Proof of God, Continued

[smh_23]

I think theism is exactly as rational as atheism.

However, a theist and an atheist who argue their positions with certainty are both irrational to the extreme.

[Aragorn]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The disputed argument can still be strongly cogent, but not formally valid.

Strong and weak arguments are, in my opinion, why belief in God takes faith. They are also why “faith” =/= “blind faith” or “irrational faith” or “irrational reasoning” or any combination of the above. When people do not understand induction they resort to claims like “blind faith” and so forth because they only live in a world of deductive, Holmesian logic. However, this as Dr. Matt has put it is insufficient to the world in which we find ourselves in and the reason inductive rationale must be used.[/quote]

I agree, though in my experience, people usually assign the term “blind faith” to specifics–Adam and Eve, the serpent, Lord Krishna, Nirvana, etc. I, for one, would not characterize theism itself as “blind faith”–at least not derogatorily, and no more than any ultimate set of beliefs is taken blindly on faith.

However, to claim that God’s existence is a proved and settled matter? This is the kind of reach that always ends badly.[/quote]

I am unaware of who has ever done this, at least explicitly (because I grant that when emotions run high and the logic rains like a thunderstorm hyperbole–or at least frustration–is likely to be present as well ). I am not aware of Pat ever doing this either, although I admit I fell off the bandwagon on the last thread and never came close to catching up after about 5 pages.

[Aragorn]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We are talking about the burning eternal questions, the biggest ones that could fill a trillion pages of parchment and still not even be touched on. These questions are so numinous as to almost not even make sense to us as we ask them, and whatever their answer, there is not a doubt in my mind that it is strange beyond the point of comprehensibility.

I know, in other words, that I know nothing. That isn’t a great response to, “Hey honey, where did you put the keys?” But it is the only response, to my mind, to questions of God and being.[/quote]

I think that if anything, this burning and historically unremitting incomprehensibility can perhaps be taken as support for a theistic universe. After all, what could possibly be more incomprehensible than the infinite intelligence and power of God?

God is very strange, but fascinating.

But you forgot the other possible answer: ‘this is what I believe to be true’. Not, ‘this is what IS’ because we are not after all infinite intelligences but very small humans trying valiantly and failingly to grasp the infinite. But ‘this is what I believe to be true’. It is not irrational OR irresponsible to posit a belief rather than say “I know that I don’t know anything”

If you accept inductive logic, then you just as you cannot say “prove to me God exists beyond all doubt” you cannot simultaneously say “you are irrational because you cannot prove such a thing beyond all doubt” because you, the asker, have not even the ability to prove deductively that other minds exist and that you interact with them, even though you accept it as rational. Neither can you say “somebody prove this to me so I can believe it”, because that is to say that you require proof of the formally impossible before accepting some proposition. If you want to believe, you must weigh the balance of argument and truth, as well as heart and will, and you must also accept that it will never be proven deductively because it is formally impossible to do so. This, of course, does not make something irrational or wrong to believe.[/quote]

Indeed, Aragorn, it is not my contention that Pat’s belief is irrational, nor that theism is irrational. It is Pat’s contention that he can prove that his belief is truth, and the entirety of my purpose in this thread is to prove that that is utterly false.[/quote]

I understand the first part of your statement completely. I was offering the above statements as a commentary on the situation as well as perhaps tangentially responding to your latent request very early on in the other God thread, that you wished someone could prove it so you could believe it (a loose paraphrase as that was a comment roughly a million words ago).

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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]
   [/quote]

Again, circular. You are arguing that the argument is invalid because it is in fact circular.[/quote]

What?

I am arguing that the argument is invalid because its conclusion does not follow from its premises. I am not sure you’re reading this argument.[/quote]

This one is short, so I’ll take this on real quick.

Something exists.
That something cannot have caused itself.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
Therefore, ???

List the all the possible conclusions for these premises. It’s a finite number, and please do not say ‘I don’t know’, try. [/quote]

Therefore, that something was either caused by something that is neither itself nor [nothing], or it was not caused. The latter is a possibility until you show that it isn’t, and you sure as hell haven’t done that now. This is exactly why your argument is invalid–and yes, it very much is: Because your premises are satisfied and your conclusion is still false if the something is uncaused. I can’t explain this point any more clearly.

It is getting ridiculous that you are not identifying with precision a point to which you object in my very plain and very logical argument. Mine is valid, and its conclusion is that yours is invalid. Therefore, yours is invalid. You need to either try to show why this is not true–pointing to specific premises and exposing specific problems therein–or you need to let me know that you can’t and therefore won’t.

