| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
18 Apr 2004 04:23:37 PM |
| Object: |
A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
On Sunday, 18 Apr 2004 20:38:34 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
(3) Christopher A. Lee has claimed that there are mathematical
arguments for the uncaused nature of certain events, which
would therefore be a priori arguments - but I have yet to
consider these arguments yet.
No, liar, that is yet another of your misrepresentations.
I am lying here? Let's see which of these claims is a lie:
(1) Christopher A. Lee has claimed there are mathematical arguments
for the uncaused nature of certain events? Nope, that's not a lie, you
really did claim such!
(2) Such arguments would be a priori? Nope, that's not a lie, as a
mathematical argument does not need empirical confirmation (though its
conclusion, or positions implied by the conclusion, can be confirmed
empirically).
(3) I have yet to consider these arguments? Nope, that's not a lie, as
you asserted they exist, but have not pointed me in the direction of
the relevant published material, hence the reason I have not
considered them yet.
So, all in all, there are no lies in the statements above.
You need to learn what "random" means. And that the quantum
level is probabilistic not deterministic. If it weren't that
random, eg only weighted random then a reason for this could
be inferred and investigated.
I understand what random means. You need to learn what "justification"
means, as despite all your repeated claims, you have yet to justify
them. You CLAIM they are random, but you have yet to provide me with
the reasoning behind such a conclusion. Do you hope that I just take
your word for it?
What part of "atoms decay according to a probability per time
interval" are you pretending not to understand?
I understand that just fine. The problem is that you have ASSERTED
that this is the case, and I have asked how you reached this
conclusion. What reasoning was employed to conclude that "atoms decay
according to a probability per time interval"?
But all this is a red herring - you still haven't backed up your
premise that "everything that comes into existence has a cause".
To do this you would have had to investigate everything and find
its cause.
You still don't understand the concept of induction. It is not a
premise that is true beyond all doubt, and it is based neither on an
exhaustive examination of every thing, nor is it based on a deductive
argument. However, it is based on tremendous inductive support. Hence
the reason for calling it an inductive argument.
Now, you've asserted that we have observed things come about uncaused,
and you have given no reason to believe that is true. Are you going to
give a justification for your assertion? Or are you going to retract
the statement and instead focus on how the premise that "everything
that has a cause for its existnece" is not an empirically confirmed
fact? Or are you going to simply keep repeating your, thus far,
unsupported assertions ad nauseum?
Instead, you are extrapolating from the macro level to the
quantum level.
Guilty as charged! Of course, I also extrapolate from here in New York
to there in Canada, or here on earth to there on Mars, et cetera. Now,
you may argue that these cases are not analogous to the move "from the
macro level to the quantum level," and you may very well be right, but
if you're going to claim such, you need to back up that claim. I, for
one, have never seen an example of something come about uncaused
(though, admittedly I have witnessed events in which I could not
determine the cause), nor have you presented a justification for the
conclusion that a given event had no cause. Thus I see no
methodological problem in extending causality past my immediate realm.
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause." You clearly don't know the basics of my argument,
though I posted it in the first article of this new thread ("A First
Cause Argument for Don Kresch..."). For your benefit (and mine?), I'll
reproduce the basic seven point skeleton of my premilinary argument
here, and we can work from there. If you disagree with one or more of
the premises, we'll discuss it. If you agree with the argument thus
far, we'll advance. So, the argument thus far is:
(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.
The argument is certainly valid. If it is sound, it gives us good
reason to believe, a priori, in the existence of at least one personal
first cause which is ultimately responsible for your existence and
mine. If you don't agree with this conclusion, point out which
premises you disagree with, and why. Otherwise, your objections become
moot.
-Nico "Don't Call Me Fundy" Demusopelous
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 Apr 2004 05:31:07 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 18 Apr 2004 14:23:37 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
On Sunday, 18 Apr 2004 20:38:34 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
[snip]
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause." You clearly don't know the basics of my argument,
though I posted it in the first article of this new thread ("A First
Cause Argument for Don Kresch..."). For your benefit (and mine?), I'll
reproduce the basic seven point skeleton of my premilinary argument
here, and we can work from there. If you disagree with one or more of
the premises, we'll discuss it. If you agree with the argument thus
far, we'll advance. So, the argument thus far is:
(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.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! A first cause can certainly be
mechanical. Craig is an idiot.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
The argument is certainly valid. If it is sound, it gives us good
reason to believe, a priori, in the existence of at least one personal
first cause which is ultimately responsible for your existence and
mine.
