Sigh… I will clear up some misconceptions. In no way does the cosmological argument say that everything that exists has a cause that is external to it, if it did the argument would unavoidable end up concluding an infinite regress which ultimately doesn’t explain why anything exist at all rather than nothing.
Rather it relies on the principle of sufficient reason which states that anything that does exist has a reason for its existence either as an effect of an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature. Beings who reason for existence due to a cause external to them are contingent beings in that they could have ceased to exist, yet a being whose existence is due to the necessity of his own nature if he exist cannot not exist, otherwise known as a necessary or noncontingent being. It is undeniable and self evident to me that something exists, rather than nothing at all. It is also self evident to me that I and the universe I observe exist contingently.
Things which are contingent is not an adequate explanation for why contingent things exist in the first place, the only adequate explanation for the existence of contingent things or the reason why anything exist at all lies in a necessary being. Why being? Because only a being has the ability of choosing to do or not do something, which this necessary being brought the contingent universe into and sustains its existence. This necessary being from the conclusion of the argument also has many of the properties one would ascribe to God, having a will, eternal, oneness etc…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:
That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.
Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]
You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.
That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.
If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.
[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]
Assumptions are not the problem.
Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.[/quote]
That shit is contingent is not an assumption, it’s a fact. It’s an assumption to say that something is not, with out even the slightest shred of evidence, is to make an assumption. So you your conclusion that cosmology is false is actually based on unverified, hopeful assumptions.[/quote]
Why do you keep insisting that your beliefs are facts, while denying the underlying assumptions in those beliefs?
[/quote]
WHAT ASSUMPTIONS?
I am supporting an argument. If it’s wrong I need proof, which you or anybody has been able to provide a even the slightest bit of probability that it could be wrong, period. It is deductively and necessarily true until proven wrong. The only other choice is ‘something from nothing’ or randomness which is logically impossible.
I am not going to concede a non-point for the mere appearance of being affable, that would be stupid. It has nothing to do with like or dislike, friendly or not, it’s simply right or wrong, there is no gray area here.
Existence it self is contingent save for that which it is contingent upon, you don’t have to know everything about everything for this fact to be a fact. That is the beauty of deduction. It’s like my favorite example for deductive logic, math. Let’s see if I can not fuck up the equation: 3*4i=12i ← You do not have to know what ‘i’ is for this equation to be absolutely, unequivocally, beyond the shadow of any doubt, true. It’s true under any circumstance, realm, dimension, alternate universe, etc. No assumptions there, at all.
You cannot really say the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, therefore you have no choice but attack the premises as not true, something you have not even come close to doing.
[quote]
You arrived at that belief by using deductive logic, but you have yet to acknowledge that deductive logic is based on the assumptions of Identity, Excluded Middle, and Non-contradiction. We don’t know these assumptions always hold, and as I’ve said several times now, philosophers have in fact argued that they may NOT always hold.[/quote]
I arrived at a conclusion based on the premises, not a belief based on assumptions. That’s what science does.
It doesn’t matter what philosophers argue, it’s what they can prove. Arguing is a just a learning process.
If the above ‘laws’ are in question than they are theories not laws.
Assumptions and beliefs are the stuff of inductive logic, not deductive logic. This is not an inductive argument, it is a deductive argument. Admonishing me as being stubborn is not going to change the fact the nobody has ever, ever, ever proven it wrong. Prove it wrong and I will concede, but you do in fact have to prove it, not just present potential counter arguments.
None of what you described is assumed.
I give you this you have tried every angle I have and haven’t seen, first it was thermodynamics, then it was attacking the conclusion as if it were a premise, now you accuse the argument on being based on assumptions. You cannot prove causation is an assumption much less, that it’s not actually true.[/quote]
Dude, you don’t get it. I was using the cosmological argument just as an example. My point is that EVERYTHING is based on assumptions. Prove that existence itself is real. You can’t, so don’t pretend otherwise. Nor can you prove that EVERYTHING is subject to Identity, Excluded Middle, and Non-contradiction. Your holy grail of deductive logic is based on assumptions, and you can read about these assumptions in any basic book on logic. I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been said by many others.
