When all is said and done.

[Marin]

Most things in religion make no sense and are mostly outdated lies/translations.

Is this a fact or an opinion?

I guess you can write a book about how they can be different, since your probably the first person in the Planet who believes in a soul without a religion.

Yes yes, this phrase is in trend

Umm, there are a lot of people who believe in the existence of soul (in one way or another) whose ideas don't correlate with any organized religion. Spirituality ring a bell?

And yeah, ignorance is a trend unfortunately.

 

[NarutoKage2]

I'll point out that that I already made a reply to this thread, more than 4 days ago. However my response wasn't saved and the 'token' expired(didn't save it all on word either) . Now I really didn't want to type a page long post from scratch all over again.

So i'll just post my objection(again) to the cosmological and transcendency arguments(transix).

Now, according to wikipedia(can't link ATM as I'm on my phone) a 'premise' is : 'an assumption that something is true'.

What are the 3 points and premises of the cosmological argument?

-Everything that has a beginning has a cause
-the universe has a beginning .
-therefore,the universe has a cause

This SEEMS to be perfectly plausible, but is it?
In the first premise, by stating the attribute of set/group 'everything that has a beginning' it is automatically implied that there is another set/group 'everything that doesn't have a beginning', which will not have the same attribute(of having a cause). There is an implied assumption, that there are 2 groups of things:

-everything that has a beginning(let's call it EHB )
- everything that doesn't have a beginning. (EDB for short).

Why are the two groups EDB and EHB necessary, and why do you have to give me examples of both for this to be a valid premise? Let me illustrate with the help of an example:

Let's suppose that you and I are friends living in a town in the centre of the united states in the year 2000. We are incredibly isolated from the outside world, so isolated in fact that we don't have access to foreign TV channels, newspapers or the internet. We know that we live in a town and that its in America, but we don't really know what america is, nor do we have any knowledge of foreign countries or people.
For us, Americans are the only people that exist.

Then one day its time for elections. At around the same time, there's this funny looking bearded guy who comes to town. He has a turban on his head, and goes by the name of Osama bin laden. He looks unusual, so we enter into an argument over whether he's eligible to vote.

You propose the following premise(s):

-Everyone who votes is a person
-Osama bin laden is a person
-therefore, Osama has a vote

This seems perfectly plausible(ring a bell?), but I being the sceptic that I am, point out: ' hold on, for your argument to be valid you'll first have to give examples of 'everyone who doesn't vote', because only if we know that, can we accept the first premise, otherwise its an argument from ignorance'.

Now, in RL you probably know that in order to vote in a country's elections you need to be a citizen of that country, but what was wrong with the argument the hypothetical you made?

 

[Karna]

Definitely going to hell.

 

[Deadlift]

Definitely going to hell.

Are you already treading the highway to Hell?

 

[Karna]

Are you already treading the highway to Hell?

Well yes, been treading it for a long time now, if the general idea of heaven/hell is to be believed, in like the local religion and Christianity or pretty much any religion.
I am more towards theism then atheism, hence hell has a high chance in my case.

 

[Deadlift]

Well yes, been treading it for a long time now, if the general idea of heaven/hell is to be believed, in like the local religion and Christianity or pretty much any religion.
I am more towards theism then atheism, hence hell has a high chance in my case.

Do you think that a religious person believes with all himself in every period of his life? It's normal to have crisis, even the best saints did have, even Jesus did

 

[Marin]

I'll point out that that I already made a reply to this thread, more than 4 days ago. However my response wasn't saved and the 'token' expired(didn't save it all on word either) . Now I really didn't want to type a page long post from scratch all over again.

So i'll just post my objection(again) to the cosmological and transcendency arguments(transix).

Now, according to wikipedia(can't link ATM as I'm on my phone) a 'premise' is : 'an assumption that something is true'.

Oh wow, that's a bummer. ._. To be honest I was beginning to think you dropped this but boy am I glad you haven't.

After witnessing a handful of dishonest people who quickly back off upon getting cornered here, for the effort you have invested in debating on this matter and your civilized behaviour you have my respect.

I will note, though, that I usually drop a debate if my opponet hasn't answered in a whole week, but since this isn't really a case with you we can go on, BUT, I'd like us to continue this (if we're going to talk solely about the cosmological argument) somewhere else as your reply has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If you want we can make a thread about it, or we can (much to my disliking) take this to PM/VM. I will, non-the less respond here anyway and let you decide if we will continue here and risk all our posts getting deleted by a mod or keep it safe somewhere else.

What are the 3 points and premises of the cosmological argument?

-Everything that has a beginning has a cause
-the universe has a beginning .
-therefore,the universe has a cause

This may look like nitpicking, but I want to correct your wording here. The premises aren't about something having a beginning, rather its about the existence of something having a beginning. As irrelevant as it may sound, terminology is very important here. So to correct:

- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause

This SEEMS to be perfectly plausible, but is it?
In the first premise, by stating the attribute of set/group 'everything that has a beginning' it is automatically implied that there is another set/group 'everything that doesn't have a beginning', which will not have the same attribute(of having a cause). There is an implied assumption, that there are 2 groups of things:

-everything that has a beginning(let's call it EHB )
- everything that doesn't have a beginning. (EDB for short).

