| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
18 Apr 2004 12:52:48 PM |
| Object: |
A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument. So I will go over his comments, give my reposne,
and then give the first cause argument as I understand it (or my
version of the first cause argument, which is adapted for the most
part from William Lane Craig's arguments, though they may not be
identical). I would also welcome comments from anyone else (including
Christopher A. Lee).
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin," so this is simply a
straw man. No premise in my argument will presuppose the existence of
God. Let's focus on the actual argument, which I will attempt to lay
out in this post. The arguments I present either stand or fall on
their own merits.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
2a (hidden) God did not begin to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. Therefore, the cause is god.
It's the way the argument works, bucko. No amount of your
whining will change it.
Of course, this is simply a straw man, as I have never used the
argument above. The above is not my argument. First, let's consider
the basic cosmological argument that is analogous to the above:
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
The argument is valid. Assuming it is sound also, does it prove God
exists? No, as it never invokes the existence of God (proponents of
brane theory will agree with every step of the argument, and simply
conclude that the universe came into existence at the Big Bang, which
was caused by a collision of branes). So from here, I need to move
into a first cause argument. I am *NOT* presupposing God's existence
here. I will lay out the premises. Let's focus on the premises (not on
what kind of a person others think I may be).
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
This seems to me to be a clear argument. It is certainly valid. If
there is only one causal regress, then there is a first cause. If
there are multiple indepedent causal regresses, there are multiple
first causes. Nonetheless, there is at least one first cause. Keep in
mind that, thus far in the argument, I have given no reason to assume
a first cause is anything like a deity. Nonetheless, were I to do so
successfully, we see that the door is wide open to polytheism (i.e.
some specific form of Monotheism, like Christianity, Judaism or Islam,
is not a sure thing, and I certainly will not be arguing for any
particular form of theism, nor have I ever done so in alt.atheism).
Before I make any attempt to move this argument towards something in
favor of theism, I want to discuss the argument as is, thus far.
Thus far, I can only glean that Don would dispute the second premise.
We had the following exchange:
My fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all. The only similarity is that Zeno also disagreed with the
existence of an actual infinite in reality (and he tried to use that
to dispute the existence of motion and time to try and lean in favor
of the Parmenidean Pantheism that he championed). Think of what Don is
saying above. He is claiming that if he moves his fingers (or anything
else) a finite distance, the distance traversed is actually infinite.
Actually, that is a contradiction. The distance is finite, though it
can be divided a potentially infinite number of times.
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality? It seems it is more conceptual.
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times. But what would be the distance of each
division? If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero. The number of points is
*POTENTIALLY* infinite. You cannot have an actual infinite (note that
if Don started listing all the points, exempli gratia: 1.1, 1.101,
1.10101, et cetera, he would only list a finite number of points,
though the number of points is, without a doubt, potentiall infinite).
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument. But the above moves
me to the next point. If time stretches back infinitely, i.e. if it is
without bound, then we could never reach this point. That is reason
alone for concluding that time has a bound. I never denied this, and,
contrary to Don's straw man above, I never claimed a certain thing
always existed in time.
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress, we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
What does this mean? What is this bifurcation between personal and
mechanical? Well, think of billiard balls. If you hit one, and it hits
another, which in turn hits still another, there are mechanical
reasons for the causes of these moving billiard balls. Each billiard
ball moved because it was caused to move. But the first cause (in the
restricted domain of this case, you) was a personal agent. To
understand why, imagine if rather than you hitting the first billiard
ball, it got up and moved on its own. I believe it is safe to assume
that either there was some other cause for the billiard ball moving,
or it really did get up and move on its own. But if it moved on its
own, that implies volition - it is a personal agent.
So, what we have is reason for believing in the existence of at least
one personal first cause. The question then becomes, how long has the
first cause existed (which brings us back to the issue of time above).
It could not have begun to exist, because then we would ask what is
the cause for its existence (but if it is the first cause, it cannot
have a cause, but if it has a cause, then it is not a first cause,
thus we push the chain back to the first cause). Now we already know
that time is finite, and from there we conclude that a first cause
could not always exist in a Newtonian time frame work for an eternity,
as it would have traverse an infinite to reach any given point, which
is impossible. What option does that leave us with? It seems to me
that we are left with either concluding that the personal first cause
existed outside of time, or existed within the finite period of time
that has elapsed (as it absurd to say that an infinite amount of time
elapsed), but "prior" to that it existed outside of time.
Notions of being prior to time are troublesome, as is movement outside
of time (though some proponents of Brane theory believe you can have
movement outside of time, so its impossibility is not self evident).
Nonetheless, that being said, we do have good a priori reason to
believe at least that every causal chain begins with a personal first
cause. If, for us, there is only one causal chain, then there is a
personal first cause responsible for all of this. That does not prove
God exists (much less a specific God), but, as I have said previously,
we start to grind close to a theistic position (that in the beginning,
there is a personal agent or agents that caused everything to come
about).
I have more to say, and can advance the argument further, but I would
like to see the comments of others (such as Don Kresch and Christopher
A. Lee, though certainly not only those two). All my premises have
been laid out, so those who wish to dispute my argument must knock off
one or more of my premises. In other words, those who disagree with my
conclusion that, at worst, we have good a priori reason to believe
there was at least one personal first cause, should be clear about
which premises they wish to dispute, and why.
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 Apr 2004 02:18:08 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 18 Apr 2004 10:52:48 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument.
