordinal numbers correct? Therefore Q is defined by the ordinal set of numbers, where if one were missing, then Q would not exist.
[/quote]
Wow, I got behind in this thread. Well, this is as good a place as any to start catching up. The Burali-Forti paradox has nothing to do with space and time, but rather the problem of unrestricted comprehension in naive set theory and first order logic (I am just going to call this classical logic from now on). Russel’s Paradox is perhaps a better example, but I like ordinal numbers because I think they are neat so I went with this example. Q is not “a set of ordinal numbers”, and it is not “representing”: it is the set of all ordinal numbers and since it is made up entirely of ordinal numbers, it takes on the properties of ordinal numbers. All this follows from the rules of classical logic. However, this is why classical logic has been replaced by higher forms of logic because since Q has all the properties of ordinal number, Q + 1 is defined and Q + 1 > Q. Unfortunately, since Q is the set of all ordinal numbers, Q + 1 must already be in Q and Q + 1 < Q.
Note: To anyone who may be confused by my use of “classical logic” and “higher logic”, classical logic refers to the logic system that prevailed until the late nineteenth century. This is the logic system you will learn in undergraduate level mathematical analysis, computer science, and philosophy courses because it is a useful stepping stone to “higher logic systems” which have been created because classical logic could not be modified to prevent the various paradoxes that were discovered within its framework without completely rewriting its rules.
Well there was no way of recounting the whole discussion but is was based on quantum randomness vs. true philosophical randomness. Where the quantum randomness I argued was a problem of space-time and localities. I.E. particles popping in and out of existence in a spatial vacuum, the EPR effect, wave-particle theory with respect to the double-slit experiment and the seeming randomness in which a photon will choose a slit, etc. The argument was basically quantum randomness was quantum events happening for no reason, vs. them happening for a reason irregardless of the fact that the appearance of events in the temporal spatial plane being weird.
[/quote]
Okay, I get it. First, yes particles can appear seemingly seemingly at random in a vacuum, but this is not an actual random event since we actually can determine the conditions that caused the particles to appear and disappear, and these events do result in or from a (relatively) large energy transfer so there is no conflict with this and classical causality.
Now, lets talk about a much simpler example than any of these. Let us consider basic kinematics. An object moves when acted on by a non-zero net external force. Now, let us think about the position of an object that moves from position A to position B. Classically, we can find the position by figuring out what forces are acting on it and using Newton’s second law, the net force acting on an object is the time derivative of momentum. Here, we know exactly what caused the motion and where the object will be at any point in time as long as we know the forces. With forces A, B, and C acting on object Y, it will move to position X.
Now, let us look at the same system but on a quantum level. The position of the particle is now found by solving Schroedinger’s Equation. The problem is that on the quantum level things aren’t as clear cut. If forces A, B, and C are applied to object X, it could winds up at position Y. Now, if we repeat the same operation on the same object under the same initial conditions, it may end up at position K. The point is that we can figure out what caused motion and what stopped motion, but not why the particle stopped here and not there.
[quote]
Which does lead me to a question though. In your studies, have you run into a ‘barrier’ for lack of a better word, in ‘smallness’ where past that point space-time essentially no longer has meaning? It certainly seems that quantum particles have no regard for space-time where particle many light years away can affect other particle many light years away. [/quote]
The short answer: yes. I have encountered both spatial and temporal entanglement phenomena on particles up to the size of an electron, and there have been experiments claiming to have produced entanglement effects in diamonds.
It is reasonable to ask where this something came from.
It is reasonable to ask why this something exists.
The definition of something does not prevent it from determining it’s origin.
Something exists for a reason.
Therefore the existence of something is caused.
[/quote]
Okay, let’s break this series of claims down. 2, 3, 4, and 5 have no bearing on this discussion and certainly do not serve to prove 1 and/or 6, they actually need proving themselves so that just leaves 1 and 6, so we have:
Something exists
Therefore the existence of something is caused
We also have the whole reason for this discussion: your claim that God exists and is uncaused. Do you see the problem here? You are violating your own premise without even proving your claim that an uncaused cause must exist. The best you have done is write some really long posts about arbitrary properties that you attribute to God to fit your conclusions without proving that God has them, or even his existence, or which God it is.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Well, rethinking it the argument as stands is perfectly fine. You criticisms are invalid because you don’t show how they are false. You just call them assumptions, but that is not the case.
