Religions > Atheism > Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
15 Apr 2004 04:09:07 PM |
| Object: |
Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
Greetings!
This is a reply to a post from Christopher A. Lee from about a month
ago. I have not been able to take part in discussions in alt.atheism
due to time constraints, studies, et cetera, and I had been meaning to
respond to this post in particular. Depending on your news reader, you
may no longer have access to the post, so I would like to note that it
has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=flte50h2c08ibr49fk5ura4v2hl9lk5cr9%404ax.com
The discussion is mainly about first cause arguments.
I simply gave the obvious refutations to the standard first cause
arguments:
1: pointing out that the premise fails because science knows of
causeless "things that come into existence" at the quantum level.
2: that they try to argue a first cause instead of pointing to one, by
trying to generate information where there isn't any .
3: they then make an unjustified leap from "first cause" (which they
haven't actually shown) to God [or its disingenuous equivalent as
you did].
4: Which they ALREADY presume because they have already decided that
it is causeless, eternal, intelligent, personal and all the other
attributes they already believe it has
5: It doesn't demonstrate that this hypothetical deity did not "come
into existence", just makes this baseless assertion about it.
6. Which renders their original premise worthless, as well as the
disingenuous and transparent dodge you are trying to use to make
it exempt from the proscriptive rule you use as a premise.
5: Which also destroys their original premise that everything has a
cause.
But instead of responding to this you pointed me to somebody called
Craig.
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig," along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause"), shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
But this is a moot point, so I want to get into the issue of something
coming about uncaused. Consider the following exchange:
argument is first that there had to be a first cause (you were asked
to give evidence of things happening uncaused, but you have yet to do
so). Our experience gives good inductive support to the position that
Sigh. I thought that anybody with a modicum of of education had come
accross this. It's been observed inquantum mechanics.
Yes, we hear this charge all the time. The above, by the way, shows
that you have not actually been reading my replies to you. In a
previous response to you I wrote specifically the following:
Stop lying.
'As for the claim that "modern science knows of uncaused events," I
would agree that in these discussions the atheist side often makes an
appeal to quantum indeterminacy, but, as I originally noted in my
NOT JUST ATHEISTS, MORON. PHYSICISTS, COSMOLOGISTS, ANYBODY WORKING IN
THAT AREA - WHICH EVEN INCLUDES SOME WHO ARE CHRISTIANS. Who realise
that their beliefs can't be proven and are taken on faith, and who
know better that to say God did it in an area where all claims have to
be backed up.
first contribution to this thread, I personally have not seen any good
explanation of how such is possible. The first question becomes, on
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event? As for tunnelling effects, I
am ignorant of what that is a reference to, and was wondering if
anyone could elaborate (on a side note, I imagine that a computer's
ability to perform random actions may lean in favor of Christopher's
position if these actions are truly random, i.e. not deterministic).
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question: if one observes an event, on what grounds can
one conclude the event had no cause? If I am mistaken, and the
question is answered by the link, maybe Christopher could copy and
paste that answer?
Why? I DON'T NEED TO KNOW HOW IT IS POSSIBLE - JUST THAT IT HAS BEEN
OBSERVED AND IS INVESTIGATED.
Christopher has sad many times that uncaused events have been
observed, but the glaring question I have put forth awaits an answer.
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
16 Apr 2004 06:29:07 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 15 Apr 2004 14:09:07 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Greetings!
This is a reply to a post from Christopher A. Lee from about a month
ago. I have not been able to take part in discussions in alt.atheism
due to time constraints, studies, et cetera, and I had been meaning to
respond to this post in particular. Depending on your news reader, you
may no longer have access to the post, so I would like to note that it
has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=flte50h2c08ibr49fk5ura4v2hl9lk5cr9%404ax.com
The discussion is mainly about first cause arguments.
I simply gave the obvious refutations to the standard first cause
arguments:
1: pointing out that the premise fails because science knows of
causeless "things that come into existence" at the quantum level.
2: that they try to argue a first cause instead of pointing to one, by
trying to generate information where there isn't any .
3: they then make an unjustified leap from "first cause" (which they
haven't actually shown) to God [or its disingenuous equivalent as
you did].
