The first cause argument

[ratiocinator]

Nah. You have to address your red herring first. You spoke of astrology and that is valid for the sake of argument. You bring a log of things like that just for the sake of argument.

So now you should be able to provide some information. What is the beginning of the Kranthivali which is the foundation of Jyothishya? Say you dont know and that you just posed a red herring thinking you've got it.

You really are frightened of addressing the actual point, aren't you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It wasn't a red herring it was an illustration that some people think they know things that aren't actually true (I could have used homoeopathy, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, or 2+2=5, for that matter). The main point (that you totally ignored) is that you haven't demonstrated that an infinite past is impossible and trite nonsense like "But anyone who knows it, knows that an infinite regression is not possible." doesn't actually constitute an argument.

It seems that @firedragon is missing that the whole point of an argument is to start with premises everyone agrees to.

If the premises aren't agreed to by everyone, then the thing to do is add a few steps to the argument to justify those premises (based on other premises that everyone does agree to), not to just try to cajole people into accepting the premises ("but everybody knows that that's true! C'mon! C'mon!").

 

[firedragon]

You really are frightened of addressing the actual point, aren't you?

Not at all.

But you are bringing in analogies you have no clue of. Just arbitrary useless ones you have no clue of. Admit when you dont know something like a humble person.

You dont know anything about astrology right? So why are you bringing it up as some valid study. Its hilarious. It is you who is avoiding the point. Dont bring false analogies, not even having an iota of understanding of what you yourself is bringing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which premise do I have to violated?

Confirm which argument you're making and I can tell you whether you're violating a premise or committing a logical fallacy. Is it:

- the Kalam Cosmological Argument as presented in the OP (which doesn't mention God), or

- William Lane Craig's version where he tacks a whole bunch of extra crap onto the end of the KCA to try to make it about God?

 

[leroy]

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.

Irrelevant

It is still a fact that one can stablish that X is the cause of Y even if you dont know the cause of X .

The fact that you refused to deal with this argument and changed the topic instead is proof that you grant the truth of this argument......

 

[leroy]

Confirm which argument you're making and I can tell you whether you're violating a premise or committing a logical fallacy. Is it:

- the Kalam Cosmological Argument as presented in the OP (which doesn't mention God), or

- William Lane Craig's version where he tacks a whole bunch of extra crap onto the end of the KCA to try to make it about God?

I cont see a relevant difference between these versions. But I'll go with William Lane creig.


So which premises are beeing violated?which lógica fallacies are being made?

 

[leroy]

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.

Valid argument: it uses valid logic , the conclusion follows from the premises.

Sound argument: the premises are likely to be true.

So whats your point ?

 

[leroy]

Ok myself for context:

leroy said: ↑
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.

I lost the context of this conversation, wherent you affirming tjat there are better alternatives to the conclusion of the KCA?

If yes, the why wouldn't you accept your burden proof and provide such as?

If you didn't made that assertion, then whats your point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cont see a relevant difference between these versions. But I'll go with William Lane creig.


So which premises are beeing violated?which lógica fallacies are being made?

As I pointed out in my other post, implicit in any "first cause" argument is the premise that God is uncaused, which is what would allow God to be the "uncaused cause" of everything else.

... so asking whether God has - or would require - a cause - is exploring whether this premise is true (or even reasonable).

 

[leroy]

That's not the point. You're still not getting the burden of proof. If there are any logically and scientifically possible alternatives to the premises, then the argument fails. How on earth would you even define 'better' in this context, anyway?

So by your logic, given that there are possible alternatives for say "the theory of evolution " we can invalidate such theory ?

After all it is both scientifically and logically possible that the theory of evolution is just and Alien conspiracy theory, where all the evidence (fossils, DNA, anatomy, observations etc) are just illusions created by Alien Technology.

My point is that providing alternatives is not enough you most show that the alternatives are better. (Agree yes or no?)

How on earth would you even define 'better' in this context, anyway?

Better according to the criteria commonly used in science (and other fields)

Criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, condistency with prevois knowledge, less adhoc , coherence etc.

The alternative that has a better score according to these criteria should be considered the best.


So the KCA concludes that the universe has a cause, do you have a better alternative? Care to share that alternative?

Please pay special attention to my questions in red , I am expecting a direct answer to these questions.

 

[night912]

The first cause argument is simply a logical premise by premise argument.

P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.
P2: The universe has a beginning.
C : Thus its "possesses" a cause for its beginning.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?

This is not a valid argument that there is a first cause because there's no connection between something that has a beginning has a cause and that cause being the first cause.

That is only a valid argument for the universe having a cause, no more no less. The argument says nothing about the cause of the universe having just one cause, is the first cause, or have no infinite causes or that cause have or don't have a cause of its own.