No, you haven't noticed that at all. I have repeatedly stated
Craig's argument, which is the one you are using. Therefore, you have
lied.
How does it feel to be exposed as a liar so quickly?
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin,"
Yes, you did. It's hidden in the argument, dumbshit. Don't be
dishonest and claim that it's not.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
2a (hidden) God did not begin to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. Therefore, the cause is god.
It's the way the argument works, bucko. No amount of your
whining will change it.
Of course, this is simply a straw man,
Of course it's not. It's the first parts of the Kalam
cosmological argument as put forth by William Lane Craig, only with
the hidden premise exposed. Strawman? Hardly.
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
c1: The cause of the universe did not have a cause (hidden
premise).
Deny it and you deny Kalam.
[snip]
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
1a. Cause is assumed to apply qua universe, which is an invalid
assumption both ontologically and epistemically.
[snip]
My fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all.
It's exactly the same, m'laddio. It confuses the concept of
infinite and places that onto the physically real--thus doing the
thing that it claims is bad!
[snip]
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality?
What exactly is infinite in reality?
See the problem?
[snip]
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument.
It seems that Don does, because Don just killed your argument.
[snip]
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress, we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
With the premise that there is something apart from the universe,
which is ontologically specious.
[snip]
Notions of being prior to time are troublesome, as is movement outside
of time (though some proponents of Brane theory believe you can have
movement outside of time, so its impossibility is not self evident).
Nonetheless, that being said, we do have good a priori reason to
believe at least that every causal chain begins with a personal first
cause. If, for us, there is only one causal chain, then there is a
personal first cause responsible for all of this. That does not prove
God exists (much less a specific God), but, as I have said previously,
we start to grind close to a theistic position (that in the beginning,
there is a personal agent or agents that caused everything to come
about).
Still assuming that cause applies qua universe and that cause,
being, etc. mean anything apart from the universe. Sheer question
begging.
When you bother to provide the ontological basis for your claim,
get back to us. Until then, your argument is fucking dead and in rigor
mortis.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 11:32:47 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<vik580l62cat0tnustok5hrin7tasor162@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 18 Apr 2004 10:52:48 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument.
No, you haven't noticed that at all. I have repeatedly stated
Craig's argument, which is the one you are using. Therefore, you have
lied.
How does it feel to be exposed as a liar so quickly?
I laid my argument out, and you snipped most of it, and continue to
attack a different argument, yet you accuse me of dishonesty? There is
no need to guess what my argument might be, I put it forth in the
opening post of this thread.
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin,"
Yes, you did. It's hidden in the argument, dumbshit. Don't be
dishonest and claim that it's not.
I put forth my argument, and the premise "God didn't begin" is not
found in any of the premises, nor is it a hidden premise. In fact, God
does not come up at all in the argument! It seems all you can do is
argue straw man. That, and your noted ability to employ profane
language (clearly my seven point argument is refuted when I'm called
"dumbshit" or "fuckwit" et cetera, right?).
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
2a (hidden) God did not begin to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. Therefore, the cause is god.
It's the way the argument works, bucko. No amount of your
whining will change it.
Of course, this is simply a straw man,
Of course it's not.
It is a straw man because that is not my argument. I gave my argument,
and it was not the above, thus you're attacking a different straw man.
Hence the charge that you've erected a straw man.
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
c1: The cause of the universe did not have a cause (hidden
premise).
I never stated that above. You love to argue straw man. The argument
above should be confronted as is. Instead, you wish to introduce
premises I never employed.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
1a. Cause is assumed to apply qua universe, which is an invalid
assumption both ontologically and epistemically.
First of all, the premises never mentions the universe. In fact, the
seven point argument laid out never mentions the universe once. It
seems you're having trouble staying focused on the actual argument.
Furthermore, this is your assertion, and he who asserts must prove. So
back up your claim that one cannot apply cause to the universe.
fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all.
It's exactly the same, m'laddio. It confuses the concept of
infinite and places that onto the physically real--thus doing the
thing that it claims is bad!
You snipped everything I wrote. There is no confusion here. The point
is that you cannot traverse an actual infinite. You committed a
fallacy in trying to point to something finite and claim that it is
actually infinite.
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality?
What exactly is infinite in reality?
See the problem?
Do you see the problem? The argument is that you cannot have an actual
infinite in reality. Are you now agreeing with this premise?
[snip]
That's a convenient snip Don. Here again is what I wrote (let's see if
you answer it this time):
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times. But what would be the distance of each
division? If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero. The number of points is
*POTENTIALLY* infinite. You cannot have an actual infinite (note that
if Don started listing all the points, exempli gratia: 1.1, 1.101,
1.10101, et cetera, he would only list a finite number of points,
though the number of points is, without a doubt, potentiall infinite).
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument.
It seems that Don does, because Don just killed your argument.
[snip]
It seems Don is all talk and no substance, again snipping and not
responding. What I wrote was as follows:
If time stretches back infinitely, i.e. if it is without bound, then
we could never reach this point. That is reason alone for concluding
that time has a bound. I never denied this, and, contrary to Don's
straw man above, I never claimed a certain thing always existed in
time.
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress, we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
With the premise that there is something apart from the universe,
which is ontologically specious.
The universe isn't mentioned in the seven point argument Don. Stay
focused. Stop trying to argue straw man.