If something exists, it exists for a reason. It cannot exist for no reason. These are not assumptions because anything less and the argument becomes non-sequitur or circular, I will go back to your origional post and deal with your criticisms there.
Now the problem with dealing with a raw argument is that you don’t have explanation. That’s not the way it works. You have an argument and you support it with explanation.
Now what you did is separate two arguments that went together to paint a more complete picture. You separated the arguments as mutually exclusive, or dare I say bifircated. However, this argument is perfectly fine on its own as is and here is why.
Something exists. On this we both agree.
Something exists. ← Here we agree.
That something cannot have caused itself. ← This is true because the alternative is circular which is invalid.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing. ← This is true because something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore, that something is caused. ← This is true because the premises lead to this conclusion.
Your contention is that premises 2 and 3 are assumed. Well that’s simply not true. They are necessary, not assumed. They are necessary because once you deduce something exists. It’s very existence cries for explanation. To eliminate these premises make the argument circular. 'Exists because it exists. You can choose to not want to explain it, but you cannot say it doesn’t need to be explained.
Well there was no way of recounting the whole discussion but is was based on quantum randomness vs. true philosophical randomness. Where the quantum randomness I argued was a problem of space-time and localities. I.E. particles popping in and out of existence in a spatial vacuum, the EPR effect, wave-particle theory with respect to the double-slit experiment and the seeming randomness in which a photon will choose a slit, etc. The argument was basically quantum randomness was quantum events happening for no reason, vs. them happening for a reason irregardless of the fact that the appearance of events in the temporal spatial plane being weird.
[/quote]
Okay, I get it. First, yes particles can appear seemingly seemingly at random in a vacuum, but this is not an actual random event since we actually can determine the conditions that caused the particles to appear and disappear, and these events do result in or from a (relatively) large energy transfer so there is no conflict with this and classical causality.
Now, lets talk about a much simpler example than any of these. Let us consider basic kinematics. An object moves when acted on by a non-zero net external force. Now, let us think about the position of an object that moves from position A to position B. Classically, we can find the position by figuring out what forces are acting on it and using Newton’s second law, the net force acting on an object is the time derivative of momentum. Here, we know exactly what caused the motion and where the object will be at any point in time as long as we know the forces. With forces A, B, and C acting on object Y, it will move to position X.
Now, let us look at the same system but on a quantum level. The position of the particle is now found by solving Schroedinger’s Equation. The problem is that on the quantum level things aren’t as clear cut. If forces A, B, and C are applied to object X, it could winds up at position Y. Now, if we repeat the same operation on the same object under the same initial conditions, it may end up at position K. The point is that we can figure out what caused motion and what stopped motion, but not why the particle stopped here and not there.
[/quote]
Thank you Dr. Matt! This is precisely the same conclusion I derived from looking at the various theories that are throw around. Sure, they violate space-time, but they are not uncaused or random is a causal sense.
[quote]
I figured this as well. It seemed when you hit a certain point of ‘smallness’ there is so little space-time that it’s literally irrelevant.
It is reasonable to ask where this something came from.
It is reasonable to ask why this something exists.
The definition of something does not prevent it from determining it’s origin.
Something exists for a reason.
Therefore the existence of something is caused.
[/quote]
Okay, let’s break this series of claims down. 2, 3, 4, and 5 have no bearing on this discussion and certainly do not serve to prove 1 and/or 6, they actually need proving themselves so that just leaves 1 and 6, so we have:
Something exists
Therefore the existence of something is caused
We also have the whole reason for this discussion: your claim that God exists and is uncaused. Do you see the problem here? You are violating your own premise without even proving your claim that an uncaused cause must exist. The best you have done is write some really long posts about arbitrary properties that you attribute to God to fit your conclusions without proving that God has them, or even his existence, or which God it is.
