The first cause argument

[ratiocinator]

Sound argument: the premises are likely to be true.

No, a sound argument is when the premises are true.

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

Nobody is trying to support evolution using a categorical syllogism, it's a scientific theory based on empirical evidence.

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

Alternatives to the premises show that a deductive argument is unsound, i.e. the conclusion is not proved.

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

Yes: we don't know. There is not enough evidence to say whether there is a cause or not, it's also a rather vague and ill-defined idea when you consider that time, hence causality, are a part of the universe. It doesn't seem to make sense as stated, you'd have to postulate some larger context in which causality was still relevant, but then you're off into an infinite regress anyway. Can you have a cause for causality?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..And that wasn't the original claim, which was about an infinite past, which doesn't involve self-causation..

What does that mean?
Can you give us an example of an endless chain of causes in reality?
Can you give us any example at all ?

 

[ratiocinator]

Dont give examples.

Why not? Because it gives you an excuse to run away from the point?

 

[ratiocinator]

What does that mean?

What it says. How do you think an infinite past implies self-causation?

Can you give us an example of an endless chain of causes in reality?

No, of course not, but, yet again, why do you think it's impossible?

 

[firedragon]

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

Yes. An infinite past is impossible.

Try not to do your ad hominem.

If you want to really discuss why an infinite past as you put it is impossible just start that conversation without any baggage or your "infinite" attempts at ad hominem. Just open that conversation with a logical proposition. I do not think its difficult.

 

[firedragon]

Why not? Because it gives you an excuse to run away from the point?

Nah. Its not that. Its because you give examples of things you yourself have absolutely no clue of. E.g. Jyothishya. Lol. You give an example, and you cant substantiate your own example.

Its just that you are looking so hard to insult and demean another person that you are getting the treatment you are trying to dish out.

SO dont give examples. Just address the point.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes. An infinite past is impossible.

Why?

 

[Polymath257]

I was not saying an infinite regression is true.

Yes, I understood that.

I was saying as is accepted in philosophical arguments that it is not a possibility.

Not among modern philosophers.

Of course I didnt. That is why I said if you want we can discuss that. So dont worry. Dont get so agitated. You are getting agitated when someone of your "we" group are addressed, and you are so agitated that you dont have the patience to read just the next sentence that says "if you want we can discuss it".

I did read it. But given the previous discuss you and I have had, I thought it would be obvious.

 

[Polymath257]

So with that, can you validate the first premise of one of your "we" group you defended so passionately?

All toasters are made of Gold.

Please provide your reasoning to that. Thanks in advance.

Clearly you didn't understand the point of that. He was pointing out the distinction between a sound argument and a valid argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Even that is not the argument. Strawman again.

That was your first premise. You didn't support it.

 

[Polymath257]

Tell me how "Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning" is unsupported. Please explain.

Well, what support for it do you offer?

Instead, I propose the more fully supported (by observation) alternative:

"Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause in the universe."

Which do you think is more supported?

 

[Polymath257]

So you think that a being that has beginning has "no cause"?

You think that a being can come into existence just like a rabbit come out of a hat right? So you are a believer in magic.

If time is a being and it came into existence, it did not have a cause.

Because of that, if the universe came into existence (unknown), it did not have a cause.

ALL causes we know of are in the universe, so you need to argue that it is possible for a cause to be outside of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

How is that possible? Magic? Even if you believe in magic, still there has to be a magician which is still a cause for a being the came into existence.

If all causes are within the universe, then the universe is uncaused whether or not it began.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course. But anyone who knows it, knows that an infinite regression is not possible.

That is simply not true. The possibility of an infinite regression is hotly debated among astronomers and widely accepted by others.

You need to give an argument showing that an infinite regression is impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

If one wants to accept a circular argument, then it is a possibility.
i.e. that the universe caused itself

An infinite regression means uncaused (it didn't begin), not that it caused itself.

 

[Polymath257]

One cannot demonstrate any difference between the two, imo
Something that is infinite "has no end"..

what caused B? what caused A? what caused -? ad infinitum

Yes. More properly, there is no *beginning*.

That isn't using the conclusion as the hypothesis (a circular argument). And the sequence of causes (as opposed to each individual cause) is not caused at all (and doesn't begin).

 

[Polymath257]

We are discussing the infinite, here..
If the circle has an infinite diameter it becomes the tangent.

There is no circle with an infinite diameter because such would have no center. A circle is the collection of points equidistant from some central point.

If you can't see why saying that the universe caused itself is not a circular argument, I don't know what to say

A circular argument is one that uses its conclusion as part of the argument. For example, Using the Bible as evidence for God and saying you believe in God because of what the Bible says. THAT is circular.

The universe being *uncaused* (or even causing itself) isn't a circular argument.

 

[Polymath257]

The fact that you want to ignore it or don't understand it, is not my problem.

Where was the claim supported?

you seem to be treating infinity in a finite manner

There is a bit of irony here. How much have you worked with ideas relating to infinity? What distinctions are there between finite and infinite quantities?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Craig used well-known paradoxes about the infinite that are not contradictions to argue that there is a contradiction. For example, that a full Hilbert Hotel can be adjusted to allow an infinite number of new guests. There is no contradiction, but Craig seems to think there is and uses that in his argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not among modern philosophers.

Can you provide some evidence of that?