The first cause argument

[firedragon]

How about this..
Is the universe "a being" ?

Nope. Thats not it.

 

[firedragon]

To me it’s like saying that philosophy says God is proven because the moon is a cube and when it’s pointed out that it’s a sphere, suddenly science doesn’t matter.

If you read the OP, it is not about God.

 

[firedragon]

Flawed premises.

Why?

 

[firedragon]

Come on .. tell us .. what may that be?

Lol. No way.

 

[firedragon]

Once again, just saying somebody is wrong, haven't thought about, or being illogical, without making the slightest attempt to explain why they are wrong. That's basically an ad hominem.

Your whole point was to explain why the arguments in the OP are valid. It is already explained.

To show the argument is not logical, you have to show why its not logical. If you understand logic, a deduction can be valid just in the way its presented. Thats logic. To show that its illogical, you have to show that it is a contradiction. How do you do it?

 

[leroy]

No the KCA argues for the existence of god; the argument is not valid to prove god's existence. It assumes there is a first cause. This is not accepted by science.
The Big Bang happened, There is good evidence for it.
I don't know what happened or caused the Big Bang but no one is saying nothing happened before the Big Bang

Maybe Maybe, all I am saying is that your particular objection of “if God created the universe who created God” is a bad objection because it is irrelevant.

If you have some other objection feel free to present it, but I would like something more specific, rather that claiming “there is no evidence” over and over again.

 

[firedragon]

It can, however, comment on the validity the premises. A logical deduction (which is the form of the argument) can only be as good as its premises.

Absolutely true.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your whole point was to explain why the arguments in the OP are valid. It is already explained.

To show the argument is not logical, you have to show why its not logical. If you understand logic, a deduction can be valid just in the way its presented. Thats logic. To show that its illogical, you have to show that it is a contradiction. How do you do it?

Yes, it's valid in the same way as this is valid:

"All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices."

-- Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

The problem is (as I and others have repeatedly pointed out now) with the premises, i.e. with its soundness. The argument fails, despite its validity, because the premises are both highly questionable.

And BTW, you're wrong about a contradiction, an argument can be invalid if there is any way in which its premises can be true and its conclusion false, so that could be the result of any number of different fallacies.

 

[firedragon]

"All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices."

Thats the problem with cutting and pasting from websites without understanding a shred of logic.

If all that is gold are time travel devices, its true. But your P1 does not validate P2. Also, P1 is just a blatant lie.

So that's the gutter level of your argumentation. Super going.

 

[Ponder This]

No, they are not 'formed' at all. I don't have to count down to get them. I know that -123,345,183,242 is a negative integer even if I cannot count down to it.

@Polymath257

How do you know that: "-123,345,183,242 is a negative integer"?
(Hint: This is a basic math question. The Counting Numbers can be constructed recursively, via Set Theory, or using the Peano Axioms. The basic idea remains the same.)

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...spooky-action-at-a-distance-is-real-20210720/

Bell's Theorem doesn't actually help your case. You're relying on popular science without a deeper investigation of the issue.

I don't think so. The age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. So, does that entail that it had a beginning?
Suppose I ask the question: did the earth exist 10 billion years ago? Yes and no, depending on the theory of time you pick:
A-Theory: Of course the earth did not exist 10 billion years ago, since it is "only" 4.5 billions years old. And since it did not exist back then, but it exists today, it must have had a beginning.
B-Theory: the question is meaningless. It is like asking: does the earth exist 10 light years from here? If I travel 10 light years from the earth, and see no earth at that new location, that does not entail that the earth does not exist. In the same way, if I were able to travel 10 billion years in the past, and see no earth around, that does not entail the earth does not exist. It exists, but not at that spacetime location. Actually, there exist a lot of earths, each corresponding to a different physical state. There are earths with the dinosaurs. Earths with Napoleon. Earths with me. Earths without life. All ontological equivalent and all existing (eternally), no matter where we are in spacetime. Therefore, these earths do not have a beginning.
Ciao
- viole

Perhaps you do not understand the B-Theory of Time? I'm sorry, but your explanation of B-theory didn't make any sense.

I am afraid yes. Since the B-theory of time is tenseless, we should also use tenseless verbs to denote the ontology of things in the universe.
Therefore, according to that theory, it is meaningless to say things like "Napoleon existed". What is correct is "'Napoleon exists" (at a certain location is spacetime).
So, according to that theory, nothing begins to exist. And the whole Universe is timeless. That is also why it is called eternalism, as opposed to presentism, the latter getting out of favour on account of not being compatible with experiments.
Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia
Ciao
- viole

This sentence is six words long.
It has a beginning and an ending despite its tenseless existence as a four or higher dimensional object.

the first cause argument (again, as presented here) has already been shown to be unsound,

It has not been shown to be sound or unsound.

________________________________________________________________

It has been an interesting debate on the nature of the universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thats the problem with cutting and pasting from websites without understanding a shred of logic.

If all that is gold are time travel devices, its true. But your P1 does not validate P2. Also, P1 is just a blatant lie.

So that's the gutter level of your argumentation. Super going.