[/quote]
Well the answer here is this is not an argument for God existence, but an argument for the case of causation. What it’s based on is the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason’ which basically says that unless the entity in question definitionally prohibits it, it’s reason for existing is necessarily questionable…
If I were to derive an Uncaused entity, none of the premises would apply, nor the conclusion since by definition the entity is uncaused.
For the cosmological argument, there are 3 main points that derive an Uncaused-cause.
One is that we can prove that something exists and is contingent.
Next is that when regression is applied to contingency, you risk invoking an infinite regress which is logically impossible for it begs the question and/ or results in an argument with infinite premises which is not an argument since a conclusion could never be reached in such a situation; therefore making it definitionally impossible to be an argument.
The only way to stop the regress and the only conclusion that can be derived therefore is that of an Uncaused-cause.
As for which God, it’s the only one that can exist, there is no other. You can call it what you want, Uncaused-cause, Necessary Being, God, Allah; conceptually they are all the same thing. And because of being an Uncaused-cause, there can only be one. This inferencially can be determine the same God as the God through revelation because the claims about that God and the Uncaused-cause are the same. And there can be only one. On the previous page I lay out what an Uncaused-cause must be, or properties it must have for an Uncaused-cause to be what it is. I think it’s on the first page, but I can find and paste it if you want me to.
This isn’t a ‘god of the gaps’ argument were we plug unknowns with God. This Uncaused-cause is the necessary conclusion to a deductive argument that need not start with prior knowledge of ‘It’s’ existence.
[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:
Something exists.
That something cannot have caused itself.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
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]
The reason your criticism is wrong, is because it forces the entity in question to ‘just exist’ with no reason, no extension, potentiality. Something just exists, because it exists. This cricism is incorrect because it necessarily posits a circular argument in its stead. But again, it’s not enough to just say you don’t beleive it, or believe the premises are assumed. This violates all rules of logic. Don’t trust me, take it to a philosophy professor if you don’t believe me.
Now it’s not enough to just whack on my arguments, you must prove they are wrong. So prove it wrong. Lay out the formal case where an undefined entity exists without reason or cause. Good luck. Show me in argument form that any ‘something’ exists uncaused, is not circular, and is not the Uncaused-cause.
What do you say about the argument I’ve just shown invalid:
You offered it literally 24 hours ago. Are you already done with it? Do you want to add to it? Scrap it? Are you just taking shots in the dark at this point and then abandoning each ship when I sink it?
Whatever you want to do to it, it will suffer the same fate as the poor sucker above, because this cannot be done. You are literally trying to do the impossible, and with each new argument’s easy decimation you prove this point a little more firmly.[/quote]
You didn’t sink it. You said No it’s wrong, because it’s circular!
I did propose more arguments (though there is nothing wrong with what I proposed), but you are right I shouldn’t have. I didn’t need to. This one is perfectly fine. If you have to violate logic to dismantle it, then you didn’t dismantle it. You violated logic to dismantle it, therefore you didn’t dismantle it.
Let’s dispose of the bolds italics all the time. If there is a rare point that merits it, fine but all the time looks silly.
Now, how could 1 ever be considered a valid proposition? Because until the last hundred years or so it was, and could be proven with a strong inductive argument using what is now referred to as naive set theory. Here is a basic sketch of how such a proof would go: let A be the set of all natural numbers ( A = {1,2,3,…}) with 1 representing any event at a certain time and each successive natural number representing the cause of the event before it (this is allowable under naive set theory using first order logic but not higher order axiomatic set theories for reasons that I will explain in a moment). This can be shown by observation to hold (at the macroscopic level we have yet to find an event that cannot be contributed to a specific cause. This does not hold true for some events on sub-atomic scales). Thus by the principle of strong induction it must hold true for every event. It was arguments like this that led to the discovery of the Burali-Forti paradox (basically, this states that since a set, Q, containing all ordinal numbers, allowable under first-order naive set theory, then it has all the properties of an ordinal number and thus Q+1 is defined and is an ordinal number but this leads to the contradiction that Q+1 must already be in Q, and thus Q<Q+1 and Q+1<Q.) This was one of the catalysts that led to the development of higher order logic systems and axiomatic set theories.