Notions of being prior to time are troublesome, as is movement outside
of time (though some proponents of Brane theory believe you can have
movement outside of time, so its impossibility is not self evident).
Nonetheless, that being said, we do have good a priori reason to
believe at least that every causal chain begins with a personal first
cause. If, for us, there is only one causal chain, then there is a
personal first cause responsible for all of this. That does not prove
God exists (much less a specific God), but, as I have said previously,
we start to grind close to a theistic position (that in the beginning,
there is a personal agent or agents that caused everything to come
about).
Still assuming that cause applies qua universe and that cause,
being, etc. mean anything apart from the universe. Sheer question
begging.
Sheer straw man on the part of Don, who is apparently unable to focus
on the argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 06:27:26 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 19 Apr 2004 09:32:47 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<vik580l62cat0tnustok5hrin7tasor162@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 18 Apr 2004 10:52:48 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument.
No, you haven't noticed that at all. I have repeatedly stated
Craig's argument, which is the one you are using. Therefore, you have
lied.
How does it feel to be exposed as a liar so quickly?
I laid my argument out,
I laid yours out as well. It's just Craig. I stated Craig. I gave
Kalam.
and you snipped most of it, and continue to
attack a different argument,
How can I attack a different argument when I am attacking Craig
and you're using Craig?
Care to fucking tell me how, nitwit?
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin,"
Yes, you did. It's hidden in the argument, dumbshit. Don't be
dishonest and claim that it's not.
I put forth my argument, and the premise "God didn't begin" is not
found in any of the premises, nor is it a hidden premise.
Yes, it is, you lying sack. How else are you going to argue that
god didn't begin IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT AS ONE OF YOUR PREMISES.
Get out of that one if you can.
In fact, God
does not come up at all in the argument!
In fact--it does, you lying sack. That's what Kalam is all about,
you dishonest piece of *****.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
2a (hidden) God did not begin to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. Therefore, the cause is god.
It's the way the argument works, bucko. No amount of your
whining will change it.
Of course, this is simply a straw man,
Of course it's not.
It is a straw man because that is not my argument.
Except that it is your argument, liar.
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
c1: The cause of the universe did not have a cause (hidden
premise).
I never stated that above.
It's part of the argument, liar.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
1a. Cause is assumed to apply qua universe, which is an invalid
assumption both ontologically and epistemically.
First of all, the premises never mentions the universe.
Really?
HANDOUT: THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of
its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html
Then what the ***** is that, *****? Don't you fucking DARE EVER
try to lie to me again.
Furthermore, this is your assertion, and he who asserts must prove. So
back up your claim that one cannot apply cause to the universe.
Nope. It is your assertion that causality applies qua universe.
So show that it does. Demonstrate the ontology for it.
fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all.
It's exactly the same, m'laddio. It confuses the concept of
infinite and places that onto the physically real--thus doing the
thing that it claims is bad!
You snipped everything I wrote.
Because I dealt with it.
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality?
What exactly is infinite in reality?
See the problem?
Do you see the problem?
Do you?
The argument is that you cannot have an actual
infinite in reality. Are you now agreeing with this premise?
Of course. But then you apply it to god and so you're guilty of
doing the thing you're railing against!
[snip]
That's a convenient snip Don. Here again is what I wrote (let's see if
you answer it this time):
Answer what---more Craigian ***** that I dealt with?
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument.
It seems that Don does, because Don just killed your argument.
[snip]
It seems Don is all talk and no substance,
It seems that Nico is all talk and no substance, refusing to
explain the ontology of this creator being.
Notice how your burden of proof shift gets slammed back at you?
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress, we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
With the premise that there is something apart from the universe,
which is ontologically specious.
The universe isn't mentioned in the seven point argument Don.
Oh yes it is. You're using Kalam which uses universe, you liar.
Notions of being prior to time are troublesome, as is movement outside
of time (though some proponents of Brane theory believe you can have
movement outside of time, so its impossibility is not self evident).
Nonetheless, that being said, we do have good a priori reason to
believe at least that every causal chain begins with a personal first
cause. If, for us, there is only one causal chain, then there is a
personal first cause responsible for all of this. That does not prove
God exists (much less a specific God), but, as I have said previously,
we start to grind close to a theistic position (that in the beginning,
there is a personal agent or agents that caused everything to come
about).
Still assuming that cause applies qua universe and that cause,
being, etc. mean anything apart from the universe. Sheer question
begging.
Sheer straw man on the part of Don,
Sheer lie on the part of Nico.
Demonstrate the ontology of this creator being existing apart
from the universe.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
10 May 2004 03:50:37 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<s2o8801197bvmujuk2tiu4st1v922vbebk@4ax.com>...
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument.
No, you haven't noticed that at all. I have repeatedly stated
Craig's argument, which is the one you are using. Therefore, you have
lied.
How does it feel to be exposed as a liar so quickly?
I laid my argument out,
I laid yours out as well. It's just Craig. I stated Craig. I gave
Kalam.
What you did is avoid my argument. My argument is undoubtedly
influenced by Craig's various arguments, which are in turn influenced
by the Arabic philosophers who first put forht the Kalaam argument.
Nonetheless, that does not mean my argument is identical with Craig's.
If you're going to try and refute *my* argument, then actually focus
on my argument.
and you snipped most of it, and continue to
attack a different argument,
How can I attack a different argument when I am attacking Craig
and you're using Craig?
Care to fucking tell me how, nitwit?