Why are the two groups EDB and EHB necessary, and why do you have to give me examples of both for this to be a valid premise? Let me illustrate with the help of an example:

Let's suppose that you and I are friends living in a town in the centre of the united states in the year 2000. We are incredibly isolated from the outside world, so isolated in fact that we don't have access to foreign TV channels, newspapers or the internet. We know that we live in a town and that its in America, but we don't really know what america is, nor do we have any knowledge of foreign countries or people.
For us, Americans are the only people that exist.

Then one day its time for elections. At around the same time, there's this funny looking bearded guy who comes to town. He has a turban on his head, and goes by the name of Osama bin laden. He looks unusual, so we enter into an argument over whether he's eligible to vote.

You propose the following premise(s):

-Everyone who votes is a person
-Osama bin laden is a person
-therefore, Osama has a vote

This seems perfectly plausible(ring a bell?), but I being the sceptic that I am, point out: ' hold on, for your argument to be valid you'll first have to give examples of 'everyone who doesn't vote', because only if we know that, can we accept the first premise, otherwise its an argument from ignorance'.

Now, in RL you probably know that in order to vote in a country's elections you need to be a citizen of that country, but what was wrong with the argument the hypothetical you made?

Hmm, you have me a bit confused here. Mainly because your analogy (altough not really fitting) actually goes to my advantage. Just because we don't know anyone who doesn't have a vote doesn't mean there is noone who doesn't have a vote. This is the very same thing I said in your objection that the premise 1 is faulty because we do not know anything in our universe that exists but didn't begin to exist.

I have explained that our universe on its own begun to exist and as such, the things that this universe is composed of, such as planets, stars and basic elementary particles down to the core, have begun to exist seeing how universe is simply a group of all these objects composed in a certain order.

I still don't see how this actually poses a danger to the first premise as it is a logical observation that is in no way wrong. What begins to exist must have had something to trigger this existence. That's the very definition of the word begin - "for something to start".

The second thing I am confused about your objection is that I have already explained that there are things wich exist but haven't begun to exist. Such things are abstract objects such as time or a number as they don't exist to the same extent as the material world around us, but are ever-present and in their nature god-like as they can exist in a form of measurments wich aren't dependant on any other existence.

The first premise is simply stating a logical observation. That wich begun to exist had something to cause its begining to happen.

Things whose existence didn't have a beginning in no way threaten it as it simply talks about things whose existence had a beginning. I find it really strange that someone would argue this premise as it is the only premise that is known to be true for sure.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Oh wow, that's a bummer. ._. To be honest I was beginning to think you dropped this but boy am I glad you haven't.

After witnessing a handful of dishonest people who quickly back off upon getting cornered here, for the effort you have invested in debating on this matter and your civilized behaviour you have my respect.

I will note, though, that I usually drop a debate if my opponet hasn't answered in a whole week, but since this isn't really a case with you we can go on, BUT, I'd like us to continue this (if we're going to talk solely about the cosmological argument) somewhere else as your reply has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If you want we can make a thread about it, or we can (much to my disliking) take this to PM/VM. I will, non-the less respond here anyway and let you decide if we will continue here and risk all our posts getting deleted by a mod or keep it safe somewhere else.



This may look like nitpicking, but I want to correct your wording here. The premises aren't about something having a beginning, rather its about the existence of something having a beginning. As irrelevant as it may sound, terminology is very important here. So to correct:

- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause



Hmm, you have me a bit confused here. Mainly because your analogy (altough not really fitting) actually goes to my advantage. Just because we don't know anyone who doesn't have a vote doesn't mean there is noone who doesn't have a vote. This is the very same thing I said in your objection that the premise 1 is faulty because we do not know anything in our universe that exists but didn't begin to exist.

I have explained that our universe on its own begun to exist and as such, the things that this universe is composed of, such as planets, stars and basic elementary particles down to the core, have begun to exist seeing how universe is simply a group of all these objects composed in a certain order.

I still don't see how this actually poses a danger to the first premise as it is a logical observation that is in no way wrong. What begins to exist must have had something to trigger this existence. That's the very definition of the word begin - "for something to start".

The second thing I am confused about your objection is that I have already explained that there are things wich exist but haven't begun to exist. Such things are abstract objects such as time or a number as they don't exist to the same extent as the material world around us, but are ever-present and in their nature god-like as they can exist in a form of measurments wich aren't dependant on any other existence.

The first premise is simply stating a logical observation. That wich begun to exist had something to cause its begining to happen.

Things whose existence didn't have a beginning in no way threaten it as it simply talks about things whose existence had a beginning. I find it really strange that someone would argue this premise as it is the only premise that is known to be true for sure.

Time did 'begin to exist', according to both Einstein and big bang cosmology. A time before the start of the big bang(as we define it) is equivalent to asking 'whats south of the south pole'.
And about numbers, they also began to exist when we started to need them as an explanation. Prove to me that the number 1 exists on its own.

And you seem to be missing the point: what is wrong with the PRINCIPAL of your logic? Until you know something(everyone who doesn't have a vote) you cannot make a premise implying that you do. Don't know if you'll follow my line of reasoning, but if you don't know 'everything that doesn't have a beginning(or begins to exist) you cannot form a premise implying that you do. The premise then, is invalid(whatever the specific reason).