If it was as unavoidably clear cut as you claim, every honest philosopher would agree with you. Obviously, many philosophers don’t. There are proponents for and against the cosmological theory, just as there are proponents for and against a multitude of other theories. Nobody knows the final answer on everything, and those like you that claim to know the answer are fooling themselves.
Like I said before, my bullshit detector goes off when anyone claims to know THE TRUTH, and refuses to admit they could be wrong. You’re as adamant in your beliefs as Tiribulus is in his. I think both of you are classic examples of confirmatory bias, since you dismiss and rationalize away anything that threatens your current beliefs.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Sigh… I will clear up some misconceptions. In no way does the cosmological argument say that everything that exists has a cause that is external to it, if it did the argument would unavoidable end up concluding an infinite regress which ultimately doesn’t explain why anything exist at all rather than nothing.
Rather it relies on the principle of sufficient reason which states that anything that does exist has a reason for its existence either as an effect of an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature. Beings who reason for existence due to a cause external to them are contingent beings in that they could have ceased to exist, yet a being whose existence is due to the necessity of his own nature if he exist cannot not exist, otherwise known as a necessary or noncontingent being. It is undeniable and self evident to me that something exists, rather than nothing at all. It is also self evident to me that I and the universe I observe exist contingently.
Things which are contingent is not an adequate explanation for why contingent things exist in the first place, the only adequate explanation for the existence of contingent things or the reason why anything exist at all lies in a necessary being. Why being? Because only a being has the ability of choosing to do or not do something, which this necessary being brought the contingent universe into and sustains its existence. This necessary being from the conclusion of the argument also has many of the properties one would ascribe to God, having a will, eternal, oneness etc…[/quote]
Why is there choice involved? That seems like an enormous leap. The formation of a universe out of an infinitely large, virtually empty space at thermal equilibrium fits nicely into what we already know about physics, and that’s if you want to stick with the argument that things “out there” follow the same rules as they do “in here.” Get over causality. I keep saying this, and I assume my last post was ignored because there’s no good argument against it. Getting rid of causality continues to be a much simpler solution than an uncaused cause. Why make a rule with one glaring exception rather than accept that it’s not really a rule?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Sigh… I will clear up some misconceptions. In no way does the cosmological argument say that everything that exists has a cause that is external to it, if it did the argument would unavoidable end up concluding an infinite regress which ultimately doesn’t explain why anything exist at all rather than nothing.
Rather it relies on the principle of sufficient reason which states that anything that does exist has a reason for its existence either as an effect of an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature. Beings who reason for existence due to a cause external to them are contingent beings in that they could have ceased to exist, yet a being whose existence is due to the necessity of his own nature if he exist cannot not exist, otherwise known as a necessary or noncontingent being. It is undeniable and self evident to me that something exists, rather than nothing at all. It is also self evident to me that I and the universe I observe exist contingently.
Things which are contingent is not an adequate explanation for why contingent things exist in the first place, the only adequate explanation for the existence of contingent things or the reason why anything exist at all lies in a necessary being. Why being? Because only a being has the ability of choosing to do or not do something, which this necessary being brought the contingent universe into and sustains its existence. This necessary being from the conclusion of the argument also has many of the properties one would ascribe to God, having a will, eternal, oneness etc…[/quote]
Why is there choice involved? That seems like an enormous leap. The formation of a universe out of an infinitely large, virtually empty space at thermal equilibrium fits nicely into what we already know about physics, and that’s if you want to stick with the argument that things “out there” follow the same rules as they do “in here.” Get over causality. I keep saying this, and I assume my last post was ignored because there’s no good argument against it. Getting rid of causality continues to be a much simpler solution than an uncaused cause. Why make a rule with one glaring exception rather than accept that it’s not really a rule?