4: Which they ALREADY presume because they have already decided that
it is causeless, eternal, intelligent, personal and all the other
attributes they already believe it has
5: It doesn't demonstrate that this hypothetical deity did not "come
into existence", just makes this baseless assertion about it.
6. Which renders their original premise worthless, as well as the
disingenuous and transparent dodge you are trying to use to make
it exempt from the proscriptive rule you use as a premise.
5: Which also destroys their original premise that everything has a
cause.
But instead of responding to this you pointed me to somebody called
Craig.
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig,"
First of all, that's wholly irrelevant.
along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause")
If they don't, then they are guilty of special pleading. And then
they are fucked.
, shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
Actually, it's not. It's being dimissively akin to talking about
creationism and referring to "somebody called Gish".
argument is first that there had to be a first cause (you were asked
to give evidence of things happening uncaused, but you have yet to do
so). Our experience gives good inductive support to the position that
Sigh. I thought that anybody with a modicum of of education had come
accross this. It's been observed inquantum mechanics.
Yes, we hear this charge all the time. The above, by the way, shows
that you have not actually been reading my replies to you. In a
previous response to you I wrote specifically the following:
Stop lying.
'As for the claim that "modern science knows of uncaused events," I
would agree that in these discussions the atheist side often makes an
appeal to quantum indeterminacy, but, as I originally noted in my
NOT JUST ATHEISTS, MORON. PHYSICISTS, COSMOLOGISTS, ANYBODY WORKING IN
THAT AREA - WHICH EVEN INCLUDES SOME WHO ARE CHRISTIANS. Who realise
that their beliefs can't be proven and are taken on faith, and who
know better that to say God did it in an area where all claims have to
be backed up.
first contribution to this thread, I personally have not seen any good
explanation of how such is possible. The first question becomes, on
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event?
One observes them all the time, actually, as was pointed out.
Thanks for being illiterate.
As for tunnelling effects, I
am ignorant of what that is a reference to,
Then maybe you ought to, oh I dunno, DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH?
[snip]
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
Yes: on what logical grounds could you ever conclude an uncaused
personal creator who wills something from eternity, given that
eternity isn't a valid ontological concept (there's some Craigian
language for you).
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
And one would be hard pressed to argue that this personal creator
thing had no cause, either.
IOW: don't special plead.
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question:
Since it cites the sources, then it must have answered your
question, liar.
Oh, you also should know that all first cause arguments simply
devolve into the ontological argument, which of course many people
(including Kant), destroyed many years ago.
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: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
16 Apr 2004 09:15:22 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<6ggv70lijqrjvavl7m216n6ar43bet2m3q@4ax.com>...
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig,"
First of all, that's wholly irrelevant.
It is relevant in that it shows he is not all that familiar with the
argument, or the history of the argument to be more exact, which is
problematic since he confidently asserts that all proponents of the
argument before Craig employed the premise "everything has to have a
cause," followed by the special pleading "'cept Gawd..."
along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause")
If they don't, then they are guilty of special pleading. And then
they are fucked.
The argument does not hold the premise "everything has a cause," but
rather "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its
existence."
, shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
Actually, it's not. It's being dimissively akin to talking about
creationism and referring to "somebody called Gish".
The problem is that creationism is (allegedly, i.e. according to its
proponents) either a scientific or philosophical positions, but it is
not taken serious in either science or philosophy (here I mean young
earth creationism, not necessarily the simple position that the
universe is a created object). The cosmological argument, however, is
taken seriously within the philosophy of religion, and is discussed by
serious academics (in philosophy departments). But you're right that
this is mostly irrelevant to the veracity of the argument.
first contribution to this thread, I personally have not seen any good
explanation of how such is possible. The first question becomes, on
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event?
One observes them all the time, actually, as was pointed out.
Thanks for being illiterate.
Such as? I understand the possibility of observing an event and being
incapable of determining the cause. I am asking for the grounds on
which one concludes that there was no cause.
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
Yes: on what logical grounds could you ever conclude an uncaused
personal creator who wills something from eternity, given that
eternity isn't a valid ontological concept (there's some Craigian
language for you).