So again I'll ask as you didn't seem to answer: given the knowledge the hypothetical you and me had, what was wrong with the first premise the hypothetical you made?

More over, you said ' just because we don't know anyone who doesn't have a vote....'
No. The problem isn't that, as the hypothetical you and me are in fact aware of children and animals. The problem is that we don't know EVERYONE who doesn't have a vote.

Likewise, until and unless we know 'EVERYTHING' that hasn't begun to exist, we can't make a premise such as the first one of the cosmological argument.

Because you are implying something, that is not known to be true.

 

[Marin]

Time did 'begin to exist', according to both Einstein and big bang cosmology. A time before the start of the big bang(as we define it) is equivalent to asking 'whats south of the south pole'.
And about numbers, they also began to exist when we started to need them as an explanation. Prove to me that the number 1 exists on its own.

I believe I have already shown how abstract objects such as time and numbers can and do in fact exist in a certain form even when there is no other existence. Time is understood in various ways, and in a way that I'm promoting, it's simply a measurement.

Just because there is nothing to measure that doesn't mean the measurment doesn't exist. It's still there, it simply isn't applied to anything. For example if universe had a point where it begun, then time still was around before then. At a certain point of time universe begun to exist. Time has simply existed forever before then, so the existence of universe was triggered at a certain point in an unknown timeline.

The numbers are used as measurements for how many things there are in existence. If there is nothing in existence, then there are 0 things that exist. The number is still there. This is what abstract objects are, things that exist in a different way.

That said, numbers didn't begin to exist. We simply discovered the concept of them, as they at that moment of our need have been formed as an idea. The idea was based for example in order to count how many rocks we have. This doesn't mean we created quantity of rocks. We simply formulated the measurement in a strict way we can understand and use.

That's what I mean when I say that abstract objects would still exist in one form or another.

And you seem to be missing the point: what is wrong with the PRINCIPAL of your logic? Until you know something(everyone who doesn't have a vote) you cannot make a premise implying that you do. Don't know if you'll follow my line of reasoning, but if you don't know 'everything that doesn't have a beginning(or begins to exist) you cannot form a premise implying that you do. The premise then, is invalid(whatever the specific reason).

Indeed, I seem to be missing the point you're trying to make, wich is why I have asked you numerious time to explain it further. The premise was a logical observation. A universal rule. If you heard a shot from a gun, then the gun was fired. This is a logical conclusion wich doesn't require further knowledge as for a gun to make a shot, it must have been fired.

Similarly, for something to begin existing, its must have had something to trigger the beginning. I still don't see exactly how your objection refutes this claim, as it seems to me that all it does is say that there may be things that never begun to exist but exist non-the-less, wich doesn't really say anythign about this claim as it deals with thigs that begun to exist not those that haven't.

So again I'll ask as you didn't seem to answer: given the knowledge the hypothetical you and me had, what was wrong with the first premise the hypothetical you made?

Well, I didn't answer it as I don't think it has much to do with the argument I presented. I will get to it right now though.

More over, you said ' just because we don't know anyone who doesn't have a vote....'
No. The problem isn't that, as the hypothetical you and me are in fact aware of children and animals. The problem is that we don't know EVERYONE who doesn't have a vote.

We do not need to know everyone as simply a single person who isn't allowed to vote would refute the claim that all people are allowed to vote. One of the problems lies in the wording of said argument.

The first premise says that everyone who votes is a person. A logical observation.

The second one says Osama is a person. A logical observation.

Third one says a person (Osama) has the right to vote because they are a person. This is a negative.

The first premise simply states that those who are voting are persons. Those who are voting have the right to vote by some unspecified criteria. In this case it is their nationality. The first premise doesn't guarantee that any person has a right to vote. It simply states that one of the attributes of those who vote is that each voter is a person.

I don't see how you can compare it to my argument though, as it's first premise deals with a logical observation wich is guaranteed to be true by common sense. The very definitions of the words imply its truthfullness.

Likewise, until and unless we know 'EVERYTHING' that hasn't begun to exist, we can't make a premise such as the first one of the cosmological argument.

Because you are implying something, that is not known to be true.

But that wich exists but hasn't begun to exist regardless of wether it is real or not has nothing to do with the premise that says that those things wich begun to exist had something to cause their existence ie make it begin.

This is known to be true as it is a logical observation.

 

[NarutoKage2]

I believe I have already shown how abstract objects such as time and numbers can and do in fact exist in a certain form even when there is no other existence. Time is understood in various ways, and in a way that I'm promoting, it's simply a measurement.

Just because there is nothing to measure that doesn't mean the measurment doesn't exist. It's still there, it simply isn't applied to anything. For example if universe had a point where it begun, then time still was around before then. At a certain point of time universe begun to exist. Time has simply existed forever before then, so the existence of universe was triggered at a certain point in an unknown timeline.

The numbers are used as measurements for how many things there are in existence. If there is nothing in existence, then there are 0 things that exist. The number is still there. This is what abstract objects are, things that exist in a different way.

That said, numbers didn't begin to exist. We simply discovered the concept of them, as they at that moment of our need have been formed as an idea. The idea was based for example in order to count how many rocks we have. This doesn't mean we created quantity of rocks. We simply formulated the measurement in a strict way we can understand and use.