The answer is above. And I see you still seem to believe that
profanity makes your argument stronger.
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin,"
Yes, you did. It's hidden in the argument, dumbshit. Don't be
dishonest and claim that it's not.
I put forth my argument, and the premise "God didn't begin" is not
found in any of the premises, nor is it a hidden premise.
Yes, it is, you lying sack. How else are you going to argue that
god didn't begin IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT AS ONE OF YOUR PREMISES.
God is not even mentioned in the seven point syllogism. It seems you
have a very bad time focusing on the actual argument. Here it is
again:
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
We don't have to debate about what is or is not one of my premises, as
all my premises are laid out above.
In fact, God
does not come up at all in the argument!
In fact--it does, you lying sack. That's what Kalam is all about,
you dishonest piece of *****.
The argument is above. As you can see, God does not come up in any of
the premises. I agree the intention of the argument is to attempt to
show that there might be good philosophical grounds for leaning
towards a theist position, but I never actually invoke God (as it is
not an actual proof of God's existence, per se). My argument is above,
and it was influenced by Kalaam, but it is not necessarily identical
to kalaam, so lets focus on my argument.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
2a (hidden) God did not begin to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. Therefore, the cause is god.
It's the way the argument works, bucko. No amount of your
whining will change it.
Of course, this is simply a straw man,
Of course it's not.
It is a straw man because that is not my argument.
Except that it is your argument, liar.
My argument is above. These two arguments are clearly different, thus
what you presented is not my argument.
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
c1: The cause of the universe did not have a cause (hidden
premise).
I never stated that above.
It's part of the argument, liar.
It is not part of the above. It seems you're still unwilling to focus
on the argument. Try not to argue straw man. Let the arguments stand
on their own merits.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
1a. Cause is assumed to apply qua universe, which is an invalid
assumption both ontologically and epistemically.
First of all, the premises never mentions the universe.
Really?
Yes, really. You can see the argument above. You continue to argue
straw man.
Furthermore, this is your assertion, and he who asserts must prove. So
back up your claim that one cannot apply cause to the universe.
Nope.
That's convenient.
The argument is that you cannot have an actual
infinite in reality. Are you now agreeing with this premise?
Of course. But then you apply it to god and so you're guilty of
doing the thing you're railing against!
Again, my seven point argument never invokes God. But I see you wrote
"of course," so you agree then that you cannot have an infinite in
reality. Therefore, the causal chain that led to your existence or
mine had to have been finite. Therefore there had to be a first cause
in the causal chain. All we're left with are the last three (5,6,7)
premises of my argument....
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress, we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
With the premise that there is something apart from the universe,
which is ontologically specious.
The universe isn't mentioned in the seven point argument Don.
Oh yes it is. You're using Kalam which uses universe, you liar.
I'm using a seven point argument that you keep avoiding. Let the
argument stand on its own merits. I notice that you still avoid the
last three propositions (though you've essentially admitted to the
first four). The closest you came to actually discussing them was the
following exchange from another post elsewhere in this thread:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! A first cause can certainly be
mechanical. Craig is an idiot.
Don just throws out assertions, but fails to back them up.
Ok.
Gas coalescing and eventually forming the sun was the first cause
in the formation of our solar system. Cause: MECHANICAL.
How's that, fuckwit?
But here we see that Don continues to throw out assertions. In this
instance, he asserts that our solar system was ultimately caused by
the coalescing of gas. The problem is that Don *asserts* that is was
the first cause without backing it up. Why should I believe that no
causal agents preceeded the coalescing (or even coming into
existence!) of the gas? The reality is that Don is simply mistaken.
The formation of our solar system is related to a number of causal
factors stretching at least as far back as the Big Bang.
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
13 May 2004 11:53:31 AM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote in message news:<2c68d44e.0405101250.396fd94@posting.google.com>...
God is not even mentioned in the seven point syllogism. It seems you
have a very bad time focusing on the actual argument.
Your argument intrigued me, as it's similar to one I've also made and
been discussing here; so I'd like to take a stab at it.
Here it is
again:
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
If this is qualified, to note that you're talking about 'physical
causes' and physical events' only, then it collapses into my argument;
which looks perfectly valid to me. There's also the corollary that
the first cause cannot be a physical event (as then it would have a
cause), but I believe that's what you go on to address:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
This second part of the argument, OTOH, is a lot more dubious. In
particular, I see a lot of objections that can be advanced re your
premise (5):
a) First, (5) is not valid (as a substitution instance of LEM, as, for
example, (1) is.) The most one could say is that the only causes we
have experience of are either personal or mechanical, and that
therefore a first cause must be (i) personal, (ii) mechanical, or
(iii) unlike anything in our experience. In which case, 5-6-7
invalid; 7 does not follow from 5 and 6.
b) Second, (5) assumes (as it implies by itself) that personal causes
are not mechanical, and mechanical causes are not personal. But this
is quite dubious, for the reason that it could be that all examples of
personal causation are mechanical. Certainly there are many people
who think they are, also many who think they're not, and the debate
between those go on and on. So 5, to be believable, must be
supported; and as it can be supported only by a premise like, "dualism
is true," then it's only as strong as "dualism is true," which is to
say, not that strong at all.
c) But even if one accepts that dualism is true, that doesn't answer a
more fundamental objection. Let's assume that we can divide up all
observable causes of events into personal and mechanical causes, and
that they are different. It's a fact that all observed mechanical
causes, such as the movement of your billiard balls, depend for their
existence on prior mechanical or material events having previously
occurred - which I think is your reasoning behind (6). But it's also
an observable fact that all observed personal causes also depend for
their existence on prior mechanical or material events having
previously occurred - the shooter wouldn't be poking a cue at billiard
balls, and in fact wouldn't be doing anything in the physical world at
all (because he wouldn't be in the physical world at all) without some
previous material events having happened (the physical events in his
mother's womb, for example). So the very evidence that supports (6) -
that leads to the conclusion that a mechanical event cannot be a first
cause - also leads to the conclusion that a personal event cannot be a
first cause, either.