No, it doesn't. Causality does not apply qua universe.
IOW: the universe IS NOT AN EFFECT.
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 11:41:14 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<u90680ds5olq3tl8t74k7dqdbdtnqd3qjn@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause." You clearly don't know the basics of my argument,
though I posted it in the first article of this new thread ("A First
Cause Argument for Don Kresch..."). For your benefit (and mine?), I'll
reproduce the basic seven point skeleton of my premilinary argument
here, and we can work from there. If you disagree with one or more of
the premises, we'll discuss it. If you agree with the argument thus
far, we'll advance. So, the argument thus far is:
(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.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! A first cause can certainly be
mechanical. Craig is an idiot.
Don just throws out assertions, but fails to back them up. Other than
that, all he has is his quite refined use of the ad hominem. Craig is
an idiot? Well it must be true since Don says so!
To explain the dichotomy between mechanical and personal causes, I
gave the following analogy (which Don avoided) involving 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.
If Don believes in a personal first cause in a causal chain, he has to
explain how that is possible. How something can get up and move, or
act, on its own, without cause, and without volition (without being
some sort of personal agent).
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
The argument is certainly valid. If it is sound, it gives us good
reason to believe, a priori, in the existence of at least one personal
first cause which is ultimately responsible for your existence and
mine.
No, it doesn't. Causality does not apply qua universe.
IOW: the universe IS NOT AN EFFECT.
Everyone should take a look at the above, and look at Don's response.
He claims the conclusion is false, but the reason he gives is
irrelevant. The snipped he was responding to never mentions the
universe. Once again, we see an example of Don's inability to focus on
the actual argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 06:30:59 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 19 Apr 2004 09:41:14 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<u90680ds5olq3tl8t74k7dqdbdtnqd3qjn@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause." You clearly don't know the basics of my argument,
though I posted it in the first article of this new thread ("A First
Cause Argument for Don Kresch..."). For your benefit (and mine?), I'll
reproduce the basic seven point skeleton of my premilinary argument
here, and we can work from there. If you disagree with one or more of
the premises, we'll discuss it. If you agree with the argument thus
far, we'll advance. So, the argument thus far is:
(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.
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?
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
The argument is certainly valid. If it is sound, it gives us good
reason to believe, a priori, in the existence of at least one personal
first cause which is ultimately responsible for your existence and
mine.
No, it doesn't. Causality does not apply qua universe.
IOW: the universe IS NOT AN EFFECT.
Everyone should take a look at the above, and look at Don's response.
He claims the conclusion is false, but the reason he gives is
irrelevant.
Oh, the reason is perfectly relevant. The argument rests on the
universe BEING AN EFFECT. If the universe is not an effect, then no
cosmological argument can stand.
*****, you are truly stupid. Meta-stupid. Trans-stupid stupid.
Stupid so dense it's collapsed upon itself into a black hole of
stupidity.
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: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 May 2004 10:52:10 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<q4o8809t2vpv2i8piob4peaumims2uc0cn@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 19 Apr 2004 09:41:14 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<u90680ds5olq3tl8t74k7dqdbdtnqd3qjn@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause."
snip
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?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 May 2004 05:33:23 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 18 May 2004 08:52:10 -0700,
(George Dance) let us all know that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<q4o8809t2vpv2i8piob4peaumims2uc0cn@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 19 Apr 2004 09:41:14 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<u90680ds5olq3tl8t74k7dqdbdtnqd3qjn@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause."
snip
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?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
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: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
24 May 2004 01:54:48 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<t24la0d1f966n87u3db3nt3upqn539j81p@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 18 May 2004 08:52:10 -0700,
(George Dance) let us all know that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<q4o8809t2vpv2i8piob4peaumims2uc0cn@4ax.com>...