[/quote]
First of all an “infinitely large, virtually empty space at thermal equilibrium” is certainly something and not nothing and secondly isn’t what science suggest, instead science suggest that the universe had an absolute beginning if you wanted to attack the kalam version of the argument, while I certainly find that version of the argument valid it wasn’t the form of the argument I was arguing. Rather I was arguing the atemporal Leibniz version.
I see you deny the premise of the principle of sufficient reason which states “everything has a reason for its existence, either in an external cause or in the nature of its own being” you don’t seem to deny it completely since you say it applies to everything in the universe but not the universe itself. This is committing the taxi cab fallacy where one dismisses the causal principle once one gets to his destination i.e. the universe, this is arbitrary and unjustified.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Sigh… I will clear up some misconceptions. In no way does the cosmological argument say that everything that exists has a cause that is external to it, if it did the argument would unavoidable end up concluding an infinite regress which ultimately doesn’t explain why anything exist at all rather than nothing.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. The cosmological proofs are varied. One is in fieri and deals entirely with cause and effect, e.g. Aquinas’: all things which are in motion have been put in motion by an external force, the universe is in motion, therefore the universe put set in motion by an external force.
Others are in esse (Leibniz), including the argument from contingency, which you have referenced here.
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.
It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.
Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]
I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]
No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.
Especially if they contradict themselves.
[/quote]
Oh? Where is the contradiction?[/quote]
You claim that everything has a cause and that it all started with a god.
What caused him/it/whatever?
[/quote]
The Uncaused-cause cannot have a cause or it’s not uncaused. By definition, the question is irrelevant.[/quote]
But how does your uncaused cause fit into a universe where everything supposedly must have a cause?[/quote]
It sits outside the causal chain, it must by necessity do so.[/quote]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:
That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.
Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]
You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.
That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.
If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.
[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]
Assumptions are not the problem.
Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.[/quote]
That shit is contingent is not an assumption, it’s a fact. It’s an assumption to say that something is not, with out even the slightest shred of evidence, is to make an assumption. So you your conclusion that cosmology is false is actually based on unverified, hopeful assumptions.[/quote]
Why do you keep insisting that your beliefs are facts, while denying the underlying assumptions in those beliefs?
[/quote]
WHAT ASSUMPTIONS?
I am supporting an argument. If it’s wrong I need proof, which you or anybody has been able to provide a even the slightest bit of probability that it could be wrong, period. It is deductively and necessarily true until proven wrong. The only other choice is ‘something from nothing’ or randomness which is logically impossible.
I am not going to concede a non-point for the mere appearance of being affable, that would be stupid. It has nothing to do with like or dislike, friendly or not, it’s simply right or wrong, there is no gray area here.
Existence it self is contingent save for that which it is contingent upon, you don’t have to know everything about everything for this fact to be a fact. That is the beauty of deduction. It’s like my favorite example for deductive logic, math. Let’s see if I can not fuck up the equation: 3*4i=12i ← You do not have to know what ‘i’ is for this equation to be absolutely, unequivocally, beyond the shadow of any doubt, true. It’s true under any circumstance, realm, dimension, alternate universe, etc. No assumptions there, at all.
You cannot really say the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, therefore you have no choice but attack the premises as not true, something you have not even come close to doing.
I can prove existence exists, because nothing can’t do anything. I know something exists, the mere question posed means that something exists, a question is a something. What I nor, anybody else can prove is that anything physical exists. That’s not the same as not being able to prove existence period. Nothing is property-less it has no physical nor metaphysical properties. Even if this whole conversation and my entire existence is a figment of my imagination; figments are things, imagination is a thing, etc. Existence, exists.
The fact that philosopher counter argue is irrelevant, by counter arguing alone, you don’t prove anything. The counter argument has to be correct… The reason why philosophy studies it’s own history is to know what other’s have already done so you don’t bother repeating. People will disagree whether right or wrong, I can do nothing about that.