Which brings us back to (a) - the only possibility for which there is
no evidence is that a first cause must be unlike anything else in our
experience.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
10 May 2004 09:02:46 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
... there must be a first cause.
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
11 May 2004 11:25:09 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<avWnc.23217$536.4336668@attbi_s03>...
... there must be a first cause.
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
You snipped my entire argument, and then raised a straw man. Not once
in my argument did I invoke the premise "anything must have a cause."
So above you are attacking a premise I never employed. The actual
argument is as follows:
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
I'm more than willing to defend any of these premises, if you're
interested in focusing on the actual seven point argument. As I have
said previously, this is not an iron clad proof for God's existence,
but if this argument is sound, it results in the conclusion that at
least one (though not necessarily one) personal causal agent is
responsible for everything that is at the end of a causal chain
(exempli gratia: you, me, New York city, the planet earth, et cetera).
That would start to lean more towards a general theistic position than
an atheistic position (though it surely would not demonstrate the
veracity of any particular form of theism).
Would you like to list which proposition of the argument above you
happen to disagree with?
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
11 May 2004 07:54:50 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 11 May 2004 09:25:09 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<avWnc.23217$536.4336668@attbi_s03>...
... there must be a first cause.
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
You snipped my entire argument, and then raised a straw man. Not once
in my argument did I invoke the premise "anything must have a cause."
So above you are attacking a premise I never employed. The actual
argument is as follows:
Kalam, which has been refuted.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
You're missing a lot of your argument, you lying sack.
Why don't you try it with the missing pieces, ok?
Oh, I'll just quote Craig for you to show you if you want to be
dishonest.
Oh, you also need to show that the universe was caused. Good
luck.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
12 May 2004 12:31:09 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<rkt2a0t5qb8qtm3mq6g4a3iq64qmg5iejt@4ax.com>...
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
You snipped my entire argument, and then raised a straw man. Not once
in my argument did I invoke the premise "anything must have a cause."
So above you are attacking a premise I never employed. The actual
argument is as follows:
Kalam, which has been refuted.
The argument has been influenced by Craig's reworking of the Kalaam
argument, but is not identical to it. I see that you're still
unwilling to actually examine the argument as is; rather you wish to
continue to attempt to poison the well.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Ooh, good one! Care to back up this simulated noise? Thus far you have
failed to do so.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
You're missing a lot of your argument, you lying sack.
The argument should be judged as is. Why are you scared to just
confront the actual argument?
Why don't you try it with the missing pieces, ok?
Does the argument as it is scare you?
Oh, I'll just quote Craig for you to show you if you want to be
dishonest.
My argument is not identical to Craig's. Arguing against Craig rather
than me is an example of a straw man.
Oh, you also need to show that the universe was caused. Good
luck.
I never claim such in the argument above. Still afraid to confront the
actual argument?
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&filter=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
12 May 2004 07:10:24 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 12 May 2004 10:31:09 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<rkt2a0t5qb8qtm3mq6g4a3iq64qmg5iejt@4ax.com>...
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
You snipped my entire argument, and then raised a straw man. Not once
in my argument did I invoke the premise "anything must have a cause."
So above you are attacking a premise I never employed. The actual
argument is as follows:
Kalam, which has been refuted.
The argument has been influenced by Craig's reworking of the Kalaam
argument, but is not identical to it.
It's identical to it. Don't lie to me, *****.
I see that you're still unwilling to be truthful. How disgusting.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Ooh, good one!
Back the claim that a first cause cannot be mechanical. I can
find dozens of "mechanical" first causes. Why can't you?
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
You're missing a lot of your argument, you lying sack.
The argument should be judged as is.
It is. It's missing a lot, you dishonest *****. You're just too
scared to admit that you're trying to sneak "god" into it. Dishonest
*****.
Oh, I'll just quote Craig for you to show you if you want to be
dishonest.
My argument is not identical to Craig's.
Yes, it is.
Oh, you also need to show that the universe was caused. Good
luck.
I never claim such in the argument above.
Yes, you do.
Still afraid to be honest?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
11 May 2004 09:01:59 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<avWnc.23217$536.4336668@attbi_s03>...
... there must be a first cause.
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
... Not once
in my argument did I invoke the premise "anything must have a cause."
That's precisely the crux of your argument, "There must be a first
cause." You are arguing that anything that exists must have a cause,
except for your hypothetical first cause. That is not logically
consistent. Try it again with logical consistency this time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
11 May 2004 10:14:50 PM |
|
|
In article <rAfoc.29647$536.5579905@attbi_s03>,
Dixit AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net> wrote:
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<avWnc.23217$536.4336668@attbi_s03>...
... there must be a first cause.
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
... Not once
in my argument did I invoke the premise "anything must have a cause."