That's what I mean when I say that abstract objects would still exist in one form or another.



Indeed, I seem to be missing the point you're trying to make, wich is why I have asked you numerious time to explain it further. The premise was a logical observation. A universal rule. If you heard a shot from a gun, then the gun was fired. This is a logical conclusion wich doesn't require further knowledge as for a gun to make a shot, it must have been fired.

Similarly, for something to begin existing, its must have had something to trigger the beginning. I still don't see exactly how your objection refutes this claim, as it seems to me that all it does is say that there may be things that never begun to exist but exist non-the-less, wich doesn't really say anythign about this claim as it deals with thigs that begun to exist not those that haven't.



Well, I didn't answer it as I don't think it has much to do with the argument I presented. I will get to it right now though.



We do not need to know everyone as simply a single person who isn't allowed to vote would refute the claim that all people are allowed to vote. One of the problems lies in the wording of said argument.

The first premise says that everyone who votes is a person. A logical observation.

The second one says Osama is a person. A logical observation.

Third one says a person (Osama) has the right to vote because they are a person. This is a negative.

The first premise simply states that those who are voting are persons. Those who are voting have the right to vote by some unspecified criteria. In this case it is their nationality. The first premise doesn't guarantee that any person has a right to vote. It simply states that one of the attributes of those who vote is that each voter is a person.

I don't see how you can compare it to my argument though, as it's first premise deals with a logical observation wich is guaranteed to be true by common sense. The very definitions of the words imply its truthfullness.



But that wich exists but hasn't begun to exist regardless of wether it is real or not has nothing to do with the premise that says that those things wich begun to exist had something to cause their existence ie make it begin.

This is known to be true as it is a logical observation.

My point still stands that outside our need for a reference,neither numbers nor 'abstract' entities exist by themselves. Numbers of rocks existed prior to us, but without the need to count them, numbers didn't. (Only the possibility that intelligent beings may possibly invent them for their use).



For someone who argues the impossibility of 'an actual infinity', its remarkable that you think that time has always existed. Are you even aware why the big bang is considered the 'start of time' by scientists? Because all of the laws of physics would break down at 'the singularity' which started our universe. If there was something prior to that, it won't affect anything of observational consequence, I.e anything we can possibly know.


@Cosmological/vote point:
Ah, but here we disagree. You see, I'd argue that the 2nd and 3rd premises are natural and justified extensions if the first premise were to be accepted. The first premise states that 'everyone who votes is a person'.

This isn't just an observation, you see. Its the setting up of a principle(or a law, if you will). Why is it a law? Because of the way the next two points are set up to proceede from it: if you accept the first point, then the next two are logical extensions of it.

For instance, you mention the 3rd point being a negative. Assuming a lack of knowledge on voting eligibility, then, in what way is it a logical negative?(hope u follow me).


And thanks for this debate, while I don't agree with your stance, its been fun. Mainly because u agreed to answer my question so I could actually see your point of view.

 

[Marin]

My point still stands that outside our need for a reference,neither numbers nor 'abstract' entities exist by themselves. Numbers of rocks existed prior to us, but without the need to count them, numbers didn't. (Only the possibility that intelligent beings may possibly invent them for their use).

What you're saying could basically be interpreted as "something doesn't exist until I become aware of its existence". Not saying you mean that, but just pointing that this is how it looks. Things like quantity, numbers and time are measures and as such abstract. They exist always in regards to anything. An observer is required solely for the observer's sake, not the sake of a measurment.

Even if there was no observer to note that there are 3 rocks next to him, the number of rocks would still be there. The quantity would still be 3. If there was no humanity, then the number of humans would be zero. The need of an observer or his very existence are completely irrelevant to the existence of an abstract object.

When you say that they don't exist without someone needing them is pretty much to say that something doesn't exist until someone implements its existence into something else, ie becomes aware of it.

For someone who argues the impossibility of 'an actual infinity', its remarkable that you think that time has always existed. Are you even aware why the big bang is considered the 'start of time' by scientists? Because all of the laws of physics would break down at 'the singularity' which started our universe. If there was something prior to that, it won't affect anything of observational consequence, I.e anything we can possibly know.

Ah, but I'm not arguing against the existence of an actual infinity. I'm arguing against the existence of an actual infinity in objects tied to this reality, specifically the universe in this case. Abstract objects can still be infinite because infinity is an abstract property.

As for the start of time, as I said, just because time won't be relevant to us, doesn't mean time won't exist. Time is simply a measurment, as I said before. In no way is it an actual dimension rooted into our material existence. It is a concept or an idea. Such an idea could live independantly without the need of a mind to deduce it. Much like quantity or numbers.

@Cosmological/vote point:
Ah, but here we disagree. You see, I'd argue that the 2nd and 3rd premises are natural and justified extensions if the first premise were to be accepted. The first premise states that 'everyone who votes is a person'.

This isn't just an observation, you see. Its the setting up of a principle(or a law, if you will). Why is it a law? Because of the way the next two points are set up to proceede from it: if you accept the first point, then the next two are logical extensions of it.