Your bullshit detector is failing you then. I didn’t proclaim to know the truth, I am merely defending an argument; a damn good one too. You’re making it more than what it is because you really want it to be wrong.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Sigh… I will clear up some misconceptions. In no way does the cosmological argument say that everything that exists has a cause that is external to it, if it did the argument would unavoidable end up concluding an infinite regress which ultimately doesn’t explain why anything exist at all rather than nothing.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. The cosmological proofs are varied. One is in fieri and deals entirely with cause and effect, e.g. Aquinas’: all things which are in motion have been put in motion by an external force, the universe is in motion, therefore the universe put set in motion by an external force.
Others are in esse (Leibniz), including the argument from contingency, which you have referenced here.[/quote]
I think I get what Joab is saying, though his wording was poor. External causation is one form, but not the only. I think you actually both agree. Except for the fact that an infinite regress being impossible is one of the premises to cosmology. Even if it were all external causation, it still would hold true that an infinite regress is impossible.
That’s why I don’t like to over complicate things. There is cause and it’s resultant effect. Despite the way in which it occurs, that basic fact remains true.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:
That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.
Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]
You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.
That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.
If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.
[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]
Assumptions are not the problem.
Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.[/quote]
That shit is contingent is not an assumption, it’s a fact. It’s an assumption to say that something is not, with out even the slightest shred of evidence, is to make an assumption. So you your conclusion that cosmology is false is actually based on unverified, hopeful assumptions.[/quote]
Why do you keep insisting that your beliefs are facts, while denying the underlying assumptions in those beliefs?
[/quote]
WHAT ASSUMPTIONS?
I am supporting an argument. If it’s wrong I need proof, which you or anybody has been able to provide a even the slightest bit of probability that it could be wrong, period. It is deductively and necessarily true until proven wrong. The only other choice is ‘something from nothing’ or randomness which is logically impossible.
I am not going to concede a non-point for the mere appearance of being affable, that would be stupid. It has nothing to do with like or dislike, friendly or not, it’s simply right or wrong, there is no gray area here.
Existence it self is contingent save for that which it is contingent upon, you don’t have to know everything about everything for this fact to be a fact. That is the beauty of deduction. It’s like my favorite example for deductive logic, math. Let’s see if I can not fuck up the equation: 3*4i=12i ← You do not have to know what ‘i’ is for this equation to be absolutely, unequivocally, beyond the shadow of any doubt, true. It’s true under any circumstance, realm, dimension, alternate universe, etc. No assumptions there, at all.
You cannot really say the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, therefore you have no choice but attack the premises as not true, something you have not even come close to doing.
I can prove existence exists, because nothing can’t do anything. I know something exists, the mere question posed means that something exists, a question is a something. What I nor, anybody else can prove is that anything physical exists. That’s not the same as not being able to prove existence period. Nothing is property-less it has no physical nor metaphysical properties. Even if this whole conversation and my entire existence is a figment of my imagination; figments are things, imagination is a thing, etc. Existence, exists.
The fact that philosopher counter argue is irrelevant, by counter arguing alone, you don’t prove anything. The counter argument has to be correct… The reason why philosophy studies it’s own history is to know what other’s have already done so you don’t bother repeating. People will disagree whether right or wrong, I can do nothing about that.
Your bullshit detector is failing you then. I didn’t proclaim to know the truth, I am merely defending an argument; a damn good one too. You’re making it more than what it is because you really want it to be wrong.[/quote]
At least you admit that you can’t prove anything physical exists. That alone is evidence that you can’t KNOW with 100% certainty that the comological theory, or any other theory, MUST be true.
I never argued that the theories of philosophers that disagree with you MUST be true. I only argued that it’s ridiculous to claim the cosmological theory MUST be true.
In your last paragraph, you seem to admit this. Maybe I misunderstood you earlier, since you made several statements that deductive logic PROVES the cosmological theory must be true. As long as you’re admitting it is only a theory, with assumptions that cannot be PROVEN to be true with 100% certainty, I have no problem with that.