That's precisely the crux of your argument, "There must be a first
cause." You are arguing that anything that exists must have a cause,
except for your hypothetical first cause. That is not logically
consistent. Try it again with logical consistency this time.
There are several mutually exclusive but exhaustive possibilities:
(1) Everything is caused, and there is no first cause.
(2) There is exactly one first cause and everything else is caused.
(3) There is more that one uncaused thing.
There is nothing logically inconsistent with any of these possibilities.
It is Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who is having trouble
with his own logical consistency.
You try it again, with logical consistency this time, Septic Capon, old
Simple Pimple!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
11 May 2004 01:27:49 PM |
|
|
On 11 May 2004 09:25:09 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<avWnc.23217$536.4336668@attbi_s03>...
... there must be a first cause.
There absolutely cannot be a first cause due to the fatal problem with
the very idea of it pointed out by Bertrand Russell. To be logically
consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your hypothetical first
cause must have a cause. The corollary is that if there can be anything
without a cause, it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical
first cause.
You snipped my entire argument, and then raised a straw man. Not once
in my argument did I invoke the premise "anything must have a cause."
So above you are attacking a premise I never employed. The actual
argument is as follows:
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Of course you can. As I posted before in answer to the above:
The series of negative numbers ending with minus one has no first term
and is an infinite series.
The remaining points become invalid.
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
I'm more than willing to defend any of these premises, if you're
interested in focusing on the actual seven point argument. As I have
said previously, this is not an iron clad proof for God's existence,
but if this argument is sound, it results in the conclusion that at
least one (though not necessarily one) personal causal agent is
responsible for everything that is at the end of a causal chain
(exempli gratia: you, me, New York city, the planet earth, et cetera).
That would start to lean more towards a general theistic position than
an atheistic position (though it surely would not demonstrate the
veracity of any particular form of theism).
Would you like to list which proposition of the argument above you
happen to disagree with?
-Nico Demusopelous
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
11 May 2004 09:11:28 PM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<ak62a0ti53i0mlj8v8kno0co581mjfqa8q@4ax.com>...
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Of course you can. As I posted before in answer to the above:
The series of negative numbers ending with minus one has no first term
and is an infinite series.
A series of negative numbers as a mathematical concept is not the same
thing as an infinite causal regress in reality. An actual infinite
causal regress would be a situation where you were caused by cause n,
which was in turn caused by cause n-1, which was in turn caused by
cause n-2, ad infinitum. If such were the case, your existence could
only begin after an infinite number of causal events has been
completed, but because an infinite cannot be traversed, the causal
chain would never be completed, and you would never begin to exist.
That seems pretty straight forward to me.
The remaining points become invalid.
Do they? Let's examine the remaining five propositions:
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
The argument seems to still retain a semblance of validity to me.
Maybe without (2), (4) does not necessarily follow from (3), but if
(7) is the ultimate conclusion I see no way that this argument can be
demonstrated as invalid. Perhaps you meant to question its soundness?
There is a key difference.
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
12 May 2004 01:15:43 AM |
|
|
On 11 May 2004 19:11:28 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<ak62a0ti53i0mlj8v8kno0co581mjfqa8q@4ax.com>...
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Of course you can. As I posted before in answer to the above:
The series of negative numbers ending with minus one has no first term
and is an infinite series.
A series of negative numbers as a mathematical concept is not the same
thing as an infinite causal regress in reality.
The idea that there cannot be a series with no first term is based on
the supposed illogic of such a thing not on anything in reality. I
provided an example of this supposed impossibility.
An actual infinite
causal regress would be a situation where you were caused by cause n,
which was in turn caused by cause n-1, which was in turn caused by
cause n-2, ad infinitum. If such were the case, your existence could
only begin after an infinite number of causal events has been
completed, but because an infinite cannot be traversed, the causal
chain would never be completed, and you would never begin to exist.
That seems pretty straight forward to me.
See above.
The remaining points become invalid.
Do they? Let's examine the remaining five propositions:
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
Destroys the idea of an infinite god.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
Therefore there cannot be a god
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
The argument seems to still retain a semblance of validity to me.
Maybe without (2), (4) does not necessarily follow from (3), but if
(7) is the ultimate conclusion I see no way that this argument can be
demonstrated as invalid. Perhaps you meant to question its soundness?
There is a key difference.
There is no reason to excuse god from being caused. If you do excuse
him, there is no reason to not excuse everything from being caused.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
12 May 2004 12:55:59 PM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<6sf3a0d5u4bb1s3qk7bk38bmte87q5vrb1@4ax.com>...
Of course you can. As I posted before in answer to the above:
The series of negative numbers ending with minus one has no first term
and is an infinite series.
A series of negative numbers as a mathematical concept is not the same
thing as an infinite causal regress in reality.
The idea that there cannot be a series with no first term is based on
the supposed illogic of such a thing not on anything in reality. I
provided an example of this supposed impossibility.
No, the issue is based on the fact that if an event is at the end of
an infinite causal chain, that event can never occur, because the
infinite must be complete/traversed before it can occur. Maybe I
should reword my premise to note that no thing exists at the end of an
infinite causal chain (or is preceded by an infinite causal regress).
An actual infinite
causal regress would be a situation where you were caused by cause n,
which was in turn caused by cause n-1, which was in turn caused by
cause n-2, ad infinitum. If such were the case, your existence could
only begin after an infinite number of causal events has been
completed, but because an infinite cannot be traversed, the causal
chain would never be completed, and you would never begin to exist.