Umm, in a deductive argument the premises don't need to be ancenstors to each other. They only need to be true, and logically consistent. The first premise was infact an observation because only a human being (a person) could vote. Animals can't vote, nor can plants. This is a logical observation. It says that all people who vote are humans ie persons.

This isn't really a law. A law would be a human construct while this is no such thing. You could technically train an animal to vote and give it such a right but in no way could the animal analyze the candidates and chose one by arriving at a certain conclusion. So a law could be given, but it wouldn't be able to uphold as it goes against nature of the beings at hand.

For instance, you mention the 3rd point being a negative. Assuming a lack of knowledge on voting eligibility, then, in what way is it a logical negative?(hope u follow me).

As I said, the third premise is a negative because it doesn't say anything in relevance to the above. It must be in synch with them and that it is not. First and second premises are simple observations while a third one is an assumption that is unjustified on the ground of further observations such as the restrictions of the voters and the very people they know.

It's like saying:

- All men are mortal
- Socrates is a man
- Socrates lives on the moon

Third premise is completely irrelevant to the first 2 and comes from nowhere. One may not know that there are no people on moon, but it doesn't mean they can't realize that the third premise isn't backed up with anything. Similarly, your first 2 premises deal with observations while the third one is simply putting something else on the table.

And thanks for this debate, while I don't agree with your stance, its been fun. Mainly because u agreed to answer my question so I could actually see your point of view.

Haha, I had a good time too. Feel free to drop by for a conversation on a similar topic whenever you feel like it. I like talking about these things.

 

[NarutoKage2]

As I said, the third premise is a negative because it doesn't say anything in relevance to the above. It must be in synch with them and that it is not. First and second premises are simple observations while a third one is an assumption that is unjustified on the ground of further observations such as the restrictions of the voters and the very people they know.

It's like saying:

- All men are mortal
- Socrates is a man
- Socrates lives on the moon

Third premise is completely irrelevant to the first 2 and comes from nowhere. One may not know that there are no people on moon, but it doesn't mean they can't realize that the third premise isn't backed up with anything. Similarly, your first 2 premises deal with observations while the third one is simply putting something else on the table.
D

Uhmmm.....what?

How does the 3rd premise not say anything in relevance to the above??
Here were the 3 hypothetical premises:

-everyone who votes is a person
-Osama is a person
- therefore, Osama has a vote

Osama having a vote is a natural extension from the observation that he is a person, and that from all we knew, persons were the ones who vote. What don't you understand about that? To say that its logically invalid because it has nothing to do with the first two premises is false. Because patently, our hypothetical selves know that persons vote, and bin laden is a person.

When you don't have access to 'further observations', and all your data agrees with the first 2, logically you'll have to accept the 3rd premise. Like I said: if you have no 'further observations' or the possibility of them available to you, then why is it logically invalid? You're basically saying:

'Its invalid because it isn't true'.
Well, of course it isn't true, but BEFORE we can know that, what is our logic of deducing the possibility of it not being true(w/o any data)?

The 3rd point is an assumption, but so are the first two points(in fact, every premise is an assumption), and when you aren't even aware of the need, let alone possibility, of further observations to re enforce it, why would you want more 'observations' for the 3rd point when it already agrees with everything that you know?

Not sure if this is getting across as intended though

 

[Deadlift]

No intention to interfere with your debate, but you do realize you're both speaking about "fried air", true?

 

[Narushima]

This may look like nitpicking, but I want to correct your wording here. The premises aren't about something having a beginning, rather its about the existence of something having a beginning. As irrelevant as it may sound, terminology is very important here. So to correct:

- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause

TranzzistX by inclination I try to avoid these types of abstract debates nowadays, and I have a soft spot for Christianity thus no intention of trying to dissuade you from your faith, but I am bored so let me point out the ultimate dilemma of the cosmological argument - it presupposes rationalism.

One of the oldest discussions in philosophy concerns the relation of reason to the world, there are three enduring schools of thought, rationalism, empiricism and the Kantian philosophy. The cosmological argument crumbles in the later two frameworks.

If you are an empiricist (I personally am most sympathetic to this), there is no way to establish causality - a succession of experiences does not amount to the experience of that succession. What you and I see around us are correlations of events, though we can conceptualize causality (that is, we can imagine the connection of those events by necessity), there is no way to directly observe it, and therefore, no way to prove it if we take the faculty of reason to proceed the world.

Causality and even the 'laws' of logic, in this view, are merely abstractions only certain in the mind, although they are inferred from experience - in regards logic for example, we already know that propositional logic, which is basically what all theological arguments are grounded in, fails to describe some experiences - in quantum mechanics, the distributive law (p ^ (q v r) = (p ^ q) v (p ^ r)) breaks down, to give a concrete example.

If you think you are a Kantian - I recall once you adducing Immanuel Kant in a thread - you might be surprised then because the man himself repudiated the cosmological argument.

In the Kantian system, space and time are what he himself called 'forms' by which we perceive things in reality. Neither space nor time are sense perceptions (however they do give particular form to those once they are ordered by the mind) but they are not concepts learned either - all experience must be structured in them for time is continuity and ordering of experience, space is its appearance. Since space and time are modes of 'understanding,' if there exists anything outside the limitations of our experience, these need not need to be constrained by them, and therefore neither concepts are applicable to reality outside our experience of reality.

