Religious Questions of Logic

[groo]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause.

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.[/quote]

Sure not new but this is a fairly accurate assessment of the arguments history and the modern versions of it are linked as well which I would assume most would grant as superior. The assessment of the argument at the end is I think to be fair that it establishes its logically possible for a god to exist, but that it doesn’t make it more probable than the other explanations.

I think a key point to note as well would be that this argument says nothing of the nature of such a first cause.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_4_ARGUMENTS_REASON/Cosmological.htm

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause.

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.[/quote]

No. It’s not new shit. And if there were no reasonable argument against it, the CA would be accepted. It’s not. It’s subject to genuine criticism. You know it. I know it. The criticism have not been resolved. Your bias simply finds an “elegance” to the CA that you can’t let go of. I’m not going to list the objections and criticisms to the CA again. We did that before. None of those criticisms have been dispelled.

But to be clear, personally, I think an “uncaused first cause” is nonsensical and a desperate attempt to produce a God. Even if there were an “uncaused first cause”, this does not prove “God” as you and other religious believers define the term.

There is no evidence the “cosmos” (I use the term “cosmos” to differentiate it from our known universe) has a beginning or an end. None. Although there may be compelling evidence or theory that our known universe started with a “bang”, what preceded that is quite possibly still part of the cosmos.

I believe the whole problem of “contingency” is a limitation of the human mind. I’ve already exhaustively used the flatlander example in the other thread. Try as he might, the flatlander can never “grok” the other dimensions that actually exist. Everything you experience, your hard wiring, is locked in “contingency”. Along with “time”, you cannot imagine a world, a universe, an existence without it.

This argument, like the CA and it’s objections, are circular. You know it. I know it. You’re just being purposefully obtuse (I say purposefully b/c I believe you to have an intellect, unlike some others here) and frankly, that’s not a fun discussion. The alternative is that you’re just plagiarizing stuff off a web page, and do not really understand it fully enough to discuss it’s depths. I do not believe the latter. Yet.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause.

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.[/quote]

Sure not new but this is a fairly accurate assessment of the arguments history and the modern versions of it are linked as well which I would assume most would grant as superior. The assessment of the argument at the end is I think to be fair that it establishes its logically possible for a god to exist, but that it doesn’t make it more probable than the other explanations.

I think a key point to note as well would be that this argument says nothing of the nature of such a first cause.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_4_ARGUMENTS_REASON/Cosmological.htm

[/quote]

HE KNOWS THIS. He’s doing the usual PWI shuffle. It’s why his name, along with ZEB, BC and the usual suspects is being raised now in GAL in the FMK thread. I however give Pat credit for intellect. He’s just stubborn. He’s also too biased in his religious beliefs to give this “debate” fair treatment because guess what? If he allows that the CA is false, then that casts a long shadow upon his belief system. I however, have no such investment and can allow for a “God” (which by even dogmatic rule cannot be defined) to exist even if the CA is poppeycock.

I see a bunch of philosophers groping around using human terminology, and the limitations of the human mind, to “grok” the deepest mysteries of the universe which we all know by now are only revealed to us by the not so transparent (to the human imagination) use of advanced math. And therein lies the problem.

[pat]

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause.

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.[/quote]

Sure not new but this is a fairly accurate assessment of the arguments history and the modern versions of it are linked as well which I would assume most would grant as superior. The assessment of the argument at the end is I think to be fair that it establishes its logically possible for a god to exist, but that it doesn’t make it more probable than the other explanations.

I think a key point to note as well would be that this argument says nothing of the nature of such a first cause.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_4_ARGUMENTS_REASON/Cosmological.htm

[/quote]

It’s not an empirical argument, it’s a priori meaning it’s a matter of deduction. Deductions don’t function on probabilities or scales, they are either true or not true.
I did not look at the link, but be careful as to which argument you choose. Some of them are claimed to be ‘cosmological’ but are just bad reworkings or Aristotle’s original composition. The argument from contingency is the one I favor because it removes pretty much all external controlling variables. Time, eternity, infinity, etc are not issues in the world of contingencies. Also, keep in mind, it’s not necessarily a singular argument, it’s a form of an argument. So matter when you start, you always end up at the same place.