First of all, this is skirting the issue. Let us suppose, for a
moment, that the notion of an eternal (or timeless) personal agent is
meaningless or absurd. That does not answer the question asked above:
if you assert an event happened uncaused, on what grounds is this
assertion made? What is the justification for such a conclusion?
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
And one would be hard pressed to argue that this personal creator
thing had no cause, either.
IOW: don't special plead.
If I were engaging in special pleading, I would apply a rule across
the board and the suddenly, without justification, abritarily pick
something that this rule does not apply to. While I may be wrong, I do
not believe that I have done such. Feel free to show the propositions
I have employed that are cases of special pleading.
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question:
Since it cites the sources, then it must have answered your
question, liar.
Actually, I read through everything there, and skimmed some of the
sources cited (though admittedly not all). Thus far I have been unable
to find an answer to the question I have asked.
Oh, you also should know that all first cause arguments simply
devolve into the ontological argument, which of course many people
(including Kant), destroyed many years ago.
I have heard this before (if I'm not mistaken, in the works of either
Rowe or Reichenbach this came up), but this may be only with regard to
certain versions of the cosmological argument, though I'm not sure.
Could you elaborate? Or would you prefer that I first present the
version of the cosmological argument that I am leaning on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
17 Apr 2004 09:21:17 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 16 Apr 2004 19:15:22 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<6ggv70lijqrjvavl7m216n6ar43bet2m3q@4ax.com>...
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig,"
First of all, that's wholly irrelevant.
It is relevant in that it shows he is not all that familiar with the
argument, or the history of the argument to be more exact, which is
problematic since he confidently asserts that all proponents of the
argument before Craig employed the premise "everything has to have a
cause," followed by the special pleading "'cept Gawd..."
...because that's PRECISELY what they do. And yes, I have read
Craig's *****. And yes, I know his webside of leaderu.com. I know
of his attempt to claim that "a person creator god willed the universe
from eternity". Load of *****. It's the ontological argument dressed up
and has the special pleading trimmings. There's no reason why this
creator thing shouldn't itself be caused. NONE.
along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause")
If they don't, then they are guilty of special pleading. And then
they are fucked.
The argument does not hold the premise "everything has a cause," but
rather "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its
existence."
Which special pleads that god didn't begin. They are fucked.
, shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
Actually, it's not. It's being dimissively akin to talking about
creationism and referring to "somebody called Gish".
The problem is that creationism is (allegedly, i.e. according to its
proponents) either a scientific or philosophical positions, but it is
not taken serious in either science or philosophy (here I mean young
earth creationism, not necessarily the simple position that the
universe is a created object). The cosmological argument, however,
....is not taken seriously by anyone except lunatic apologists.
Don't try some crappy argument from numbers/authority, because
you have neither. Only theologians take it seriously, and they have
nothing to stand on.
first contribution to this thread, I personally have not seen any good
explanation of how such is possible. The first question becomes, on
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event?
One observes them all the time, actually, as was pointed out.
Thanks for being illiterate.
Such as?
Did you read it?
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
Yes: on what logical grounds could you ever conclude an uncaused
personal creator who wills something from eternity, given that
eternity isn't a valid ontological concept (there's some Craigian
language for you).
First of all, this is skirting the issue.
First of all, that's not. It's showing that the Craigian line is
utter ***** and special pleading AND is linguistically and
ontologically fraudulent. ETERNITY ISN'T A FUCKING PLACE.
Let us suppose, for a
moment, that the notion of an eternal (or timeless) personal agent is
meaningless or absurd
We don't have to suppose that; it simply is absurd.
. That does not answer the question asked above:
if you assert an event happened uncaused, on what grounds is this
assertion made? What is the justification for such a conclusion?
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Hint: shifting the burden of proof is bad.
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
And one would be hard pressed to argue that this personal creator
thing had no cause, either.
IOW: don't special plead.
If I were engaging in special pleading,
...which you are.
[snip]
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question:
Since it cites the sources, then it must have answered your
question, liar.
Actually, I read through everything there, and skimmed some of the
sources cited (though admittedly not all). Thus far I have been unable
to find an answer to the question I have asked.
So you're telling me that you're illiterate.
Oh, you also should know that all first cause arguments simply
devolve into the ontological argument, which of course many people
(including Kant), destroyed many years ago.
I have heard this before
And it's correct.