Further, causality is a 'category,' a 'pure' concept of 'understanding,' which in the Kantian parlance means it does not refer to experience but are concepts on which empirical phenomena are structured. But once again, this means that this too, is not necessarily a part of reality outside of our experiencing it.

Space, time and causality are not necessarily an aspect of what that guy termed 'things-in-themselves.' Outside our mind, whatever there is is not necessarily bound by any of those things - ergo speculations about God or whatever 'before' the Big Bang are utterly meaningless.

Or something like that. Frankly I am not sure if I even understand Kant. But see now why some Christian theologians were actually hostile to Kant and his philosophy?

Finally even within the rationalist tradition there have been objections to the Kalam but I personally find those objections far less problematic than empiricism or the Kantian philosophy - the former (empiricism) is fatal to pretty much all theological arguments for God and the later concords only with relatively uncompelling arguments from morality (which is what Kant himself based his belief in God on).

Summary of it all?

The Kalam cosmological argument is contingent on the worldview of philosophical rationalism, so you better first try to convince us of that before you tout the Kalam - and good luck with that because it's been thousands of years and I think far fewer informed thinkers subscribe to it than they once did.

 

[Marin]

Uhmmm.....what?

How does the 3rd premise not say anything in relevance to the above??
Here were the 3 hypothetical premises:

-everyone who votes is a person
-Osama is a person
- therefore, Osama has a vote

Osama having a vote is a natural extension from the observation that he is a person, and that from all we knew, persons were the ones who vote. What don't you understand about that? To say that its logically invalid because it has nothing to do with the first two premises is false. Because patently, our hypothetical selves know that persons vote, and bin laden is a person.

When you don't have access to 'further observations', and all your data agrees with the first 2, logically you'll have to accept the 3rd premise. Like I said: if you have no 'further observations' or the possibility of them available to you, then why is it logically invalid? You're basically saying:

'Its invalid because it isn't true'.
Well, of course it isn't true, but BEFORE we can know that, what is our logic of deducing the possibility of it not being true(w/o any data)?

The 3rd point is an assumption, but so are the first two points(in fact, every premise is an assumption), and when you aren't even aware of the need, let alone possibility, of further observations to re enforce it, why would you want more 'observations' for the 3rd point when it already agrees with everything that you know?

Not sure if this is getting across as intended though

I already explained why the third premise (basically a conclusion) is not justified.

The first premise is an observation that goes from observing that the common property of all voters is that they are human beings (persons).

The second premise is an observation that goes from the fact that Osama is a human being (person).

The third premise, however, concludes (based on the above 2 premises) that Osama has the right to vote because he is a person, despite the first 2 premises justifying no such thing.

The first premise doesn't say the voters have a right to vote because they're persons, but that all who vote (pass the certain criteria that gives them a right to vote) are persons. Second premise adds that Osama is a person.

Neither give you any justifiable basis to conclude that from there anyone can vote because they are a person. This way, one could actually know that the argument is invalid, even without him not knowing anyone who isn't an American, as he would know the rules of voting process.

Are we talking about the same thing? I can't tell at this point really.

No intention to interfere with your debate, but you do realize you're both speaking about "fried air", true?

No prob with interferring. xD What do you mean?

TranzzistX by inclination I try to avoid these types of abstract debates nowadays, and I have a soft spot for Christianity thus no intention of trying to dissuade you from your faith, but I am bored so let me point out the ultimate dilemma of the cosmological argument - it presupposes rationalism.

One of the oldest discussions in philosophy concerns the relation of reason to the world, there are three enduring schools of thought, rationalism, empiricism and the Kantian philosophy. The cosmological argument crumbles in the later two frameworks.

If you are an empiricist (I personally am most sympathetic to this), there is no way to establish causality - a succession of experiences does not amount to the experience of that succession. What you and I see around us are correlations of events, though we can conceptualize causality (that is, we can imagine the connection those events by necessity), there is no way to directly observe it, and therefore, no way to prove it if we take the faculty of reason to be independent of the world as it is.

Causality and even the 'laws' of logic, in this view, are merely abstractions only certain in the mind, although they are inferred from experience - in regards logic for example, we already know that propositional logic, which is basically what all theological arguments are grounded in, fails to describe some experiences - in quantum mechanics, the distributive law (p ^ (q v r) = (p ^ q) v (p ^ r)) breaks down, to give a concrete example.

If you think you are a Kantian - I recall once you adducing Immanuel Kant in a thread - you might be surprised then because the man himself repudiated the cosmological argument.

In the Kantian system, space and time are what he himself called 'forms' by which we perceive things in reality. Neither space nor time are sense perceptions (however they do give particular form to those once they are ordered by the mind) but they are not concepts learned either - all experience must be structured in them for time is continuity and ordering of experience, space is its appearance. Since space and time are modes of 'understanding,' if there exists anything outside the limitations of our experience, these need not need to be constrained by them, and therefore neither concepts are applicable to reality outside our experience of reality.

Further, causality is a 'category,' a 'pure' concept of 'understanding,' which in the Kantian parlance means it does not refer to experience but are concepts on which empirical phenomena are structured. But once again, this means that this too, is not necessarily a part of reality outside of our experience it.