*edited for translation errors.[/quote]
It’s only a problem of space and time is it not, at least as initially stated? Not a problem of contingency. Q represents a set of ordinal numbers correct? Therefore Q is defined by the ordinal set of numbers, where if one were missing, then Q would not exist.
[/quote]
Wow, I got behind in this thread. Well, this is as good a place as any to start catching up. The Burali-Forti paradox has nothing to do with space and time, but rather the problem of unrestricted comprehension in naive set theory and first order logic (I am just going to call this classical logic from now on). Russel’s Paradox is perhaps a better example, but I like ordinal numbers because I think they are neat so I went with this example. Q is not “a set of ordinal numbers”, and it is not “representing”: it is the set of all ordinal numbers and since it is made up entirely of ordinal numbers, it takes on the properties of ordinal numbers. All this follows from the rules of classical logic. However, this is why classical logic has been replaced by higher forms of logic because since Q has all the properties of ordinal number, Q + 1 is defined and Q + 1 > Q. Unfortunately, since Q is the set of all ordinal numbers, Q + 1 must already be in Q and Q + 1 < Q.
Note: To anyone who may be confused by my use of “classical logic” and “higher logic”, classical logic refers to the logic system that prevailed until the late nineteenth century. This is the logic system you will learn in undergraduate level mathematical analysis, computer science, and philosophy courses because it is a useful stepping stone to “higher logic systems” which have been created because classical logic could not be modified to prevent the various paradoxes that were discovered within its framework without completely rewriting its rules.
[/quote]
Ok, so Q takes on the properties of all ordinal numbers, would this be to infinity, or just a numerical set of say 1-100? There by Q being all ordinal numbers, add 1 to said set is paradoxical because it already contains the property of 1 and therefore you cannot add to something that which it already possess? Am I in the ball park?
I do hope you hang around more often I do love talking to you.
Please tell me you plan on dropping a 572 big block in that Camaro… Yeah, petrol is expensive and all that, but it’s a 572! We’re talking 700+ lbs of torque! That’s just epic… No, I don’t know what that is in Newtons.
I just got a Mustang, I am ready to talk cars anytime you are. American V8’s, there’s just nothing like 'em…
[quote]pat wrote:
Next is that when regression is applied to contingency, you risk invoking an infinite regress which is logically impossible for it begs the question and/ or results in an argument with infinite premises which is not an argument since a conclusion could never be reached in such a situation; therefore making it definitionally impossible to be an argument.
The only way to stop the regress and the only conclusion that can be derived therefore is that of an Uncaused-cause.
[/quote]
Well, rethinking it the argument as stands is perfectly fine. You criticisms are invalid because you don’t show how they are false.[/quote]
This is not true. I said very plainly: Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. This is the precise definition of an invalid argument. Here is why your conclusion does not follow from your premises:
I take the counter-proposition that The something referred to in this argument is uncaused.Let’s look at it:
It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.
It satisfies premise 2, because it did not cause itself–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever.
It satisfies premise 3, because it was not “caused by [nothing]”–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever. Instead, it was simply uncaused, which is a very much different thing.
So, it satisfies premises 1, 2, and 3–and yet is the antipode of 4. This means that all of your premises can be true and the conclusion still false–and that is what you find in a beginner’s logic textbook when you look up the definition of “invalid.”
So, you will have to rule out the possibility of my counter-proposition. But you simply can’t do that, and this becomes more obvious with every single post. If you can, then do it. Expand the above argument so that it also eliminates–logically, validly, soundly–the counter-proposition that the [something] was not caused. Seeing as how that is the basis of all this, it should be paid a little more attention by you.
Edit: Please read this one carefully before replying. The argument you provided is very plainly invalid, for the very plain reason I just gave, and I’m not going to argue that point another time because this now makes 3 or 4. You can try to address your problem or not, but the problem is so simple and identifiable that I don’t want to waste more words pointing at it.