It is also correct that the argument tells us very little about the Necessary Being, Prime-mover, Uncaused-cause or what ever you want to call it. WE know basically three things, it’s necessarily by definition uncaused, eternal and sit necessarily outside the causal chain. The fact that these are attributes we would traditionally assign to a God concept, the inference is strong but no absolute.

I do see the argument as exclusionary of other possible worlds. If true, then an alternate explanation coming to a different conclusion cannot contradict what’s in this argument. That’s not saying other arguments cannot be made, it just means that what ever is said cannot contradict other true premises. Therefore, a counter claim must either prove at least one premise of cosmology false, or it cannot take them in to account.

[groo]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause.

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.[/quote]

Sure not new but this is a fairly accurate assessment of the arguments history and the modern versions of it are linked as well which I would assume most would grant as superior. The assessment of the argument at the end is I think to be fair that it establishes its logically possible for a god to exist, but that it doesn’t make it more probable than the other explanations.

I think a key point to note as well would be that this argument says nothing of the nature of such a first cause.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_4_ARGUMENTS_REASON/Cosmological.htm

[/quote]

It’s not an empirical argument, it’s a priori meaning it’s a matter of deduction. Deductions don’t function on probabilities or scales, they are either true or not true.
I did not look at the link, but be careful as to which argument you choose. Some of them are claimed to be ‘cosmological’ but are just bad reworkings or Aristotle’s original composition. The argument from contingency is the one I favor because it removes pretty much all external controlling variables. Time, eternity, infinity, etc are not issues in the world of contingencies. Also, keep in mind, it’s not necessarily a singular argument, it’s a form of an argument. So matter when you start, you always end up at the same place.

It is also correct that the argument tells us very little about the Necessary Being, Prime-mover, Uncaused-cause or what ever you want to call it. WE know basically three things, it’s necessarily by definition uncaused, eternal and sit necessarily outside the causal chain. The fact that these are attributes we would traditionally assign to a God concept, the inference is strong but no absolute.

I do see the argument as exclusionary of other possible worlds. If true, then an alternate explanation coming to a different conclusion cannot contradict what’s in this argument. That’s not saying other arguments cannot be made, it just means that what ever is said cannot contradict other true premises. Therefore, a counter claim must either prove at least one premise of cosmology false, or it cannot take them in to account.[/quote]

So you didn’t read it yet you know it eh? Well this means for all future posts from you I get to use my goto:

[photo]34364[/photo]

[pat]

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause.

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.[/quote]

Sure not new but this is a fairly accurate assessment of the arguments history and the modern versions of it are linked as well which I would assume most would grant as superior. The assessment of the argument at the end is I think to be fair that it establishes its logically possible for a god to exist, but that it doesn’t make it more probable than the other explanations.

I think a key point to note as well would be that this argument says nothing of the nature of such a first cause.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_4_ARGUMENTS_REASON/Cosmological.htm

[/quote]

It’s not an empirical argument, it’s a priori meaning it’s a matter of deduction. Deductions don’t function on probabilities or scales, they are either true or not true.
I did not look at the link, but be careful as to which argument you choose. Some of them are claimed to be ‘cosmological’ but are just bad reworkings or Aristotle’s original composition. The argument from contingency is the one I favor because it removes pretty much all external controlling variables. Time, eternity, infinity, etc are not issues in the world of contingencies. Also, keep in mind, it’s not necessarily a singular argument, it’s a form of an argument. So matter when you start, you always end up at the same place.

It is also correct that the argument tells us very little about the Necessary Being, Prime-mover, Uncaused-cause or what ever you want to call it. WE know basically three things, it’s necessarily by definition uncaused, eternal and sit necessarily outside the causal chain. The fact that these are attributes we would traditionally assign to a God concept, the inference is strong but no absolute.