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<u90680ds5olq3tl8t74k7dqdbdtnqd3qjn@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
<snip>
Gas coalescing and eventually forming the sun was the first cause
in the formation of our solar system. Cause: MECHANICAL.
How's that, fuckwit?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
So arbitrariness counts against his argument for a first cause, but
doesn't count against your unsupported claim of a first cause. What
double standard are you employing here?
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: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
24 May 2004 06:36:43 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 24 May 2004 11:54:48 -0700,
(George Dance) let us all know that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<t24la0d1f966n87u3db3nt3upqn539j81p@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 18 May 2004 08:52:10 -0700,
(George Dance) let us all know that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<q4o8809t2vpv2i8piob4peaumims2uc0cn@4ax.com>...
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<u90680ds5olq3tl8t74k7dqdbdtnqd3qjn@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
<snip>
Gas coalescing and eventually forming the sun was the first cause
in the formation of our solar system. Cause: MECHANICAL.
How's that, fuckwit?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
So arbitrariness counts against his argument for a first cause,
No. A complete lack of ontology does.
Do TRY to keep up.
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... |
20 May 2004 01:18:10 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<t24la0d1f966n87u3db3nt3upqn539j81p@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause."
snip
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?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant?!?!?!?! Don Kresch claimed a given point is the first
cause, and he was asked for evidence. He calls this request for
evidence "irrelevant"! How's that for intellectual honesty?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
20 May 2004 08:51:34 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 20 May 2004 11:18:10 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<t24la0d1f966n87u3db3nt3upqn539j81p@4ax.com>...
You have also repeatedly ignored the other reasons why your
"proof" fails: that you are going beyond where there is any
knowledge to where there is no information whatever, stopping
at at arbitrary point where there is no reason to do so, and
deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Straw man (or should I call you a liar?). There has never been a
single instance in which I pointed at something and said "this here is
the first cause."
snip
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?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant?!?!?!?!
Yes.
It's quite honest.
Now if only you could provide the ontology for your claim.
Hint: you can't escape the fact that your claim has nothing going
for it ontologically. Give it up.
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... |
25 May 2004 04:56:58 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<cvnqa0hvqtusr4l2ovnh8d102ogii0gkst@4ax.com>...
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?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant?!?!?!?!
Yes.
It's quite honest.
No, it is quite intellectually dishonest, considering the fact that
you have been told that you have provided no evidence for your claim,
yet you snip such objections. You have made an assertion that implies,
as is noted above, that were no (or could not have been any) causes of
the gas coalescing, yet you have failed to support this claim.
Now if only you could provide the ontology for your claim.
Hint: you can't escape the fact that your claim has nothing going
for it ontologically. Give it up.
You just keep asserting this, but don't bother to put forth an actual
argument. Are you going to bother to elaborate?
"Those who contend that the cosmological proof needs the
ontological in order to identify the being to which we
have argued not only fail to see that the characterization
of this being lies outside the realm of the proof per se,
but due to a confusion of the necessity which is
characteristic of beings with that which is applicable to
statements and propositions, they also fail to see that
the cosmological argument does indeed, in and of itself,
provide a concept by which we can identify this being
which exists."
[Bruce R. Reichenbach, "The Cosmological Argument: A
Reassessment," (Charles C. Thomas, 1972), p. 135]
My argument is simply that everything that exists at the end of a
causal chain exists at the end of a finite causal chain, and every
finite causal chain, by definition, has a first cause, therefore there
is at least one first cause that is responsible for everything that
exists at the end of a causal chain. As far as I can see, there is
nothing ontologically problematic about such an argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
25 May 2004 09:01:45 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 25 May 2004 14:56:58 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<cvnqa0hvqtusr4l2ovnh8d102ogii0gkst@4ax.com>...
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?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant?!?!?!?!
Yes.
It's quite honest.
No, it is quite intellectually dishonest,
No, it's quite honest.
considering the fact that
you have been told that you have provided no evidence for your claim,
I have.
yet you snip such objections.
Because the objections are infantile.