Space, time and causality are not necessarily an aspect of what that guy termed 'things-in-themselves.' Outside our mind, whatever there is is not necessarily bound by any of those things - ergo speculations about God or whatever 'before' the Big Bang are utterly meaningless.

Or something like that. Frankly I am not sure if I even understand Kant. But see now why some Christian theologians were actually hostile to Kant and his philosophy?

Finally even within the rationalist tradition there have been objections to the Kalam but I personally find those objections far less problematic than empiricism or the Kantian philosophy - the former (empiricism) is fatal to pretty much all theological arguments for God and the later concords only with relatively uncompelling arguments from morality (which is what Kant himself based his belief in God on).

Summary of it all?

The Kalam cosmological argument is contingent on the worldview of philosophical rationalism, so you better first try to convince us of that before you tout the Kalam - and good luck with that because it's been thousands of years and I think far fewer informed thinkers subscribe to it than they once did.

I appreciate the fact that you'd go out of your way to explain this to me. I wouldn't agree that the Cosmological argument needs to be labeled as a rationalist one, as it simply states a logical observation. It's a deductive argument, a kind staple to philosophy. It doesn't need to be exclusive in nature as you can formulate it in many different ways.

Also, I did infact mention Kant, however I did not do so in order to support the Cosmological argument! I did it for a seperate cause - in order to explain to another member why asking empirical evidence in matters which are out of empirism's reach is unproductive and contrary to the basics of philosophy. These basics being formed from most influential works in its history, one of them being Kant.

Yes, I know there were works from other schools but relying on one view alone will never really provide you any results in these things that Kant calls transcendent matters. It's like asking for evidence that by the very nature of matter at hand isn't reasonable to be asked for. If one approach doesn't give any results, then you move on to one that does.

That's partially why I wouldn't label myself as any of those theories. Main reason being the fact that I'm not really a philosopher by proffesion, rather the only thing that I would dare call myself is a noob apologist. Basically, I have interest in philosophy but not enough to call it my proffesion.

The Cosmological argument on its own can very well be accepted by anyone so long as they don't decide to limit their reasoning to one view and rather focus on the one that is most productive in a given situation. Also, in no way is the Cosmological argument, atleast not in the way presented here, arguing for the existence of God or any sort of other diety. It simply resolves around a logical observation that all existence that had a beginning had something to cause its beginning.

Something that is warranted by the sheer use of reason without neccessarry use of any empirical evidence, though the argument largely benefits from the existence of such evidence and as such cannot really be considered rationalism-exclusive.

Instead of throwing myself into a never ending campfight between the 3 schools I'd much rather focus on the argument itself, listen to the objections opponets may have and proceed to defend it. I think this is a much more focused and specified approach.

 

[Hawker]

This is why I think philosophy should not be taught as a mandatory subject in schools anymore. You write all these walls of text, but at the end of the day you haven't achieved anything that would matter in real life. Do we even need philosophy anymore? I think only the history of philosophy should be mandatory and integrated to history courses, but basically that's it. Philosophy has been just a shadow in the backround as soon as science stepped up it's game in the beginning of 20th century.

 

[Deadlift]

This is why I think philosophy should not be taught as a mandatory subject in schools anymore. You write all these walls of text, but at the end of the day you haven't achieved anything that would matter in real life. Do we even need philosophy anymore? I think only the history of philosophy should be mandatory and integrated to history courses, but basically that's it. Philosophy has been just a shadow in the backround as soon as science stepped up it's game in the beginning of 20th century.

I completely agree, philosophy is good because it's an interesting part of our culture, but it should never be considered as an alternative to science or as a thing that can be opposed to science. They're not at the same level for what concerns the things that's useful to know.
And anyway the both of you TranzzistX and Narutokage2 are making very interesting speeches, but I'm really starting to feel like you're going too abstract and talking about nothing :/

 

[NarutoKage2]

I already explained why the third premise (basically a conclusion) is not justified.

The first premise is an observation that goes from observing that the common property of all voters is that they are human beings (persons).

The second premise is an observation that goes from the fact that Osama is a human being (person).

The third premise, however, concludes (based on the above 2 premises) that Osama has the right to vote because he is a person, despite the first 2 premises justifying no such thing.

The first premise doesn't say the voters have a right to vote because they're persons, but that all who vote (pass the certain criteria that gives them a right to vote) are persons. Second premise adds that Osama is a person.

Neither give you any justifiable basis to conclude that from there anyone can vote because they are a person. This way, one could actually know that the argument is invalid, even without him not knowing anyone who isn't an American, as he would know the rules of voting process.

Are we talking about the same thing? I can't tell at this point really.

'..past the certain criterion that gives them the right to vote'

From where do you deduce that there even is a criterion? The hypothetical situation gives no basis for pre supposing or suspecting any sort of criterion beyond the known criterion 'people who are persons(non children/humans) have always been observed to have been able to vote.

For our ignorant selves to suspect the possibility of an additional requirement/criterion to vote, there has to be a reason for said suspicion to exist in the first place.

Formulating such a suspicion inevitably takes us back to the first point, and the need to factor in complete knowledge on 'everyone who does not/cannot vote.