I think it’s very possible the cosmological theory reflects reality. It’s also very possible it doesn’t. I’m just asking for an honest admission of our ignorance either way.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Sigh… I will clear up some misconceptions. In no way does the cosmological argument say that everything that exists has a cause that is external to it, if it did the argument would unavoidable end up concluding an infinite regress which ultimately doesn’t explain why anything exist at all rather than nothing.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. The cosmological proofs are varied. One is in fieri and deals entirely with cause and effect, e.g. Aquinas’: all things which are in motion have been put in motion by an external force, the universe is in motion, therefore the universe put set in motion by an external force.
Others are in esse (Leibniz), including the argument from contingency, which you have referenced here.[/quote]
I think I get what Joab is saying, though his wording was poor. External causation is one form, but not the only. I think you actually both agree. Except for the fact that an infinite regress being impossible is one of the premises to cosmology. Even if it were all external causation, it still would hold true that an infinite regress is impossible.
That’s why I don’t like to over complicate things. There is cause and it’s resultant effect. Despite the way in which it occurs, that basic fact remains true.[/quote]
We don’t know that an infinite regress is impossible.
We don’t know that matter/energy was ever created.
[quote]forlife wrote:We don’t know that an infinite regress is impossible.
We don’t know that matter/energy was ever created.
We don’t know that spontaneity is impossible.
These are assumptions, not facts.[/quote]As long as you persist in playing on his field Pat, he will continue to gain yardage like this. Because based on the Aristotelian/Thomistic epistemology that you both share NOTHING can be known with certainty remember? That being the case, you both are croaking what ultimately amounts to abuncha noise at one another. Noise which can’t even itself be accounted for.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How does Chris know either of these things?[/quote]
On a completely scientific basis (which by the way is never without basis in the truth that G-d is real)…Because I was a mathematician. And, the Big Bang Theory already proved that energy/matter was created.
On a historical and religious basis, because that is what the Catholic Church teaches and what the Church teaches is what goes. I won’t explain at the moment how an infinite regress is impossible, because I am hungry.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Logical proofs for God are interesting if not entirely convincing. The cosmological argument is especially powerful (though not necessarily bulletproof). This is how I normally put it:
That which is in motion must have been put in motion by an external force.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe was put in motion by an external force.
That force, we call God.
Either the first premise is false, or the argument stands. The first premise SEEMS true, but it can be gotten around (infinite regress, causal loop, something else entirely which we’ve never even heard of yet, etc.) In my opinion, an infinite regress is tougher to believe in than an uncontingent God.[/quote]
You have several premises in there, for example that the “law of causation”, if it indeed exists, must also apply “outside” or “before” the known universe.
That is quite an assumption if spacetime without which causatioin as we understand it is nonexistent, came into existence with the universe.
If there was no “before” in the way we understand it, to claim that something was “caused” is meaningless.
[/quote]Assumption is another way of saying “faith” without using that terrible word. Could you please tell me what, in your reality, is NOT built on assumption in some form?
[/quote]
Assumptions are not the problem.
Making absolute declarations based on those assumptions, while refusing to admit you could be wrong, is the problem.[/quote]
That shit is contingent is not an assumption, it’s a fact. It’s an assumption to say that something is not, with out even the slightest shred of evidence, is to make an assumption. So you your conclusion that cosmology is false is actually based on unverified, hopeful assumptions.[/quote]
Why do you keep insisting that your beliefs are facts, while denying the underlying assumptions in those beliefs?
[/quote]
WHAT ASSUMPTIONS?
I am supporting an argument. If it’s wrong I need proof, which you or anybody has been able to provide a even the slightest bit of probability that it could be wrong, period. It is deductively and necessarily true until proven wrong. The only other choice is ‘something from nothing’ or randomness which is logically impossible.
I am not going to concede a non-point for the mere appearance of being affable, that would be stupid. It has nothing to do with like or dislike, friendly or not, it’s simply right or wrong, there is no gray area here.
Existence it self is contingent save for that which it is contingent upon, you don’t have to know everything about everything for this fact to be a fact. That is the beauty of deduction. It’s like my favorite example for deductive logic, math. Let’s see if I can not fuck up the equation: 3*4i=12i ← You do not have to know what ‘i’ is for this equation to be absolutely, unequivocally, beyond the shadow of any doubt, true. It’s true under any circumstance, realm, dimension, alternate universe, etc. No assumptions there, at all.