Edit: Just to be clear, any frustration on my part is about how addictive this discussion is, in relation to how much work I have to do in the next twelve hours.[/quote]

Good. Now we have gotten to it. So lets parse it out look at each scenario:
1.Something exists.
2.That something cannot have caused itself.
3.That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
4.Therefore, that something is uncaused.

This whole argument is invalid. The premises deal with causation. You simply cannot apply causal premises to something uncaused. It’s an oxymoron. Premise 2 and 3 cannot be applied to something uncaused because and this is the critical point: It’s uncaused. Causation does not apply, at all. It doesn’t exist to the uncaused entity hence, since said entity is uncaused, it’s illogical to discuss it’s causal potentialities. It does not have ANY causal potentialities because the entity in question is uncaused. Therefore and uncaused entity is thusly eliminated as a possibility because it does not posses any causation of any kind.
You cannot say ‘It could not caused itself’, there’s no cause, at all. Of course it could not cause itself, because it’s uncaused by definition. It’s already known that it could not cause itself because there is no cause whatsoever.
It’s like asking what color is the blue sky?

You therefore cannot come to this conclusion either:

1.Something exists.
2.That something cannot have caused itself.
3.That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
4.Therefore, that something was either caused by something that is neither itself nor [nothing], or it was not caused.

First you relist the premises in the conclusion which is unnecessarily messy and by default circular, so let’s fix it.
1.Something exists.
2.That something cannot have caused itself.
3.That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
4.Therefore, that something caused by something or it was not caused.

There are a myriad of problems here. First of all, the argument is reducible to something exists, therefore something exists.
Second and most importantly, the premises do not support something ‘not caused’ or uncaused. It’s because of what an uncaused entity must be to be uncaused. The premises cannot affirm something uncaused exists something uncaused has no cause whatsoever. No it didn’t cause itself, it’s not caused. No it did not come from nothing, it’s uncaused. The very questioning of causation to that which is uncaused is definitionally absurd.
Because you cannot question the causality of uncaused entities, you cannot conclude by uncausedness by questioning it’s causal properties. You cannot ask ‘why?’ it’s eliminated by default.
Am I making any sense?
Let me put it to you this way. What must an uncaused-entity be to both exist and not be caused? The answer to that question is the answer as to why you cannot determine that the ‘something’ in the argument is uncaused. Answer that, and perhaps you will see.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]

Precisely correct.

What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.[/quote]

Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at as well.
[/quote]

The proof? The proof is simple, 'Can you ask why ‘something’? exists. If you are dealing with something caused the answer is ‘yes’, if you are dealing with something uncaused, the answer is ‘No’.
What an uncaused entity must be makes it logically in valid to ask ‘why?’ There is no ‘why’. You cannot deal with uncaused entities explicitly. Its because what an entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. Those unique properties are totally different from caused entities. [/quote]

What? You can still ask the question, whether it is a nonsensical question or not. Let’s try:

Why does a circle have four sides?

Why are tomatoes composed of right angles?

Why are vaginas always singing opera?[/quote]

The answer to the last one depends on the man…

The point of being reasonable is the key. It is not reasonable to ask nonsensical questions. You can ask them, but that doesn’t make them valid.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, you are not understanding the point of contention. I do not propose a third option to “caused/uncaused.” Rather, your argument ignores the second option, by not even addressing the proposition that what exists is uncaused. Take a careful look at it and you should see. I really don’t want to keep hammering the point home. We have now gone like 15 posts wherein I am identifying a very specific problem and you are simply ignoring it, either to buy time or because you don’t take my meaning.

Again, please deal with the argument that I made that proves your invalid.[/quote]

You cannot determine something is uncaused by eliminating the possibilities of what caused it. You create a paradox, but not an unsolvable one. You just have to give the right answer.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, you are not understanding the point of contention. I do not propose a third option to “caused/uncaused.” Rather, your argument ignores the second option, by not even addressing the proposition that what exists is uncaused. Take a careful look at it and you should see. I really don’t want to keep hammering the point home. We have now gone like 15 posts wherein I am identifying a very specific problem and you are simply ignoring it, either to buy time or because you don’t take my meaning.