 

[NarutoKage2]

TranzzistX by inclination I try to avoid these types of abstract debates nowadays, and I have a soft spot for Christianity thus no intention of trying to dissuade you from your faith, but I am bored so let me point out the ultimate dilemma of the cosmological argument - it presupposes rationalism.

One of the oldest discussions in philosophy concerns the relation of reason to the world, there are three enduring schools of thought, rationalism, empiricism and the Kantian philosophy. The cosmological argument crumbles in the later two frameworks.

If you are an empiricist (I personally am most sympathetic to this), there is no way to establish causality - a succession of experiences does not amount to the experience of that succession. What you and I see around us are correlations of events, though we can conceptualize causality (that is, we can imagine the connection of those events by necessity), there is no way to directly observe it, and therefore, no way to prove it if we take the faculty of reason to proceed the world.

Causality and even the 'laws' of logic, in this view, are merely abstractions only certain in the mind, although they are inferred from experience - in regards logic for example, we already know that propositional logic, which is basically what all theological arguments are grounded in, fails to describe some experiences - in quantum mechanics, the distributive law (p ^ (q v r) = (p ^ q) v (p ^ r)) breaks down, to give a concrete example.

If you think you are a Kantian - I recall once you adducing Immanuel Kant in a thread - you might be surprised then because the man himself repudiated the cosmological argument.

In the Kantian system, space and time are what he himself called 'forms' by which we perceive things in reality. Neither space nor time are sense perceptions (however they do give particular form to those once they are ordered by the mind) but they are not concepts learned either - all experience must be structured in them for time is continuity and ordering of experience, space is its appearance. Since space and time are modes of 'understanding,' if there exists anything outside the limitations of our experience, these need not need to be constrained by them, and therefore neither concepts are applicable to reality outside our experience of reality.

Further, causality is a 'category,' a 'pure' concept of 'understanding,' which in the Kantian parlance means it does not refer to experience but are concepts on which empirical phenomena are structured. But once again, this means that this too, is not necessarily a part of reality outside of our experiencing it.

Space, time and causality are not necessarily an aspect of what that guy termed 'things-in-themselves.' Outside our mind, whatever there is is not necessarily bound by any of those things - ergo speculations about God or whatever 'before' the Big Bang are utterly meaningless.

Or something like that. Frankly I am not sure if I even understand Kant. But see now why some Christian theologians were actually hostile to Kant and his philosophy?

Finally even within the rationalist tradition there have been objections to the Kalam but I personally find those objections far less problematic than empiricism or the Kantian philosophy - the former (empiricism) is fatal to pretty much all theological arguments for God and the later concords only with relatively uncompelling arguments from morality (which is what Kant himself based his belief in God on).

Summary of it all?

The Kalam cosmological argument is contingent on the worldview of philosophical rationalism, so you better first try to convince us of that before you tout the Kalam - and good luck with that because it's been thousands of years and I think far fewer informed thinkers subscribe to it than they once did.

Let me see if I've understood this : for an argument such as causality to be valid and to be used, it has to be used within the context of things that exist within the reality of space and time, since both logic and causality have been developed within it and are dependent on it(spacetime) for their existence?

 

[Marin]

'..past the certain criterion that gives them the right to vote'

From where do you deduce that there even is a criterion? The hypothetical situation gives no basis for pre supposing or suspecting any sort of criterion beyond the known criterion 'people who are persons(non children/humans) have always been observed to have been able to vote.

For our ignorant selves to suspect the possibility of an additional requirement/criterion to vote, there has to be a reason for said suspicion to exist in the first place.

Formulating such a suspicion inevitably takes us back to the first point, and the need to factor in complete knowledge on 'everyone who does not/cannot vote.

The argument you presented doesn't name a criteria. This doesn't mean that the criteria doesn't exist. This is a tricky thing about making a hypothetical scenario. You must account for many things wich are related (even) remotely to the argument. You haven't specified that there is no criteria. You simply said that we don't know anyone who isn't an american. In such a case, it is all dependant on the hypothetical law. If anyone including us was unaware of the existence of non-american people than a law wouldn't have specified a restriction on nationality.

In such a case even if Osama isn't an american, he could still vote because this hypothetical law gives him such a right.

If on the other hand, the law had a restriction we could orient ourselves based on it and conclude that the argument is invalid because of this. But regardless of the law's unspecifed formulations, one can see the flaws in an argument even if we're not aware that the argument goes against the said law. As I explained, the first 2 premises don't give any justified grounds for such a conclusion to wich the hypothetical me arrived. You still haven't countered this point.

Besides that, the hypothetical you actually did something that isn't possible in this said scenario. If we were infact unaware of the existence of different nationalities, then you wouldn't really have any idea that he was of different nationality. Nationality is a concept that doesn't exist. Everyone is american!

You would have absolutely no way to get to such an objections if the law didn't specify the american-only nationality. The scenario and the argument have holes in them but not because they don't correspond to reality (this is a hypothetical scenario after all, so reality shouldn't matter here). It's faulty because it contradicts itself and is formulated in an unprecised way.

Still, I fail to see a connection between the Cosmological argument and this argument as their structure and matter are completely different with their only common trait being the fact that they're both deductive arguments with the same number of premises. Which isn't really saying much.