Let’s dispose of the bolds italics all the time. If there is a rare point that merits it, fine but all the time looks silly. [/quote]
Actually I was going to suggest you use them. It simply does not work for me, to mix logical propositions and prose in the same sentence without marking one or another. Or at least cut down on walls of text. Edit: I will do the former if you do the latter
Thank you Dr. Matt! This is precisely the same conclusion I derived from looking at the various theories that are throw around. Sure, they violate space-time, but they are not uncaused or random is a causal sense.
[/quote]
Sounds to me like the ultimate positions of those particles are “random in a causal sense” so far as anybody can tell as of now. Find a hidden variable and they won’t be.
[quote]pat wrote:
Next is that when regression is applied to contingency, you risk invoking an infinite regress which is logically impossible for it begs the question and/ or results in an argument with infinite premises which is not an argument since a conclusion could never be reached in such a situation; therefore making it definitionally impossible to be an argument.
The only way to stop the regress and the only conclusion that can be derived therefore is that of an Uncaused-cause.
[/quote]
Because the premises are true. Sure I can make a logical argument that is logically sound and false, but that is not what is happening here.
Something exists T or F?
Something cannot be explained by itself T or F?
Something does not not happen for nothing T or F?
Well, rethinking it the argument as stands is perfectly fine. You criticisms are invalid because you don’t show how they are false.[/quote]
This is not true. I said very plainly: Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. This is the precise definition of an invalid argument. Here is why your conclusion does not follow from your premises:
I take the counter-proposition that The something referred to in this argument is uncaused.Let’s look at it:
It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.
It satisfies premise 2, because it did not cause itself–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever.
It satisfies premise 3, because it was not “caused by [nothing]”–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever. Instead, it was simply uncaused, which is a very much different thing.
So, it satisfies premises 1, 2, and 3–and yet is the antipode of 4. This means that all of your premises can be true and the conclusion still false–and that is what you find in a beginner’s logic textbook when you look up the definition of “invalid.”
So, you will have to rule out the possibility of my counter-proposition. But you simply can’t do that, and this becomes more obvious with every single post. If you can, then do it. Expand the above argument so that it also eliminates–logically, validly, soundly–the counter-proposition that the [something] was not caused. Seeing as how that is the basis of all this, it should be paid a little more attention by you.
Edit: Please read this one carefully before replying. The argument you provided is very plainly invalid, for the very plain reason I just gave, and I’m not going to argue that point another time because this now makes 3 or 4. You can try to address your problem or not, but the problem is so simple and identifiable that I don’t want to waste more words pointing at it.[/quote]
And I said very plainly and I cannot understand how you don’t understand this very simple fact that your proposed solution makes the argument circular! (Using your bold-italics tactic which I was hoping we could dispose of since its seriously not necessary. No need to shout.) This is not an argument for an uncaused entity. You cannot derive an uncaused entity by this methodology. That’s why you have the cosmological argument. Its the only logical way to derive an Uncaused-cause. You cannot derive it explicitly. Its logically impossible.
Your claim makes the argument circular because taking the argument as you propose would look like this:
Something exists
That something cannot have caused itself.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
Therefore, that something exists
This proposition violates logic. It begs the question and is therefore false, period. There is no way around it. You cannot derive uncausedness from this argument.
Thank you Dr. Matt! This is precisely the same conclusion I derived from looking at the various theories that are throw around. Sure, they violate space-time, but they are not uncaused or random is a causal sense.
[/quote]
Sounds to me like the ultimate positions of those particles are “random in a causal sense” so far as anybody can tell as of now. Find a hidden variable and they won’t be.[/quote]
I think you misread what Dr Matt said. If you dispose of the space-time contingent, this behavior follows classical causation.‘Random’ and ‘caused’ are polar opposites so that it’s paradoxical to say a ‘caused random event’. The space-time contingent at the quantum level is not a factor, mostly. So that if you look at the cause and the effect sans space-time, you have a perfect cause and effect relationship. This does not only occur at the quantum level it occurs in metaphysics as well. That which is not bound by space-time can occur anywhere anytime and still be causal. Okay shutting up to prevent a ‘wall or words’… It’s killing me, there is so much to say!