Again, please deal with the argument that I made that proves your invalid.[/quote]

You cannot determine something is uncaused by eliminating the possibilities of what caused it. You create a paradox, but not an unsolvable one. You just have to give the right answer.[/quote]

Yes, but proving the answer that you provide is another matter entirely, which you have shown unable to do. You may well have given the right answer in this case: God exists and is uncaused. That is definitely a possible right answer, but if you are claiming it is the one and only answer, you must prove it, without logical leaps and assuming unproven facts. Otherwise all you have is a philosophical argument, a strong one to be sure, but not a proven argument.

[sufiandy]

Pat, basically all you are saying is this

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

Can be equivalently changed to

1.Something exists.
2. That something is not un-caused
…

Of course the conclusion is that “something is caused”

[smh_23]

Pat, this is in response to the long post you wrote just wrote to me. The only reason I’m not quoting the whole thing is to save space. Also, at the outset, a touche on the vagina-opera retort.

You are right about one thing–I am not sure that I can offer a valid logical conclusion to your 3 premises. You challenged me to, and I did offer one (though I shouldn’t have), but I don’t know if I stand by it, and I don’t care to do the thinking required to find out. Here’s why–and this is important: I don’t need to. They are your premises, and they lead, you think, to your conclusion. I have shown that they do not. It is not my responsibility to show what conclusion, if any, they lead to. To illustrate this point, imagine that you make this argument:

1. Roses are red.
2. Violets are blue.
3. Therefore, Edison stole from Tesla.

Now imagine that I show that your argument is invalid, because your conclusion is not entailed by your premises. Must I come up with a valid conclusion, using your two premises–roses are red, violets are blue–in order to be vindicated? Not in the slightest. All I must do in order to prove your argument invalid is…prove your argument invalid.

Which brings me to our actual debate. You offer argument A:

[quote]

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.[/quote]

In refutation, I offer argument B:

[quote]

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]

Here, you have two, and only two, options.

Option the first: You can accept argument B, thereby acknowledging that argument A is invalid. From there you could try a new argument, of you could give in.

Option the second: You can try to show that argument B is invalid/unsound. This will involve precisely identifying premises of argument B and showing how and why they are incorrect, or showing how and why the conclusion of argument B is not entailed by its premises. This will force you to actually deal with the specifics of argument B, which is something that you still have not done. If you do not want to, or cannot, respond specifically to argument B, then I will consider it settled that argument A is invalid, and thus that your proof of God–to which it is foundational–is invalid, and thus that this debate is settled.

I would ask that we not backtrack here.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

No no no Pat, this is not how constructing logical arguments and proofs works. What you are doing now is a particularly common logical fallacy called “argument from ignorance.” The way that a logical proof works is that you have a series of statements that lead to a conclusion. If you can show that if the conditions you have laid out are met, then the conclusion follows every time then you have proven your argument, but it is on you to prove it. It does not mean that it is true until someone else explicitly shows it to be false. We are claiming that your argument is not valid. The burden of proving this is on us.
[/quote]
But that’s not what I am doing at all. I am not saying the argument is true until the argument is proven false, the argument is true because we are dealing with causation and we are dealing with 2 options.
And if you do say an argument is false, don’t you think you should prove it? Can we disprove logical arguments simply by saying, nope that’s not right?
[/quote]

Pat, this makes absolutely no sense. Having only two options doesn’t prove anything. The entire field of first order logic is based on having two options: true or false: a proposition can be true or false and a conclusion can be true or false. You still have to prove your statements, claims, arguments, and conclusions. The way you do that is by constructing an argument and presenting your conclusion and showing that every single time that the premise(s) of your argument are satisfied then your conclusion follows. Yes, this does mean that there are some things that can not be proven logically. For probably the 20th time in the last page, here is the argument that you have resented:

[quote]

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

These form the logical premises of your argument and each can either be true or false, so they are valid logical premises. This does not mean your argument is true, just that it does fall within the realm of classical logic.

4. Therefore, that something is caused.[/quote]

This is your conclusion, and it is also a valid logical proposition because it is either true or not true, but again that does not make your argument true. In order for your argument to be true, you must demonstrate that every time your premises are met that your conclusion does as well

I get all of that. Sure if the premises are false then the conclusion is false. And the answer lies in the antecedent. What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused?
I pose the same question to smh, hopefully it’s the key that unlocks the doors.
Answer that, and I think you will see.