You have made an assertion that implies,
as is noted above, that were no (or could not have been any) causes of
the gas coalescing, yet you have failed to support this claim.
Liar.
Now if only you could provide the ontology for your claim.
Hint: you can't escape the fact that your claim has nothing going
for it ontologically. Give it up.
You just keep asserting this,
And proved it.
What is the ontology for your claim of something apart from the
universe creating the universe? Please tell me!
That is the fucking proof, dimwit. It's up to YOU to provide the
ontology. We know what existence and causality mean WITHIN the
universe. But UPON the universe and APART from the universe? Do you
have an referent thereto?
NO!
There's more proof, fuckwad.
"Those who contend that the cosmological proof needs the
ontological in order to identify the being to which we
have argued not only fail to see that the characterization
of this being lies outside the realm of the proof per se,
but due to a confusion of the necessity which is
characteristic of beings with that which is applicable to
statements and propositions, they also fail to see that
the cosmological argument does indeed, in and of itself,
provide a concept by which we can identify this being
which exists."
[Bruce R. Reichenbach, "The Cosmological Argument: A
Reassessment," (Charles C. Thomas, 1972), p. 135]
[CRITICISM OF THE CHIEF ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - IMMANUEL
KANT - FROM THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON]
THE ontological argument aims at asserting the possibility of
conceiving the idea of an ens realissimum, of being possessed of all
reality. But the idea of existence and the fact of existence are two
very different things. Whatever I conceive, or sensibly imagine, I
necessarily conceive as though it were existing. Though my pocket be
empty, I may conceive it to contain a 'hundred thalers.' If I conceive
them there, I can only conceive them as actually existing there. But,
alas, the fact that I am under this necessity of so conceiving by no
means carries with it a necessity that the coins should really be in
my pocket. That can only be determined by experience.
The cosmological argument contends that if anything exists, there must
also exist an absolutely necessary being. Now, at least I myself
exist. Hence there exists an absolutely necessary being. The argument
coincides with that by which the thesis of the fourth antinomy is
supposed. The objections to it are summed up in the proof of the
antithesis of the fourth antinomy. As soon as we have recognized the
true conception of causality, we have already transcended the sensible
world.
The physico-theological or teleological argument is what is often
styled the argument from design. It proceeds not from general, but
particular experience. Nature discloses manifold signs of wise
intention and harmonious order, and these are held to betoken a divine
designer. This argument deserves always to be treated with respect. It
is the oldest and clearest of all proofs, and best adapted to convince
the reason of the mass of mankind. It animates us in our study of
nature. And it were not only a cheerless, but an altogether vain task
to attempt to detract from the persuasive authority of this proof.
There is naught to urge against its rationality and its utility.
All arguments, however, to prove the existence of God must, in order
to be theoretically valid, start from specifically and exclusively
sensible or phenomenal data, must employ only the conceptions of pure
physical science, and must end with demonstrating in sensible
experience an object congruous with, or corresponding to, the idea of
God. But this requirement cannot be met, for, scientifically speaking,
the existence of an absolutely necessary God cannot be either proved
or disproved. Hence room is left for faith in any moral proofs that
may present themselves to us, apart from science. With this subject
ethics, the science of practice or of practical reason, will have to
deal.
My argument is simply that everything that exists at the end of a
causal chain exists at the end of a finite causal chain, and every
finite causal chain, by definition, has a first cause, therefore there
is at least one first cause that is responsible for everything that
exists at the end of a causal chain.
....which you call god and is apart from the universe.
Big problem, ontologically.
Oh, don't lie and say that you aren't using god. Don't you
fucking dare lie.
Also, please tell me what it means for the universe to be caused.
Another big problem, ontologically.
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: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
29 May 2004 11:34:46 AM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<cvnqa0hvqtusr4l2ovnh8d102ogii0gkst@4ax.com>...
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?
Works for me, as long as you have some evidence that there were no (or
could not have been any) causes of the gas coalescing. Otherwise
you're just stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to
do so, and deciding that this is where the first cause is.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant?!?!?!?!
Yes.
It's quite honest.