I do see the argument as exclusionary of other possible worlds. If true, then an alternate explanation coming to a different conclusion cannot contradict what’s in this argument. That’s not saying other arguments cannot be made, it just means that what ever is said cannot contradict other true premises. Therefore, a counter claim must either prove at least one premise of cosmology false, or it cannot take them in to account.[/quote]

So you didn’t read it yet you know it eh? Well this means for all future posts from you I get to use my goto:

[photo]34364[/photo]

[/quote]
I know it like the back and front of my hand. I just perused it and it’s nothing new, but it’s not a great explanation either.
This is a better link. Stay away from the Kalam argument, it’s garbage.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Still, it’s not the end all be all of cosmology. I could write up about 100 pages on it with out batting an eye. It can become very indepth as you examine the premises deeper as to why they must be true and have some grasp on epistemology. Understanding what you can know goes a long way to understanding this argument.

[groo]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause.

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

[/quote]

Oh brother… You said you understood the argument? Are you doing this deliberately? Eternity is irrelevant to the problem, time is irrelevant to the problem. Contingency, dependencies are independent of time. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternally cyclical, existence is not a function of itself. It’s completely illogical to ridiculous degrees. First cause is not a temporal statement. It’s a necessary conclusion based on the premises. It has nothing at all to do with time. Time is a consequence of causation, causation is not bound by time it’s a metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is not bound by time.[/quote]

oh brother, then stop raising it.

“based on premise”.

PREMISE. And therein lies your fault.
[/quote]

I haven’t made any errors. The argument is what it is, and I didn’t invent it. You’re objections were dispelled over 1400 years ago.[/quote]

Wrong. The objections continue today. For crying out loud they just had a panel discussion treating, among other things, the very subject.
[/quote]

You’re objection is wrong, period. Eternal existence does not remove dependence and you cannot regress infinitely because it begs the question. That’s the bottom line.
If you think that somehow time or eternal existence are contrary to the argument then you do not understand it, because it’s not. Again, dealt with 1500 years ago. This is not new shit.[/quote]

Sure not new but this is a fairly accurate assessment of the arguments history and the modern versions of it are linked as well which I would assume most would grant as superior. The assessment of the argument at the end is I think to be fair that it establishes its logically possible for a god to exist, but that it doesn’t make it more probable than the other explanations.

I think a key point to note as well would be that this argument says nothing of the nature of such a first cause.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_4_ARGUMENTS_REASON/Cosmological.htm

[/quote]

It’s not an empirical argument, it’s a priori meaning it’s a matter of deduction. Deductions don’t function on probabilities or scales, they are either true or not true.
I did not look at the link, but be careful as to which argument you choose. Some of them are claimed to be ‘cosmological’ but are just bad reworkings or Aristotle’s original composition. The argument from contingency is the one I favor because it removes pretty much all external controlling variables. Time, eternity, infinity, etc are not issues in the world of contingencies. Also, keep in mind, it’s not necessarily a singular argument, it’s a form of an argument. So matter when you start, you always end up at the same place.

It is also correct that the argument tells us very little about the Necessary Being, Prime-mover, Uncaused-cause or what ever you want to call it. WE know basically three things, it’s necessarily by definition uncaused, eternal and sit necessarily outside the causal chain. The fact that these are attributes we would traditionally assign to a God concept, the inference is strong but no absolute.

I do see the argument as exclusionary of other possible worlds. If true, then an alternate explanation coming to a different conclusion cannot contradict what’s in this argument. That’s not saying other arguments cannot be made, it just means that what ever is said cannot contradict other true premises. Therefore, a counter claim must either prove at least one premise of cosmology false, or it cannot take them in to account.[/quote]

So you didn’t read it yet you know it eh? Well this means for all future posts from you I get to use my goto:

[photo]34364[/photo]

[/quote]
I know it like the back and front of my hand. I just perused it and it’s nothing new, but it’s not a great explanation either.
This is a better link. Stay away from the Kalam argument, it’s garbage.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Still, it’s not the end all be all of cosmology. I could write up about 100 pages on it with out batting an eye. It can become very indepth as you examine the premises deeper as to why they must be true and have some grasp on epistemology. Understanding what you can know goes a long way to understanding this argument.
[/quote]
[photo]34364[/photo]

[TheBodyGuard]

my god this same old boring circular bullshit. “you don’t understand” he cries. YES. we do fucking understand. you think you’re the only guy that “gets it” and anyone that doesn’t agree with you doesn’t. THAT argument is older than the CA.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

The argument from contingency is the one I favor because it removes pretty much all external controlling variables. Time, eternity, infinity, etc are not issues in the world of contingencies. Also, keep in mind, it’s not necessarily a singular argument, it’s a form of an argument. So matter when you start, you always end up at the same place.