[quote]
Now, we get to your claim, the whole reason for this thread:

God exists, and is uncaused

This satisfies your premises but not your conclusion. By the rules of logic, your argument is invalid. I did not make up these rules, smh did not make up these rules, and sufiandy did not make up these rules. If your argument does not hold following the rules of logic, then it is not a logical argument and your argument does not constitute a proof. Your argument might make sense to you, it might make sense to most of the world, hell it might make sense to myself, smh, and sufiandy, but that does not make it logical. In order for an argument to be logical it must follow the rules of logic

[quote]
In the case of causation, what are your alternatives? You have caused or uncaused. Is there another? Would not a 3rd option just be causal and therefore reducible to one of the two?
If, in the case of causation you know of something more than caused and uncaused I sure as hell would like to know what it is.

And that is the contention that smh is provide. Well it ‘something’ can be caused, ‘something’ can be uncaused, or something can be ??? [/quote]

Again, it doesn’t even matter how many alternatives there are as long as each alternative has only the option of being true or false. Here is an example: For all integers, n < n^2. This has an infinite number of alternatives, I can have n = 1, n = 29384, n = 3432, etc. But each time I put n into the statement, it can only be true or false and I can prove this statement true or false for all integers.

[quote]

In this case, you have had several people spell out very carefully how your argument is false by showing that there is a case where your premises are met but the conclusion is false (this is the very definition of how to prove an argument is invalid): namely, that you claim an uncaused being, (God) exists. This satisfies all of your premises but your conclusion is not satisfied. This means that you have not proven your argument that God exists and is uncaused.

The point is that you cannot derive the existence of something uncaused explicitly. It’s impossible because of what something must be to both exist and be uncaused. If ‘something’ isn’t determined to be uncaused in the premise then it’s not an alternative. Unless the question ‘why does something exist?’ is prove to be explicitly invalid. Then uncaused is not an option.
For instance:

1. Something exists
2. That something is uncaused.
3. ???

You cannot add the premise ‘that something did not cause itself’, it’s not caused so to say it’s not caused by itself is redundant. It’s uncaused, there is no causation. Causation does not exist here. [/quote]

Then you do not have a valid logical argument to prove your claim. I am not trying to be mean, but it is that simple. It does not mean that your claim that God exists and is uncaused is not true, or that it does not make sense, or that it is unreasonable, but it your claim to be able to prove it with logic is not true.

[quote]

This is exactly the same as sufiandy’s perfect analogy:

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

All we have to do is show that something has color and is not red, blue, or purple. This does not mean that nothing is purple, just that this argument for determining the purpleness of something is wrong. In the case of your argument, the claim your argument is supposed to prove shows it to be invalid by satisfying all of the premises but not the conclusion.

Which would be a perfect criticism if there were more than 2 options. In this case there are not. So if it’s not one, then its the other and vice versa. If there are billions of options as in the case of color, then you have a point, more premises are then required to determine which color. But in the case of causation there are 2 options. Only 2 and no others. Like I said, if there are more than 2 options in the case of causation then I want to know what the 3, or billions of others there could be.
The criticisms is one of false alternatives. [/quote]

No, Pat. It does not matter how many premises that you have, as long as each premise can be either true or untrue. Then, if you claim one or the other you have to prove that your conclusion follows when your premises hold and if you can not, then you do not have a logical proof of your claim.

And no, ganging up on me 3 to 1 is not going to force me to ignore what logic tells me is true.[/quote]

That is the problem, you do not seem to understand the difference between “logical” and “makes sense.” Here is one more example I am claiming that for all real numbers, if x^2 - 6 = 3, then x = 4. Here I have a premise: There is a number that satisfies x^2 - 6 = 3. I also have a claim: that x = 4. This is a logical argument, because my statements can be true or false, but it makes no sense, and is easily shown to be invalid. Any 6th grader would call me an idiot and say that 10 does not equal three.

I never said the argument makes sense. It’s a logical argument. What part do you disagree with? I don’t see the point of arguing in generalities. Believe it or not, I do happen to know the difference between a logical and illogical argument.
Dr. Matt, this is not the argument for God’s existence. This is the argument for the case of causation only.
It’s a premise of the argument, but it’s not the argument. What I stated earlier still rings true now. You cannot explicitly determine the existence of an uncaused entity without being circular. The only arguments that can determine the existence of the Uncaused-cause is are cosmological ones.

As for you contention that the premises are true or false, fine analyze them and determine whether they are true or false.
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.

Show me the problem.

