Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

~ means not, by the way

102

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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:

  1. It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. Something exists
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. 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]

This is all he is trying to say

  1. Something exists
  2. That something could be caused
  3. That something could be uncaused
  4. Therefore, the origin of that something is unknown
103

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[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]

How are you not doing this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy[/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?[/quote]

These are all true too but is my conclusion true?

  • Something has a color
  • Something is not red
  • Something is not blue
  • Therefore its purple
104

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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:

  1. It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. Something exists
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. 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]

This is all he is trying to say

  1. Something exists
  2. That something could be caused
  3. That something could be uncaused
  4. Therefore, the origin of that something is unknown
    [/quote]

Indeed. And then Pat, in refutation of the proposition you have laid out in premise 3, offers:

But this is an invalid argument, because if the [something] is uncaused, then it satisfies all three premises and yet negates the conclusion.

Pat’s problem is that he takes the notion of an uncaused entity and then splits it into what he presents as an exhaustive list of two possibilities: that [it was caused by itself], and that [it was caused by nothing].

This is of course nonsensical, because the entity in question is averred to be uncaused–as in not caused. Pat argues that [nothing] could not have caused the entity because [nothing] is [nothing] and therefore has no extension, no property, no anything–and thus no causal power. But the claim is not that the entity in question was caused by that without causal power–it is that the entity in question was not caused at all. This underlined proposition he believes that he can disprove with an a priori argument, but when he tries, he makes an invalid argument–because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises, just like in your astute “color–>purple” example–and furthermore does not even come near to addressing the point of contention.

105

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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:

  1. It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. Something exists
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. 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]

This is all he is trying to say

  1. Something exists
  2. That something could be caused
  3. That something could be uncaused
  4. Therefore, the origin of that something is unknown
    [/quote]

If the ‘something’ has an origin, it’s caused…

106

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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:

  1. It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. Something exists
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. 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.[/quote]

That is only the case if you violate logic. The premises are not invalid, in fact they are as valid and disprovable as it gets. All you’ve shown is you disagree. That doesn’t make it wrong. And yes, you do have to make a counter argument, to prove your point. The premises are sound. You have not proven they are not, contrarily you have not shown other wise. You may think it, but that is not enough you have to prove it and in that you’ve failed. You don’t have to take my word for it.
I have already explained you cannot prove something uncaused explicitly. You cannot assume something is uncaused unless it’s defined as so. It must be explicitly stated as uncaused in the initial premise. The only way and I do mean the only way to determine and uncaused entity is the cosmological argument. There is no other argument that can do it. If something exists, it is reasonable to ask it’s origin, it’s reason for being. The only way that would be unreasonable is if uncausedness is defined explicitly. I really don’t see how you are not seeing that your admonitions are necessarily circular.

107

You are simply wrong at this point, or not understanding the argument against which you are pitted. Nothing in your previous post was even apropos of the debate. So, here is an argument, tell me precisely where you find fault and why:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:

  1. Argument A states that

       [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]

  2. 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].

  3. Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.

  4. However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.

  5. If P, then ~4’

  6. Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]

108

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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:

  1. It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.

  2. 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.

  3. 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]

Your counter position is circular, period. It’s invalid because it’s circular, you cannot determine the something in this argument is ‘uncaused’ because then ‘something exists because it exists’ That’s circular reasoning, it begs the question and is therefore false by definition.
‘Something’ in this argument may not be defined, but it’s not therefore any something, it’s a particular something that is undefined. It’s a variable. This variable does not, by definition include an uncaused entity, that is a particular something with a particular property of being uncaused which must be defined explicitly in the argument if you are to argue for something uncaused. Such is the laws of logic and they are immutable.

109

[quote]pat wrote:

Your counter position is circular, period. It’s invalid because it’s circular, you cannot determine the something in this argument is ‘uncaused’ because then ‘something exists because it exists’[/quote]

You keep saying this. This is not an argument that I have ever made, so you should stop attacking it. I pasted my argument above. Go for it. It is plainly valid and sound.

110

[quote]pat wrote:
The premises are not invalid, in fact they are as valid and disprovable as it gets.
[/quote]

This is a microcosm of the difficulties we’re having. First of all, premises cannot be valid. Arguments are valid. If you don’t understand what I precisely mean when I say your argument is invalid, then it’s not surprising that few of your posts seem to be relevant to our discussion.