 

[leroy]

It's a matter of your premises, not your conclusion.

The First Cause argument says, effectively:

- there has to be an uncaused "first cause"

And arguments are typically provided in support of such claim. If you disagree you are expected to deal with such arguments.

-

God is uncaused

Yes that is part of the definitionof God.


-

nothing else is uncaused

The KCA doesn't commits you to that claim, there could be other uncaused stuff.

Some philosophers of math and scientists claim that numbers are abstract objects (and therefore uncaused)

You can in principle propose the existence of a timeless (and uncaused) string

-

therefore, by process of elimination, the only thing available to be a "first cause" is God.

The KCA provides a detailed explanation for why the the first cause most be timeless spacless inmaterial personal etc. We simlly call it God (you can give it an other name)

To get to your conclusion, you need to establish your premises. That's what this is all about.

And arguments are typically provided in support of those premises. If you disagree you most deal with the arguments.

Imagine someone who was trying to diagnose a disease said "well, out of the 10 different viruses on our short list, we know enough about 9 of them to say that they don't cause the symptoms we're seeing. That means that the disease must be caused by the 10th virus on our list, a mystery virus that we know basically nothing about."

Do you think it would be off-base for one of the other researchers to say "hang on - let's figure out if that mystery virus can even cause the symptoms before concluding that it must be the culprit"?

And even that analogy is overly generous. What you're doing here is more like arguing "because 10 different viruses couldn't have caused the symptoms we're seeing, the disease must have been caused by a wizard's curse. And don't bother me with questions like 'are wizards even real?' and 'can they actually cast spells?' I've proven my case."

That is a strawman the KCA is not a process of elimination. (But as a sude noteI don't see anything wrong with process of elimination ) for example Dark Matter was proposed as a consequence of a process of elimination.


However the KCA is more like

P1 simthoms X and Y are caused by viruses

P2 John has simthoms X and Y

P3 John has a viral infection.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant

It is still a fact that one can stablish that X is the cause of Y even if you dont know the cause of X .

The fact that you refused to deal with this argument and changed the topic instead is proof that you grant the truth of this argument......

Yes, X is the cause of Y. But we don't know X as the cause of the universe or any other claim of the universe relevant to its metaphysics/ontology. Now you can believe what you want about X, but if you claim knowledge, that is different.

 

[leroy]

As I pointed out in my other post, implicit in any "first cause" argument is the premise that God is uncaused, which is what would allow God to be the "uncaused cause" of everything else.

... so asking whether God has - or would require - a cause - is exploring whether this premise is true (or even reasonable).

I still dont see any violation to any of the premises nor any logical fallacie.

Care to be more specific and clear?

implicit in any "first cause" argument is the premise that God is uncaused

Being uncaused is simply part of the definition of being God , honestly I dont see your point.

...

The claim "there is a first cause" is typically justified with arguments (if you disagree you are expected to refute such arguments)

The claim that the cause most be timeless inmaterial spaceless causeless personal etc. Is typically supported with arguments (if you disagree you are expected to refute such arguments)

The claim" God is the first cause" is just a label you can call it however you whant.

 

[leroy]

Yes, X is the cause of Y. But we don't know X as the cause of the universe or any other claim of the universe relevant to its metaphysics/ontology. Now you can believe what you want about X, but if you claim knowledge, that is different.

Ok but it is still true that I dont have to explain the origin of X in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok but it is still true that I dont have to explain the origin of X in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y

No, but if you say X caused Y, then if you claim that you know what X is other than the cause, then you are it. You have explain how you know.

 

[leroy]

No, but if you say X caused Y, then if you claim that you know what X is other than the cause, then you are it. You have explain how you know.

Granted and this is why multiple arguments in favor of X (have been provided )

The KCA being the one discussed in this thread
.

If you disagree with the conclusion of the KCA then you are expected to show the flaws in such argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

But you are bringing in analogies you have no clue of. Just arbitrary useless ones you have no clue of. Admit when you dont know something like a humble person.

I've already explained it as just an example for something that people believe in that doesn't actually work. That's it. That's all you need to know. I neither know nor care, nor is it at all relevant why people believe it or what its supposed basis is.

Are your really struggling to understand that?

So why are you bringing it up as some valid study.

I didn't bring it up as a valid study, quite the opposite.

Stop running away from the actual point I made, namely, that you haven't demonstrated that an infinite past is impossible.

 

[firedragon]

This is not a valid argument that there is a first cause because there's no connection between something that has a beginning has a cause and that cause being the first cause.

When you back in caused beings, it is only logical that there is a first cause. It is not "that cause is the first cause", but that there is a first cause.

Your statement is contradicting.

 

[firedragon]

I've already explained it as just an example

Dont give examples.