As for the argument for the existence of God, we aren’t even there yet. Still trying to establish causation.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, you are not understanding the point of contention. I do not propose a third option to “caused/uncaused.” Rather, your argument ignores the second option, by not even addressing the proposition that what exists is uncaused. Take a careful look at it and you should see. I really don’t want to keep hammering the point home. We have now gone like 15 posts wherein I am identifying a very specific problem and you are simply ignoring it, either to buy time or because you don’t take my meaning.

Again, please deal with the argument that I made that proves your invalid.[/quote]

You cannot determine something is uncaused by eliminating the possibilities of what caused it. You create a paradox, but not an unsolvable one. You just have to give the right answer.[/quote]

Yes, but proving the answer that you provide is another matter entirely, which you have shown unable to do. You may well have given the right answer in this case: God exists and is uncaused. That is definitely a possible right answer, but if you are claiming it is the one and only answer, you must prove it, without logical leaps and assuming unproven facts. Otherwise all you have is a philosophical argument, a strong one to be sure, but not a proven argument.[/quote]

We are not talking about Cosmology, just causation. Only causation. The argument only deals with causation and nothing else. And based you your answer, you seem to agree for the case of causation. Do you disagree that causation exists?
This argument does not even broach the question of God’s existence, only causation. Can we please stick to only causation. In fairness here, I have 3 of you rapid firing things at me, it is very difficult to keep up.

[pat]

Okay all three of you here is the question I have posed and have not gotten a single answer to yet. I want the answer, because it will also answer why the argument proposed currently is not capable of being an uncaused entity.

What must an entity, thing, whatever you want to call it, we’ll call it an entity be to both exist and be uncaused?

It’s irrelevant if you believe it or not, what must it be to exist and be uncaused?

I will try to get to the rest of your posts later. I have already used up my leash. I too am frustrated because I cannot get you to understand. Perhaps, dealing with this question will help understanding.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, you are not understanding the point of contention. I do not propose a third option to “caused/uncaused.” Rather, your argument ignores the second option, by not even addressing the proposition that what exists is uncaused. Take a careful look at it and you should see. I really don’t want to keep hammering the point home. We have now gone like 15 posts wherein I am identifying a very specific problem and you are simply ignoring it, either to buy time or because you don’t take my meaning.

Again, please deal with the argument that I made that proves your invalid.[/quote]

You cannot determine something is uncaused by eliminating the possibilities of what caused it. You create a paradox, but not an unsolvable one. You just have to give the right answer.[/quote]

Yes, but proving the answer that you provide is another matter entirely, which you have shown unable to do. You may well have given the right answer in this case: God exists and is uncaused. That is definitely a possible right answer, but if you are claiming it is the one and only answer, you must prove it, without logical leaps and assuming unproven facts. Otherwise all you have is a philosophical argument, a strong one to be sure, but not a proven argument.[/quote]

So you agree the case is strong? What do you need to make it fool proof?

[smh_23]

Pat–I understand about not having time (I really don’t have it either), and I also understand that it is difficult to argue with three people at once. I’m sure you understand that this is not personal–it’s just that we three happen to fall on one side of the debate. I read your question, and I am willing to go down that road with you, but the validity or invalidity of your argument A is as yet unresolved, and I will not go off on a tangent until that–which is the hinge of our debate–is acknowledged and dealt with explicitly.

So, until you have the time to deal explicitly with what’s below, I will try to refrain from posting in this thread. I do look forward to hearing your retort–your specific retort–to argument B. And I do want to remind you that, unless you can show argument B to fail–and precisely where, why, and how it fails–you no longer have a proof to stand by.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You offer argument A:

[quote]

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.[/quote]

In refutation, I offer argument B:

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]

Here, you have two, and only two, options.

Option the first: You can accept argument B, thereby acknowledging that argument A is invalid. From there you could try a new argument, of you could give in.

Option the second: You can try to show that argument B is invalid/unsound. This will involve precisely identifying premises of argument B and showing how and why they are incorrect, or showing how and why the conclusion of argument B is not entailed by its premises. This will force you to actually deal with the specifics of argument B, which is something that you still have not done. If you do not want to, or cannot, respond specifically to argument B, then I will consider it settled that argument A is invalid, and thus that your proof of God–to which it is foundational–is invalid, and thus that this debate is settled.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, you are not understanding the point of contention. I do not propose a third option to “caused/uncaused.” Rather, your argument ignores the second option, by not even addressing the proposition that what exists is uncaused. Take a careful look at it and you should see. I really don’t want to keep hammering the point home. We have now gone like 15 posts wherein I am identifying a very specific problem and you are simply ignoring it, either to buy time or because you don’t take my meaning.