That seems pretty straight forward to me.
See above.
The above does not answer the point established here. Anything that
exists at the end of a causal chain exists at the end of a finite
causal chain (because if an infinite causal chain preceded it, it
would never beging to exist).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
Destroys the idea of an infinite god.
Maybe. Interestingly, I never invoked any notion of "an infinite god."
What makes you think this is relevant to my actualt argument?
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
Therefore there cannot be a god
Your statement certainly cannot be inferred from (4).
The argument seems to still retain a semblance of validity to me.
Maybe without (2), (4) does not necessarily follow from (3), but if
(7) is the ultimate conclusion I see no way that this argument can be
demonstrated as invalid. Perhaps you meant to question its soundness?
There is a key difference.
There is no reason to excuse god from being caused.
No premise in my argument claims that God is not caused. In fact, no
deity is ever mentioned in the argument. Thus this objection of yours
is simply a straw man.
If you do excuse
him, there is no reason to not excuse everything from being caused.
As the argument clearly states, an entity that acts uncaused, implies
volition. So, for example, if you walk across the room, and no causal
agent caused you to do that, then you did it of your own free will.
That is my point. A first cause, by definition, is not preceded by any
other cause (because it is the first in the chain). However, if this
first cause sets other causal links in the chain into motion, how does
it do this without volition? This is why a first cause is personal
rather than mechanical.
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&filter=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
12 May 2004 06:57:25 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<6sf3a0d5u4bb1s3qk7bk38bmte87q5vrb1@4ax.com>...
[...]
The idea that there cannot be a series with no first term is
based on the supposed illogic of such a thing not on anything in
reality. I provided an example of this supposed impossibility.
No, the issue is based on the fact that if an event is at the end
of an infinite causal chain, that event can never occur, because
the infinite must be complete/traversed before it can occur. Maybe
I should reword my premise to note that no thing exists at the end
of an infinite causal chain (or is preceded by an infinite causal
regress).
Sorry, I haven't read enough of the rest of this thread to see
how the impossibility of an infinite causal chain fits into
your argument, but I would like to comment on just that part
of it.
Are you familiar with Zeno's "proof" of the impossibility of
motion, involving Achilles and a tortoise? In order to beat
a tortoise in a race, Achilles would have to first pass the
halfway point between himself and the tortoise, then the new
halfway point, then ... and so on. Achilles would have to
perform an infinite number of actions before he could pass
the tortoise, "therefore" he could never pass the tortoise.
It seems to me that the premise you are advancing is at least
superficially like the principle Zeno used.
Frankly, I don't see how you can say that "no thing exists at
the end of an infinite causal chain." I don't have any trouble at
all coming up with examples like Thomas P.'s. It may be a
_fact_ that there are no such chains, but I don't see the
logical necessity.
But I doubt the fact of there being no such chains, too. The
analogy with Zeno's paradox points to my thinking there.
You're making a tacit assumption both that past time is finite
and that there is a minimum duration between events. If
either of those assumptions fail, it's quite reasonable to
expect some causal chains to be infinite.
Is there a minimum duration between events? I doubt it.
Real life is analog, not digital. Quantum gravity could prove
me wrong here, but still...
I think it was the latest issue of Scientific American that
had a cover story about "the Time before Time", where they
reviewed some theories that said the Big Bang might not have
been a true singularity, but just an extremely hot, dense state.
If one of these theories is correct, then time extends
infinitely into the past (so far as we know).
It may be that you don't need to have _all_ infinite causal
chains be impossible, in order to prove whatever it is you're
going on about. Is there something more you can say about
the chains you _do_ need to be impossible that would let
you prove that? As it stands, I think you're just out of luck.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
12 May 2004 03:45:26 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2004 10:55:59 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<6sf3a0d5u4bb1s3qk7bk38bmte87q5vrb1@4ax.com>...
Of course you can. As I posted before in answer to the above:
The series of negative numbers ending with minus one has no first term
and is an infinite series.
A series of negative numbers as a mathematical concept is not the same
thing as an infinite causal regress in reality.
The idea that there cannot be a series with no first term is based on
the supposed illogic of such a thing not on anything in reality. I
provided an example of this supposed impossibility.
No, the issue is based on the fact that if an event is at the end of
an infinite causal chain, that event can never occur, because the
infinite must be complete/traversed before it can occur. Maybe I
should reword my premise to note that no thing exists at the end of an
infinite causal chain (or is preceded by an infinite causal regress).
Word it any way you want.
An actual infinite
causal regress would be a situation where you were caused by cause n,
which was in turn caused by cause n-1, which was in turn caused by
cause n-2, ad infinitum. If such were the case, your existence could
only begin after an infinite number of causal events has been
completed, but because an infinite cannot be traversed, the causal
chain would never be completed, and you would never begin to exist.
That seems pretty straight forward to me.
See above.
The above does not answer the point established here. Anything that
exists at the end of a causal chain exists at the end of a finite
causal chain (because if an infinite causal chain preceded it, it
would never beging to exist).
Thank you for agreeing that it is possible for a series with no first
term to exist.
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
Destroys the idea of an infinite god.
Maybe. Interestingly, I never invoked any notion of "an infinite god."
What makes you think this is relevant to my actualt argument?
No. 2 in your list of points refers to an infinite god. Otherwise you
have an infinite series.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
Therefore there cannot be a god
Your statement certainly cannot be inferred from (4).
Oh? What caused god, or is it an infinite god you are speaking of?