You cannot really say the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, therefore you have no choice but attack the premises as not true, something you have not even come close to doing.
I can prove existence exists, because nothing can’t do anything. I know something exists, the mere question posed means that something exists, a question is a something. What I nor, anybody else can prove is that anything physical exists. That’s not the same as not being able to prove existence period. Nothing is property-less it has no physical nor metaphysical properties. Even if this whole conversation and my entire existence is a figment of my imagination; figments are things, imagination is a thing, etc. Existence, exists.
The fact that philosopher counter argue is irrelevant, by counter arguing alone, you don’t prove anything. The counter argument has to be correct… The reason why philosophy studies it’s own history is to know what other’s have already done so you don’t bother repeating. People will disagree whether right or wrong, I can do nothing about that.
Your bullshit detector is failing you then. I didn’t proclaim to know the truth, I am merely defending an argument; a damn good one too. You’re making it more than what it is because you really want it to be wrong.[/quote]
At least you admit that you can’t prove anything physical exists. That alone is evidence that you can’t KNOW with 100% certainty that the comological theory, or any other theory, MUST be true.
[/quote]
That alone is just evidence that physical existence and physical proofs rely on induction, not deduction. The only issue it causes cosmology is a a shaky starting point. Matter doesn’t have to exist for cosmology to be true.
Well it’s never been proven false, it has withstood a long history of attack with out refutation. The only counter arguments with any teeth are theories with no evidence at all. All evidences physical or otherwise all show cosmology to be true, nothing, but the musings of men even contest that it is false.
Like I said, I am supporting an argument. It’s not based on assumptions, it’s simply fact. It cannot be prove that it’s based on assumptions much less that it’s wrong.
[quote]
I think it’s very possible the cosmological theory reflects reality. It’s also very possible it doesn’t. I’m just asking for an honest admission of our ignorance either way.[/quote]
I admit ignorance in plenty of matters, but not this one. I leave open the possibility that it may be wrong ONLY when proof, real proof is provided. 2000 years of failure to refute helps my confidence quite a bit. I can be wrong on many things, but this one I am not. If I am wrong, prove it. I’ll accept it if it’s truly valid. Bring non-contingent truths to the table.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Sigh… I will clear up some misconceptions. In no way does the cosmological argument say that everything that exists has a cause that is external to it, if it did the argument would unavoidable end up concluding an infinite regress which ultimately doesn’t explain why anything exist at all rather than nothing.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. The cosmological proofs are varied. One is in fieri and deals entirely with cause and effect, e.g. Aquinas’: all things which are in motion have been put in motion by an external force, the universe is in motion, therefore the universe put set in motion by an external force.
Others are in esse (Leibniz), including the argument from contingency, which you have referenced here.[/quote]
I think I get what Joab is saying, though his wording was poor. External causation is one form, but not the only. I think you actually both agree. Except for the fact that an infinite regress being impossible is one of the premises to cosmology. Even if it were all external causation, it still would hold true that an infinite regress is impossible.
That’s why I don’t like to over complicate things. There is cause and it’s resultant effect. Despite the way in which it occurs, that basic fact remains true.[/quote]
We don’t know that an infinite regress is impossible.
[/quote]
Yes, we do, it’s logically impossible. It begs the question and is patently false.
It was brought into being, just not based on a point and time, necessarily. It could or could not have been. It doesn’t matter because matter/ energy can do nothing on it’s own. It’s contingent on other things to not only exist, but behave the way it does.
Yes we do because it requires nothingness to do something. It’s impossible, by definition nothing can’t do anything. The only othe argument you could make would make it circular. You screwed either way.
[quote]
These are assumptions, not facts.[/quote]
None of the above are assumptions, an assumption is that you flip the switch and a light will come on. Laws of logic are timeless and eternal they are the way they are, always have been, always will be.