The first cause argument

[firedragon]

The evidence (your posts) suggest that this is false.

If that makes you feel a little better, have it. Everyone needs to feel good about themselves so valiant attempt.

Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do some studying. You will get to know a lot of things.

The argument was never meant to not fail. Just that you dont understand where it fails.

Then please explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If that makes you feel a little better, have it. Everyone needs to feel good about themselves so valiant attempt.

Cheers.

What kind of logical argument did you use here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No doubt that the video is full of good arguments and refutations against the KCA, my only point is that your original refutation “if god created the universe then who created God” is a poor refutation because one doesn’t have to explain the origin to explain the origin of a cause, in order to established it as a cause.

Kinda sorta. Where the "what created God?" question matters is that if you have to violate the premises of your argument to conclude that God is the "uncaused cause," then this is a sign that either your premises are false or your argument's logic fails somewhere.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So do we know if the universe began to exist?

Who is this"we"? Scientists?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who is this"we"? Scientists?

Well, your claims are public and about the universe, so it applies to the "we" of all humans, who can try to answer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, your claims are public and about the universe, so it applies to the "we" of all humans, who can try to answer.

Yes, we can all try and answer.
Is it possible to show that the universe has an infinite number of causes? No.

Is it actually possible, that the universe has an infinite number of causes?
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
That only leaves one option, in my book.

One can come up with all kinds of interpretions of what quantum phenomena represents, and so on. All it does is shed doubt on the most widely accepted view that the universe has a beginning..

 

[leroy]

People may find it easier to accept it is a "dumb objection" if you actually explain why it is a dumb objection rather than just asserting it and expecting people to accept it.
You know, burden of proof, evidence, etc?

That has been explained

One can stablish that X is thd Cause if "Y" even if you cant explain where did X came from .

For example you can conclude that a virus is the cause of your symptoms even if you csnt explain where did that virus xame from.

 

[firedragon]

What kind of logical argument did you use here?

Commotion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, we can all try and answer.
Is it possible to show that the universe has an infinite number of causes? No.

Is it actually possible, that the universe has an infinite number of causes?
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
That only leaves one option, in my book.

One can come up with all kinds of interpretions of what quantum phenomena represents, and so on. All it does is shed doubt on the most widely accepted view that the universe has a beginning..

You are doing classical philosophy of the school of rationalism in epistemology. That one was shown to not work beyond the mind by Rene Descartes. As for your use of science, that one has already been shown to be problematic.

 

[leroy]

Do you understand the difference between valid and sound?

From your article as a premiss: '. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
So do we know if the universe began to exist?

The article explains and provides arguments for why the universe probably has a beginning.


If you disagree then you are expected to deal with the arguments and prove them wrong

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That has been explained

One can stablish that X is thd Cause if "Y" even if you cant explain where did X came from .

For example you can conclude that a virus is the cause of your symptoms even if you csnt explain where did that virus xame from.

Yeah and that is established through observation and testing. That is the problem with these kind of arguments. They are not backed up by observation and testing.

 

[firedragon]

Then please explain.

Never. Someone will identify it. Its actually pretty easy and very well known throughout history. The problem is mikkel, many who argue here are tribalistic and have a "we against you" attitude. Thus, they rely on quick responses, strawman arguments, scientism with a lack of understanding of it, etc. Only if they sit back and relax and take a rational look at it. Only if.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The article explains and provides arguments for why the universe probably has a beginning.


If you disagree then you are expected to deal with the arguments and prove them wrong

You still have to show that you understand the difference between valid and sound, before I begin. I am not going to play this game of true in logic is true of the world as such.

 

[leroy]

No, because if there are any logically self-consistent and scientifically possible alternatives to the premises of the argument, then it fails the burden of proof. There are, so it fails.

Sure if there are other alternavives and you show that such alternatives are better than the conclusion of tje KCA you would be justified in rejecting the KCA.

Will you ever accept your burden proof and provide such alternatives?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Never. Someone will identify it. Its actually pretty easy and very well known throughout history. The problem is mikkel, many who argue here are tribalistic and have a "we against you" attitude. Thus, they rely on quick responses, strawman arguments, scientism with a lack of understanding of it, etc. Only if they sit back and relax and take a rational look at it. Only if.

Do you understand the limit of rational?

 

[leroy]

Before we start, do you understand the difference between valid and sound?

Yes

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure if there are other alternavives and you show that such alternatives are better than the conclusion of tje KCA you would be justified in rejecting the KCA.

Will you ever accept your burden proof and provide such alternatives?

Yeah, forget my previous post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes

Then show it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm not sure that I do..
Some people would rather accept that the universe is eternal [an infinite past] rather than "something" being responsible for its creation.
Not me, obviously

I find it curious if people think that the afterlife is eternal while claiming that the universe can’t be.