The argument seems to still retain a semblance of validity to me.
Maybe without (2), (4) does not necessarily follow from (3), but if
(7) is the ultimate conclusion I see no way that this argument can be
demonstrated as invalid. Perhaps you meant to question its soundness?
There is a key difference.
There is no reason to excuse god from being caused.
No premise in my argument claims that God is not caused. In fact, no
deity is ever mentioned in the argument. Thus this objection of yours
is simply a straw man.
Then there is no reason to talk about a god at all.
If you do excuse
him, there is no reason to not excuse everything from being caused.
As the argument clearly states, an entity that acts uncaused, implies
volition. So, for example, if you walk across the room, and no causal
agent caused you to do that, then you did it of your own free will.
That is my point. A first cause, by definition, is not preceded by any
other cause (because it is the first in the chain). However, if this
first cause sets other causal links in the chain into motion, how does
it do this without volition? This is why a first cause is personal
rather than mechanical.
In other words you assume your conclusion.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 07:01:10 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument. So I will go over his comments, give my reposne,
and then give the first cause argument as I understand it (or my
version of the first cause argument, which is adapted for the most
part from William Lane Craig's arguments, though they may not be
identical). I would also welcome comments from anyone else (including
Christopher A. Lee).
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin," so this is simply a
straw man. No premise in my argument will presuppose the existence of
God. Let's focus on the actual argument, which I will attempt to lay
out in this post. The arguments I present either stand or fall on
their own merits.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
2a (hidden) God did not begin to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. Therefore, the cause is god.
It's the way the argument works, bucko. No amount of your
whining will change it.
Of course, this is simply a straw man, as I have never used the
argument above. The above is not my argument. First, let's consider
the basic cosmological argument that is analogous to the above:
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
The argument is valid. Assuming it is sound also, does it prove God
exists? No, as it never invokes the existence of God (proponents of
brane theory will agree with every step of the argument, and simply
conclude that the universe came into existence at the Big Bang, which
was caused by a collision of branes). So from here, I need to move
into a first cause argument. I am *NOT* presupposing God's existence
here. I will lay out the premises. Let's focus on the premises (not on
what kind of a person others think I may be).
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
This seems to me to be a clear argument. It is certainly valid. If
there is only one causal regress, then there is a first cause. If
there are multiple indepedent causal regresses, there are multiple
first causes. Nonetheless, there is at least one first cause. Keep in
mind that, thus far in the argument, I have given no reason to assume
a first cause is anything like a deity. Nonetheless, were I to do so
successfully, we see that the door is wide open to polytheism (i.e.
some specific form of Monotheism, like Christianity, Judaism or Islam,
is not a sure thing, and I certainly will not be arguing for any
particular form of theism, nor have I ever done so in alt.atheism).
Before I make any attempt to move this argument towards something in
favor of theism, I want to discuss the argument as is, thus far.
Thus far, I can only glean that Don would dispute the second premise.
We had the following exchange:
My fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all. The only similarity is that Zeno also disagreed with the
existence of an actual infinite in reality (and he tried to use that
to dispute the existence of motion and time to try and lean in favor
of the Parmenidean Pantheism that he championed). Think of what Don is
saying above. He is claiming that if he moves his fingers (or anything
else) a finite distance, the distance traversed is actually infinite.
Actually, that is a contradiction. The distance is finite, though it
can be divided a potentially infinite number of times.
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality? It seems it is more conceptual.
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times. But what would be the distance of each
division? If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
Only if those distances had to be the same. If each distance were
half of the previous, then the sum of the distances would be twice
the first distance. Didn't they teach geometric series in your school?
distance will still give you zero. The number of points is
*POTENTIALLY* infinite. You cannot have an actual infinite (note that
if Don started listing all the points, exempli gratia: 1.1, 1.101,
1.10101, et cetera, he would only list a finite number of points,
though the number of points is, without a doubt, potentiall infinite).
The points exist whether we specify them or not.
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
Wrong definition of infinite. A distance would be infinite if it could
partitioned into intervals of equal (positive) measure such that there
was a one-to-one function between the set of such intervals and a
proper subset thereof.
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
Nope, you are the fuckwit, for you appear to believe that Lebesgue measure
is additive at the cardinality of the real numbers, when it is only
additive at
lesser cardinalities.
It seems that Don does not understand my argument. But the above moves
me to the next point. If time stretches back infinitely, i.e. if it is
without bound, then we could never reach this point. That is reason
alone for concluding that time has a bound. I never denied this, and,
contrary to Don's straw man above, I never claimed a certain thing
always existed in time.
Be we do not need to reach this point going backwards, as long as
we could reach now going forwards from then, The two cases might
not be symmetric.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 Apr 2004 07:45:42 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument. So I will go over his comments, give my reposne,
and then give the first cause argument as I understand it (or my
version of the first cause argument, which is adapted for the most
part from William Lane Craig's arguments, though they may not be
identical). I would also welcome comments from anyone else (including
Christopher A. Lee).
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin," so this is simply a
straw man. No premise in my argument will presuppose the existence of
God. Let's focus on the actual argument, which I will attempt to lay
out in this post. The arguments I present either stand or fall on
their own merits.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
Stop. Time is in the Universe,not the other way aroud.
This also applies to your cosmological argument.
Colin Day
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 11:20:44 AM |
|
|
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<40832466.3030209@sc.rr.com>...
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my ar | | |