Secondly, why is the word “disprovable” here?

111

There is no getting around what has happened. Your argument is invalid. Because its premises can all be true and its conclusion can still be false. It would be nice if you would address this very, very important point, because it is this point that dismantles your argument.

112

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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:

  1. It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. Something exists
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. 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]

This is all he is trying to say

  1. Something exists
  2. That something could be caused
  3. That something could be uncaused
  4. Therefore, the origin of that something is unknown
    [/quote]

Indeed. And then Pat, in refutation of the proposition you have laid out in premise 3, offers:

But this is an invalid argument, because if the [something] is uncaused, then it satisfies all three premises and yet negates the conclusion.

Pat’s problem is that he takes the notion of an uncaused entity and then splits it into what he presents as an exhaustive list of two possibilities: that [it was caused by itself], and that [it was caused by nothing].

This is of course nonsensical, because the entity in question is averred to be uncaused–as in not caused. Pat argues that [nothing] could not have caused the entity because [nothing] is [nothing] and therefore has no extension, no property, no anything–and thus no causal power. But the claim is not that the entity in question was caused by that without causal power–it is that the entity in question was not caused at all. This underlined proposition he believes that he can disprove with an a priori argument, but when he tries, he makes an invalid argument–because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises, just like in your astute “color–>purple” example–and furthermore does not even come near to addressing the point of contention.[/quote]

Common man! Therefore the origin of something is unknown? If something has an origin It’s caused! There is no way around this. If 4 is correct, then premise 3 is invalid because something has an origin and thus caused. Something uncaused has no origin. Your murdering logic here. Aristotle is turning in his grave.
You cannot determine an uncaused entity explicitly, it’s logically impossible. Agian, the only way to determine an uncaused entity exists is the cosmological argument. That’s the only argument in existence, that will ever exist, that can conclude and be logically valid, an uncaused-entity.
You are violating the immutable laws of logic. You cannot invent your own version.

113

Also, look up the word “because,” think about its etymology, and then see why my counter-proposition cannot and will not ever be phrased with the word “because.”

114

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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:

  1. It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. Something exists
  2. That something cannot have caused itself.
  3. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
  4. 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]

This is all he is trying to say

  1. Something exists
  2. That something could be caused
  3. That something could be uncaused
  4. Therefore, the origin of that something is unknown
    [/quote]

Indeed. And then Pat, in refutation of the proposition you have laid out in premise 3, offers:

But this is an invalid argument, because if the [something] is uncaused, then it satisfies all three premises and yet negates the conclusion.

Pat’s problem is that he takes the notion of an uncaused entity and then splits it into what he presents as an exhaustive list of two possibilities: that [it was caused by itself], and that [it was caused by nothing].

This is of course nonsensical, because the entity in question is averred to be uncaused–as in not caused. Pat argues that [nothing] could not have caused the entity because [nothing] is [nothing] and therefore has no extension, no property, no anything–and thus no causal power. But the claim is not that the entity in question was caused by that without causal power–it is that the entity in question was not caused at all. This underlined proposition he believes that he can disprove with an a priori argument, but when he tries, he makes an invalid argument–because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises, just like in your astute “color–>purple” example–and furthermore does not even come near to addressing the point of contention.[/quote]

Common man! Therefore the origin of something is unknown? If something has an origin It’s caused! There is no way around this. If 4 is correct, then premise 3 is invalid because something has an origin and thus caused. Something uncaused has no origin. Your murdering logic here. Aristotle is turning in his grave.
You cannot determine an uncaused entity explicitly, it’s logically impossible. Agian, the only way to determine an uncaused entity exists is the cosmological argument. That’s the only argument in existence, that will ever exist, that can conclude and be logically valid, an uncaused-entity.
You are violating the immutable laws of logic. You cannot invent your own version.[/quote]

Dude. You don’t even see what my argument is proving? You keep saying it’s impossible for me to prove an uncaused cause like this. Come on man. Take the time to understand what I’m proving here, because you obviously haven’t. Then take the time to understand the argument.