No, it is quite intellectually dishonest, considering the fact that
you have been told that you have provided no evidence for your claim,
yet you snip such objections. You have made an assertion that implies,
as is noted above, that were no (or could not have been any) causes of
the gas coalescing, yet you have failed to support this claim.
Now if only you could provide the ontology for your claim.
Hint: you can't escape the fact that your claim has nothing going
for it ontologically. Give it up.
You just keep asserting this, but don't bother to put forth an actual
argument. Are you going to bother to elaborate?
"Those who contend that the cosmological proof needs the
ontological in order to identify the being to which we
have argued not only fail to see that the characterization
of this being lies outside the realm of the proof per se,
but due to a confusion of the necessity which is
characteristic of beings with that which is applicable to
statements and propositions, they also fail to see that
the cosmological argument does indeed, in and of itself,
provide a concept by which we can identify this being
which exists."
[Bruce R. Reichenbach, "The Cosmological Argument: A
Reassessment," (Charles C. Thomas, 1972), p. 135]
My argument is simply that everything that exists at the end of a
causal chain exists at the end of a finite causal chain, and every
finite causal chain, by definition, has a first cause, therefore there
is at least one first cause that is responsible for everything that
exists at the end of a causal chain. As far as I can see, there is
nothing ontologically problematic about such an argument.
But is this causal chain finite? Even if it were finite in temporal
duration, it might be infinite in subdivisibility.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 Apr 2004 04:46:18 PM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2004 14:23:37 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
On Sunday, 18 Apr 2004 20:38:34 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
(3) Christopher A. Lee has claimed that there are mathematical
arguments for the uncaused nature of certain events, which
would therefore be a priori arguments - but I have yet to
consider these arguments yet.
No, liar, that is yet another of your misrepresentations.
I am lying here? Let's see which of these claims is a lie:
(1) Christopher A. Lee has claimed there are mathematical arguments
for the uncaused nature of certain events? Nope, that's not a lie, you
really did claim such!
It's a misrepresentation. But then you knew that anyway. Because you
have refused to address what I actually said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 11:35:57 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<snt5809i9tdt31e14e7b9dft332qr0os6j@4ax.com>...
(3) Christopher A. Lee has claimed that there are mathematical
arguments for the uncaused nature of certain events, which
would therefore be a priori arguments - but I have yet to
consider these arguments yet.
No, liar, that is yet another of your misrepresentations.
I am lying here? Let's see which of these claims is a lie:
(1) Christopher A. Lee has claimed there are mathematical arguments
for the uncaused nature of certain events? Nope, that's not a lie, you
really did claim such!
It's a misrepresentation. But then you knew that anyway. Because you
have refused to address what I actually said.
It is not a misrepresentation. The above is one of the things you
said. Other than that, you made a bunch of other assertions without
backing them up. I guess you accepted the truth of those assertions on
faith, and was hoping that I would just take your word for it.
And I notice you ran from the rest of the post (after it was shown
that you again were erecting a straw man argument). In case you want
to consider the rest of the post, it has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0404181323.1ed78f8a%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 04:39:09 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2004 09:35:57 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<snt5809i9tdt31e14e7b9dft332qr0os6j@4ax.com>...
(3) Christopher A. Lee has claimed that there are mathematical
arguments for the uncaused nature of certain events, which
would therefore be a priori arguments - but I have yet to
consider these arguments yet.
No, liar, that is yet another of your misrepresentations.
I am lying here? Let's see which of these claims is a lie:
(1) Christopher A. Lee has claimed there are mathematical arguments
for the uncaused nature of certain events? Nope, that's not a lie, you
really did claim such!
It's a misrepresentation. But then you knew that anyway. Because you
have refused to address what I actually said.
It is not a misrepresentation. The above is one of the things you
said. Other than that, you made a bunch of other assertions without
backing them up. I guess you accepted the truth of those assertions on
faith, and was hoping that I would just take your word for it.
Yet another of your lies, liar.
And I notice you ran from the rest of the post (after it was shown
that you again were erecting a straw man argument). In case you want
to consider the rest of the post, it has been archived by Google here:
Yet another of your lies, liar.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0404181323.1ed78f8a%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