Again, please deal with the argument that I made that proves your invalid.[/quote]

You cannot determine something is uncaused by eliminating the possibilities of what caused it. You create a paradox, but not an unsolvable one. You just have to give the right answer.[/quote]

Yes, but proving the answer that you provide is another matter entirely, which you have shown unable to do. You may well have given the right answer in this case: God exists and is uncaused. That is definitely a possible right answer, but if you are claiming it is the one and only answer, you must prove it, without logical leaps and assuming unproven facts. Otherwise all you have is a philosophical argument, a strong one to be sure, but not a proven argument.[/quote]

So you agree the case is strong? What do you need to make it fool proof?[/quote]

For the record, I to agree that the case is strong. Strong being subjective, of course. Which, again, is why I describe myself as an agnostic theist.

The problem is that strong is not settled or proved or foolproof. And these things it will never be.

[sufiandy]

smh, do you understand his question below? It may be an attempt to address the question you keep bringing up but I’m not really sure where hes going with it as I don’t understand the question. One way around circular logic is to make the circle so big you don’t realize when you’ve come back around again which I have a feeling where this is headed again.

What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused?

[smh_23]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
smh, do you understand his question below? It may be an attempt to address the question you keep bringing up but I’m not really sure where hes going with it as I don’t understand the question. One way around circular logic is to make the circle so big you don’t realize when you’ve come back around again which I have a feeling where this is headed again.

What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? [/quote]

No no, I have no idea where that is headed. I just reread my reply to Pat and saw that when I said “I’m willing to go down that road,” it seemed like I knew where that road was going. I don’t. I think I might be able to guess, but the reason that I didn’t is that…well, you know. This thread is great but it is also a nightmare, twirling often toward vague and only semi-relevant muck, and let’s just say: Why go for the two-point conversion when you’re up 13 with 0:01 on the clock?

In other words, until Pat can show that my proof of his argument’s invalidity fails (that’s a hell of a clause), I can’t bring myself to offer him further routes of escape.

[smh_23]

^BTW, yessir, I suspect that this is headed in an enormous circle. In which case I will be hopping off the carousel. I have an argument, it directly attacks his own by proving it invalid–I would like for that to be dealt with before moving on.

If I had to answer, my answer would be simply: What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? It must exist and be uncaused.

[Aragorn]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^BTW, yessir, I suspect that this is headed in an enormous circle. In which case I will be hopping off the carousel. I have an argument, it directly attacks his own by proving it invalid–I would like for that to be dealt with before moving on.

If I had to answer, my answer would be simply: What must an uncaused entity be to both exist and be uncaused? It must exist and be uncaused.[/quote]

Lol at restating the premises to answer.

Inductive logic makes this much easier to talk about. I do not believe it is possible to deductively prove God. If it were this would entail 1) that faith of ANY kind (as distinct from the irrational variety) is not involved, which is very clearly indicated to be essential via the Bible and 2) you would have been able to prove other people have minds conclusively. They are in the same epistemological boat in some ways, and nobody has yet created an airtight deductive case that other people have minds even though it is very plainly the case.

Frankly the proposition that the universe has no cause is very weak to me, to the point of being nonsensical. But supposing it doesn’t, we still need to ask “is there something outside this universe?” ;).

At any rate the answer to Pat’s most recent question I think is going to be “in order to exist and be uncaused, the entity has to be non-contingent”

[smh_23]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Frankly the proposition that the universe has no cause is very weak to me, to the point of being nonsensical. But supposing it doesn’t, we still need to ask “is there something outside this universe?” ;).
[/quote]

See, I agree with this, but it doesn’t change when we say it of God. Whatever one finally arrives at, it is nonsensical–to us. Uncaused universe; uncaused God; infinite regress; or some mysterious other option of which we aren’t even capable of conceiving: We may think that we can “understand” our choice of preference, but I am of the opinion that this is illusory. We say, of each other’s opinions, that they don’t make sense–even as our own opinions make utterly no sense.

Anyway, if you believe that God cannot be proved through deductive a priori logic, then you do fall squarely on one end of this debate–for that is the contention at hand. In which case I say, good to have you with us sir, we will make sure you get your jacket in a timely fashion.

Re: Pat’s question leading toward contingency…that would be fine, but the exact same problems of assumption and invalidity will arise and persist indefinitely.