Edit: Andy’s phraseology is not mine. I never used the word “origin.” my argument dismantles yours. It proves it invalid. It is time you deal with this explicitly, specifically. At least read it.

115

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The premises are not invalid, in fact they are as valid and disprovable as it gets.
[/quote]

This is a microcosm of the difficulties we’re having. First of all, premises cannot be valid. Arguments are valid. If you don’t understand what I precisely mean when I say your argument is invalid, then it’s not surprising that few of your posts seem to be relevant to our discussion.

Secondly, why is the word “disprovable” here?[/quote]

It’s not enough to disagree, you have to prove it wrong and present a counter argument that proves it wrong.
It’s much like government, everybody sees problems, but those are worthless with out solutions. Such is the case here. If you are claiming you cannot prove it wrong, only feel you see perceived problems you don’t have a point. If the argument is wrong, prove it wrong with your own argument that disproves this argument. It has to be logically valid.
If you want to prove that ‘something’ can either be caused or uncaused, then prove it. And good luck.
Like I said, you don’t have to take my word for it. Don’t believe me, take it to a philosophy professor.

116

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:

  1. Argument A states that

       [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]

  2. 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].

  3. Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.

  4. However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.

  5. If P, then ~4’

  6. Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]

117

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The premises are not invalid, in fact they are as valid and disprovable as it gets.
[/quote]

This is a microcosm of the difficulties we’re having. First of all, premises cannot be valid. Arguments are valid. If you don’t understand what I precisely mean when I say your argument is invalid, then it’s not surprising that few of your posts seem to be relevant to our discussion.

Secondly, why is the word “disprovable” here?[/quote]

It’s not enough to disagree, you have to prove it wrong and present a counter argument that proves it wrong.
It’s much like government, everybody sees problems, but those are worthless with out solutions. Such is the case here. If you are claiming you cannot prove it wrong, only feel you see perceived problems you don’t have a point. If the argument is wrong, prove it wrong with your own argument that disproves this argument. It has to be logically valid.
If you want to prove that ‘something’ can either be caused or uncaused, then prove it. And good luck.
Like I said, you don’t have to take my word for it. Don’t believe me, take it to a philosophy professor. [/quote]

Don’t you see that I’m proving it? I said, from the start: Pat, you will not prove what you think you can. That has been my contention–this because you cannot.

And now you’ve tried. And each argument has been extremely weak, and I’ve dismantled each very, very easily. My last post proves your most recent argument invalid. Please read it.

118

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your counter position is circular, period. It’s invalid because it’s circular, you cannot determine the something in this argument is ‘uncaused’ because then ‘something exists because it exists’[/quote]

You keep saying this. This is not an argument that I have ever made, so you should stop attacking it. I pasted my argument above. Go for it. It is plainly valid and sound.[/quote]

It is circular. If we put your position in a statement ‘Something exists, therefore it exists’. That’s your stated position. You cannot determine uncausedness explicitly there is no way to make an argument for that that is not circular, period.

Yes, you must disprove it, which means you have to offer a counter argument to have a leg to stand on here. Sufi’s argument is logically invalid. ‘origin’ is causal.

119

[quote]pat wrote:

It is circular. If we put your position in a statement ‘Something exists, therefore it exists’. That’s your stated position. [/quote]

You are extremely confused. That is not, and has never been, my stated position. I have never made this argument. I have never implied it. I have no idea where you got it from. Read and either address or submit to my actual position, which is an argument, which proved your argument invalid

120

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your counter position is circular, period. It’s invalid because it’s circular, you cannot determine the something in this argument is ‘uncaused’ because then ‘something exists because it exists’[/quote]

You keep saying this. This is not an argument that I have ever made, so you should stop attacking it. I pasted my argument above. Go for it. It is plainly valid and sound.[/quote]

It is circular. If we put your position in a statement ‘Something exists, therefore it exists’. That’s your stated position. You cannot determine uncausedness explicitly there is no way to make an argument for that that is not circular, period.

Yes, you must disprove it, which means you have to offer a counter argument to have a leg to stand on here. Sufi’s argument is logically invalid. ‘origin’ is causal. [/quote]

I did not make Sufi’s argument. Why dance around this? An argument is there for you, it’s mine, I made it, I stand by it, it is valid, it is correct. Address it.