The whole point was to show that a valid argument can also be nonsense because its premises are wrong. Of course both its premises are nonsense, but it is, nonetheless, perfectly valid (logically well formed) argument (categorical syllogism), i.e. it's impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. If all toasters are items made of gold and all items made of gold are time-travel devices, then it would be impossible for the statement "all toasters are time-travel devices" to be false.

You are, in effect, appealing to empirical evidence (science) to dismiss a perfectly valid logical argument.

That's exactly the problem with your exposition of the first cause argument in the OP, except that the premises are both highly questionable, rather than outright nonsense. This is what you appear to be unable to grasp, when you make claims about its validity. It may be valid (logically correct) but it is very far from being sound (both valid and based on premises that are definitely true).

 

[viole]

This sentence is six words long.
It has a beginning and an ending despite its tenseless existence as a four or higher dimensional object.

you can defend that only if you consider, as beginning and end, two atemporal locations in spacetime. Ergo, you need to label as “beginning” a certain location in spacetime. Not in time. Same with “end”. So, the beginning has not a temporal coordinate, but a spacetime one, since only events on the 4 dimensional manifold have objective meaning.

now, forgetting for a second how you can mark the two points differently without a sort of preferred direction in spacetime (why is one the beginning and not the end, for instance?), how does that help Kalam according to WLC?

what are the coordinates in spacetime of spacetime itself? Hoe can you say, according to this ontology, then, that the Universe had a beginning?

ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

The whole point was to show that a valid argument can also be nonsense

Please validate that "All toasters are items made of gold."

Cheers.

 

[ratiocinator]

Please validate that "All toasters are items made of gold."

You still don't seem to understand what valid means in the context of a deductive argument. If you actually read the article I linked, you may learn something. Here's some simple definitions:-

"In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion."​

-- Validity (logic) - Wikipedia​

"In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true."​

-- Soundness - Wikipedia​

 

[firedragon]

You still don't seem to understand what valid means in the context of a deductive argument. If you actually read the article I linked, you may learn something. Here's some simple definitions:-

"In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion."​

-- Validity (logic) - Wikipedia​

"In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true."​

-- Soundness - Wikipedia​

I do. So

validate your P1. : "All toasters are items made of gold."

Thanks.

 

[ratiocinator]

It has a beginning and an ending despite its tenseless existence as a four or higher dimensional object.

Only in the sense that the surface of the Earth has a beginning at the north pole.

It has not been shown to be sound or unsound.

It's unsound because both its premises have been shown to be scientifically questionable. It is not clearly true that everything with a beginning has a cause, nor is it necessarily true that the universe had a beginning. Nor can we necessarily deduce anything about causation of the universe as a whole based on observations of what goes on within it (specifically within space-time).

 

[ratiocinator]

I do. So

validate your P1. : "All toasters are items made of gold."

Obviously you don't understand otherwise you wouldn't be asking me to validate a premiss, especially one that's been specifically designed to make a point by being obviously wrong.

The point is that you can't show that your premises for the first cause argument are true, and people have been pointing out why they may very well not be.

 

[firedragon]

Obviously you don't understand otherwise you wouldn't be asking me to validate a premiss, especially one that's been specifically designed to make a point by being obviously wrong.

The point is that you can't show that your premises for the first cause argument are true, and people have been pointing out why they may very well not be.

Not an answer. Maybe you dont know how to answer so this is your resort.

All toasters are items made of gold. was your first premise. Can you validate it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not an answer. Maybe you dont know how to answer so this is your resort.

All toasters are items made of gold. was your first premise. Can you validate it?

You don't understand the difference between valid and sound.

Here is a valid, but unsound deduction.

P1: All animals with a spine, central nervous system and the ability to feed underwater are fish.
P2: Penguins are animals with a spine, central nervous system and the ability to feed underwater are fish.
C: Therefore penguins are fish.

That you can't understand that your deduction is valid, but not sound, is because you understand logic differently between makes sense in a brain and makes sense outside a brain. The latter is truth by correspondence and it is tied to words.
All words are:
Signs as they stand in for understating in a brain.
Meaning as they are understood in a brain.
That they refer to something.

Your deduction is valid for its meaning, but not for its reference.
This is basic 101 logic for how deductions work.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not an answer. Maybe you dont know how to answer so this is your resort.

All toasters are items made of gold. was your first premise. Can you validate it?

You still don't seem to get what a deductive argument is. Premises are staring points, basically propositions that you assume as a basis for the conclusion: premiss "a statement that is assumed to be true for the purpose of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn" [my emphasis].

You can't use deductive logic to conclude anything at all without some such starting points, and if they are wrong or questionable, then, however valid the logic is, the conclusion is not reliable. If you have premises that are accepted as true, and the form of your argument is valid, then the argument is sound, and you have made your case. If either one of those is not the case, then you haven't made a case for the conclusion (even, BTW, if it is actually true).

And, again, why ask me to 'validate' a premiss from an argument that was deliberately designed with false premises in order to make the point that logically valid arguments are not necessarily sound? It's completely illogical, and suggests that you've totally missed the point.

The point people have been making throughout this thread is that your starting points (premises) are far from necessarily true.