The problem, as I understand it is that this information travel violates the absolute constant of the speed of light. But it seems that information is transposed at a different less physical level. What fascinates me about quantum mechanics is that it seems to butt up against metaphysics. So that if the information about a particle is metaphysical in nature, then the information travel, such as in the EPR effect is solved. Metaphysics is not bound by space-time so it can occur anywhere anytime when it manifests in the physical.
I believe scientists need to work with their arch nemesis, philosophers and mathematicians, to solve the problem. The answer it seems lies in the particle’s nature and it’s laws, not it’s physical corpus.
Let’s dispose of the bolds italics all the time. If there is a rare point that merits it, fine but all the time looks silly. [/quote]
Actually I was going to suggest you use them. It simply does not work for me, to mix logical propositions and prose in the same sentence without marking one or another. Or at least cut down on walls of text. Edit: I will do the former if you do the latter[/quote]
I will try to be more concise, but these are difficult issues that demand explanation. An argument on it’s own cannot explain why it’s true or false. It must be explained. I will try to be shorter. It just flows, I don’t even know how long it is until I am done.
Well, rethinking it the argument as stands is perfectly fine. You criticisms are invalid because you don’t show how they are false.[/quote]
This is not true. I said very plainly: Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. This is the precise definition of an invalid argument. Here is why your conclusion does not follow from your premises:
I take the counter-proposition that The something referred to in this argument is uncaused.Let’s look at it:
It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.
It satisfies premise 2, because it did not cause itself–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever.
It satisfies premise 3, because it was not “caused by [nothing]”–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever. Instead, it was simply uncaused, which is a very much different thing.
So, it satisfies premises 1, 2, and 3–and yet is the antipode of 4. This means that all of your premises can be true and the conclusion still false–and that is what you find in a beginner’s logic textbook when you look up the definition of “invalid.”
So, you will have to rule out the possibility of my counter-proposition. But you simply can’t do that, and this becomes more obvious with every single post. If you can, then do it. Expand the above argument so that it also eliminates–logically, validly, soundly–the counter-proposition that the [something] was not caused. Seeing as how that is the basis of all this, it should be paid a little more attention by you.
Edit: Please read this one carefully before replying. The argument you provided is very plainly invalid, for the very plain reason I just gave, and I’m not going to argue that point another time because this now makes 3 or 4. You can try to address your problem or not, but the problem is so simple and identifiable that I don’t want to waste more words pointing at it.[/quote]
And I said very plainly and I cannot understand how you don’t understand this very simple fact that your proposed solution makes the argument circular! (Using your bold-italics tactic which I was hoping we could dispose of since its seriously not necessary. No need to shout.) This is not an argument for an uncaused entity. You cannot derive an uncaused entity by this methodology. That’s why you have the cosmological argument. Its the only logical way to derive an Uncaused-cause. You cannot derive it explicitly. Its logically impossible.
Your claim makes the argument circular because taking the argument as you propose would look like this:
Something exists
That something cannot have caused itself.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
Therefore, that something exists
This proposition violates logic. It begs the question and is therefore false, period. There is no way around it. You cannot derive uncausedness from this argument.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? I literally never made, or tried to make, or came remotely close to making the argument that you just put in my mouth. My conclusion is not that “something exists,” and in fact I don’t have a conclusion because I did not offer an argument, I offered a valid scenario wherein your argument is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be invalid.
You need to reevaluate and understand what’s happening here. You offered an argument of three premises and one conclusion. I showed that your three premises can be satisfied and your conclusion can still be false–such being the definition of an invalid logical argument–such proving that yours is invalid.
I will reiterate. It is very simple, and notice that no strange circular argument is being made here–that the entirety of my present contention is set forth in the few dozen words that constitute the remainder of this post:
The following argument, which you made–
–is invalid, because if the [something] of premise 1 is uncaused, then premises 1, 2, and 3 are satisfied and yet the conclusion is false. The conclusion, in other words, is not entailed by the premises.
[i]----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.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.