On Sunday, 18 Apr 2004 21:01:36 GMT, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
I still wonder on what grounds one can conclude that a given event had
no cause. That being said, let me concede to three points:
(1) I am not assuming that an uncaused event is necessarily
impossible (thus I do not assume premise (a) is a necessary
logical truth, though I do consider it true).
(2) Ted King has offered the following article...
http://confer.uj.edu.pl/bell.workshop/doc/laudisa.doc
...as being an argument towards the plausibility of uncaused
events, and I have not yet absorbed the arguments found
therein.
(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.
Then with all due respect, why don't you get back to us when you do?
It seems we don't have much to discuss until then.
I hope you are referring specifically to (and only to) concession (2).
Assuming you are not only/specifically referring to concession (2),
let me explain concession (3) [concession (1) needs no explanation I
assume]. I cannot consider Christopher's claim, as he has yet to meet
requests to point me in the direction of these arguments.
Assuming, now, that you were only referring to concession (2), let me
first note that I expect it to take me a while to absorb it fully (I
want to check the relevant sources). I have exams coming up, so
between my studies and the absorbing of this article, after tonight I
probably will not return to alt.atheism until April 27th (or around
there). So I wanted to squeeze in as many requests to provide
information as possible. I notice that you have not given any
justification for the claim that events happen uncaused. Do you,
therefore, agree that the link called to witness by Ted is suficient?
If not, please post your own justifications/reasons for believing a
given event came about uncaused.
Furthermore, my seven point argument in favor of a personal first
cause (or at least one personal causal agent responsible for your
existence and mine) may be able to stand on its own, without premise
(a) [that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its
existence]. Maybe you could give your thoughts? It appeared in the
opening post of this thread ["A First Cause Argument for Don
Kresch..."] which you originally responded to.
.
|