It is also correct that the argument tells us very little about the Necessary Being, Prime-mover, Uncaused-cause or what ever you want to call it. WE know basically three things, it’s necessarily by definition uncaused, eternal and sit necessarily outside the causal chain. The fact that these are attributes we would traditionally assign to a God concept, the inference is strong but no absolute.

Therefore, a counter claim must either prove at least one premise of cosmology false, or it cannot take them in to account.[/quote]

The contingency does not “remove” all external variables; to wit, your hard wiring and its attempt to grok something that may not be causal. It’s ironic though that you can neatly wrap your mind and your belief around an “uncaused cause” and call it God, but you cannot concede the same for the cosmos. It’s ironic and myopic frankly.

Did you ever consider you see a causal chain b/c you yourself and everything you experience and know and perceive is FINITE? Ever? And in the last thread, I gave you example of the uncaused; radioactive decay being chief among them.

Finally, a it’s fallacious and well as disingenuous to declare that a counter-argument must prove at least one premise of the CA false, when the premise upon which the CA relies, cannot be proven true. It’s a circle jerk Pat. Word play. The CA is a great thought experiment, nothing more.

[TheBodyGuard]

Warning Groo, he owns the entire Stanford philosophy web page. He will quote it forever. However, Stanford has yet to proclaim the existence of God, or the CA as fact. If you don’t believe me, check the reference

Pat, good to “see” you again. You reminded me why I remain largely absent from this forum. I’d much rather have this “debate” in person where we are not constrained by the written forum format and time delays. I’ve made my last post. Good hunting sir.

[TheBodyGuard]

Quentin Smith Uncaused » Internet Infidels

[TheBodyGuard]

add “non-locality” to the list of the apparent “uncaused”.

[TheBodyGuard]

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_12/philosophy_questions_1206.html

an interesting read.

I like where he states “Hume dealt with it in a very stunning
and frustrating way (take a look at his Treatiseif you haven’t), and most philosophers, as far as I can
tell, spend a lot of time listing types of causes and effects and taking cause more or less on intuitive
grounds.”

INTUITIVE grounds. And therein lies, and shall remain, your weakness.

Pat, as soon as you can intuit the most advanced physical theories presently known, like QM, non-locality, multiple dimensions, etc., - when you can “intuit” by your human hard-wiring, I’ll sit at rapt attention to your now boring defense of the CA. Boring not because you lack passion, but boring because you defend it while failing to concede the obvious. That, is boring.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The argument from contingency is the one I favor because it removes pretty much all external controlling variables. Time, eternity, infinity, etc are not issues in the world of contingencies. Also, keep in mind, it’s not necessarily a singular argument, it’s a form of an argument. So matter when you start, you always end up at the same place.

It is also correct that the argument tells us very little about the Necessary Being, Prime-mover, Uncaused-cause or what ever you want to call it. WE know basically three things, it’s necessarily by definition uncaused, eternal and sit necessarily outside the causal chain. The fact that these are attributes we would traditionally assign to a God concept, the inference is strong but no absolute.

Therefore, a counter claim must either prove at least one premise of cosmology false, or it cannot take them in to account.[/quote]

The contingency does not “remove” all external variables; to wit, your hard wiring and its attempt to grok something that may not be causal. It’s ironic though that you can neatly wrap your mind and your belief around an “uncaused cause” and call it God, but you cannot concede the same for the cosmos. It’s ironic and myopic frankly.
[/quote]
It cannot be the cosmos, that’s circular reason and hence errant. It’s circular, it’s always gong to be circular and therefore false for eternity.

Did you ever consider you see a causal chain b/c you yourself and everything you experience and know and perceive is FINITE? Ever? And in the last thread, I gave you example of the uncaused; radioactive decay being chief among them.

Radio active decay is not uncaused, at all. Not knowing a cause isn’t the same not having one. Radio active decay happens for a reason, not for no reason. Nothingness has no properties, much less the ability to cause.
Here is a reason for radio active decay, as a matter of fact:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090413004134AAgsdj0

Finally, a it’s fallacious and well as disingenuous to declare that a counter-argument must prove at least one premise of the CA false, when the premise upon which the CA relies, cannot be proven true. It’s a circle jerk Pat. Word play. The CA is a great thought experiment, nothing more.

You are saying that it’s fallacious to prove the argument wrong by attacking it’s premises? The only person circle jerking here is you. This isn’t word play, it’s isn’t a game and it’s not a theory. It’s an argument with valid premises and a valid conclusion. You want it to be wrong you have to attack it’s premises. It really is that simple.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html[/quote]

Atheist propaganda really? Wow, I should have been more prepared…LOL! Which part do you want me to rip apart? He merely proves that singularities are still contingent. His methodogly relies on strawmen. He put’s forth counter arguments to his own that don’t actually exist.

You don’t think I would have read this before? Do you really think you breaking new ground or introducing anything at all new? 'Cause your not.

[TheBodyGuard]

Good grief Pat really? A yahoo “answers” reference? I have news for you sir; that radioactive decay is “uncaused” is currently a scientific fact. Do your homework.

And causality my dear friend may likely be a mere principality of human thought. You always avoid that.

Good hunting.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html[/quote]

Atheist propaganda really? Wow, I should have been more prepared…LOL! Which part do you want me to rip apart? He merely proves that singularities are still contingent. His methodogly relies on strawmen. He put’s forth counter arguments to his own that don’t actually exist.

You don’t think I would have read this before? Do you really think you breaking new ground or introducing anything at all new? 'Cause your not.[/quote]

There IS no new ground to be broken here! That’s what I’ve been telling you!

It’s a circle jerk.

Happy hunting. It’s boring Pat.

[groo]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Warning Groo, he owns the entire Stanford philosophy web page. He will quote it forever. However, Stanford has yet to proclaim the existence of God, or the CA as fact. If you don’t believe me, check the reference

Pat, good to “see” you again. You reminded me why I remain largely absent from this forum. I’d much rather have this “debate” in person where we are not constrained by the written forum format and time delays. I’ve made my last post. Good hunting sir. [/quote]
Eh I know I figured I’d quit responding before I got in trouble for filling a page full of nested gifs.

I’ve seen an article on the idea we tend to give credence to arguments that support our position and discount the ones that are against our position and that this is why among other things its difficult to change people’s opinions on subjects like religion and politics.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_12/philosophy_questions_1206.html

an interesting read.

I like where he states “Hume dealt with it in a very stunning
and frustrating way (take a look at his Treatiseif you haven’t), and most philosophers, as far as I can
tell, spend a lot of time listing types of causes and effects and taking cause more or less on intuitive
grounds.”

INTUITIVE grounds. And therein lies, and shall remain, your weakness.

Pat, as soon as you can intuit the most advanced physical theories presently known, like QM, non-locality, multiple dimensions, etc., - when you can “intuit” by your human hard-wiring, I’ll sit at rapt attention to your now boring defense of the CA. Boring not because you lack passion, but boring because you defend it while failing to concede the obvious. That, is boring. [/quote]

I know Hume well. he never did manage to prove his elusive 3rd element of causation. I don’t have to know everything about everything to know something is true. For being bored you seem awful caught up in it. Sounds to me like you just really, really, really want to win somehow. But you won’t, because you can’t. Especially not the way your going about it. It has nothing to do with me, it just is what it is. You can lob all the strawmen, red herrings, appeal to authority, what ever flavor of logic fail you want, that’s not going to change. Telling me what I am not or what expertise I don’t have it completely irrelevant to the question of the truth and validity of this particular deduction. Telling me who is smarter than me, doesn’t prove anything right or wrong.
I can tell you why you won’t beat it, you’re making to many mistakes and then attacking me or my character, but I think I’ll just let you keep trying…

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
add “non-locality” to the list of the apparent “uncaused”.[/quote]

Uh no. Show me why you think its uncaused, I’ll show you where you are wrong.