(if I'm not mistaken, in the works of either
Rowe or Reichenbach this came up), but this may be only with regard to
certain versions of the cosmological argument, though I'm not sure.
Could you elaborate? Or would you prefer that I first present the
version of the cosmological argument that I am leaning on?
You're presenting Craig's version of Kalam. It's fucking dead.
It's ontologically specious.
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: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
17 Apr 2004 02:15:30 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<3ue280tpibaqnuq90aj42tpfbpnfm8s74p@4ax.com>...
...
Greetings Don...
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig,"
First of all, that's wholly irrelevant.
It is relevant in that it shows he is not all that familiar with the
argument, or the history of the argument to be more exact, which is
problematic since he confidently asserts that all proponents of the
argument before Craig employed the premise "everything has to have a
cause," followed by the special pleading "'cept Gawd..."
...because that's PRECISELY what they do.
Who are "they"? Kids on the net? Theists who troll alt.atheism with
regurgitated young earth creationist rhetoric? Which proponent of the
cosmological argument has, in print, not on the net, employed a
premise along the lines of "everything has to have a cause 'cept Gawd"
or anything analogous? Care to cite a source? I have never seen such a
blatant abuse of logic on the theist side, except when the theist in
question is some kid on the net.
along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause")
If they don't, then they are guilty of special pleading. And then
they are fucked.
The argument does not hold the premise "everything has a cause," but
rather "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its
existence."
Which special pleads that god didn't begin. They are fucked.
The argument does not possess a premise that "God didn't begin to
exist". In fact, God never comes up in the premises at all (it is only
after the conclusion is laid out that it is argued that the first
cause postulated in the argument grinds close to the rough theist
conception of God). You're misrepresenting the argument. The argument
is that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Then a follow up premise is that you cannot have an infinite causal
regress, therefore there must have been a first cause, and it works
from there. For a good intro to the actual argument, see the
following:
http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/cosmo.htm
, shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
Actually, it's not. It's being dimissively akin to talking about
creationism and referring to "somebody called Gish".
The problem is that creationism is (allegedly, i.e. according to its
proponents) either a scientific or philosophical positions, but it is
not taken serious in either science or philosophy (here I mean young
earth creationism, not necessarily the simple position that the
universe is a created object). The cosmological argument, however,
....is not taken seriously by anyone except lunatic apologists.
No, it is taken serious by real academics. Ever been to a philosophy
department?
Don't try some crappy argument from numbers/authority, because
you have neither. Only theologians take it seriously, and they have
nothing to stand on.
There is no ad numerum or ad vercundiam logic being employed on my
side, simply because I do not claim that the fact that it is taken
serious in academia establishes its veracity.
first contribution to this thread, I personally have not seen any good
explanation of how such is possible. The first question becomes, on
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event?
One observes them all the time, actually, as was pointed out.
Thanks for being illiterate.
Such as?
Did you read it?
Yes, and it seems you have failed to even take into account the
question I have asked in light of the relevant source. It is one thing
to claim we have observed uncaused events, but it is another to back
up that claim. So, if one observes an event (this could be any event
in the source called to witness by Christopher), on what grounds does
one conclude that the event just observed was without a cause? With
all due respect brother, I feel that, thus far, you have ignored this
question.
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
Yes: on what logical grounds could you ever conclude an uncaused
personal creator who wills something from eternity, given that
eternity isn't a valid ontological concept (there's some Craigian
language for you).
First of all, this is skirting the issue.
First of all, that's not. It's showing that the Craigian line is
utter ***** and special pleading AND is linguistically and
ontologically fraudulent. ETERNITY ISN'T A FUCKING PLACE.
I see no special pleading, and I don't see the problem with eternity
(or being outside of time, I believe, is how Craig puts it). Maybe
timelessness is a problem, but that does not answer the question asked
above: on what LOGICAL grounds could one ever conclude that an event
came about uncaused? You continue to avoid this question.
. That does not answer the question asked above:
if you assert an event happened uncaused, on what grounds is this
assertion made? What is the justification for such a conclusion?
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Still dodging the question? Would you like the justification for a
personal agent? Well, the first cause could not get up and move/act on
its own if it did not have volition (it would be like a first billiard
ball on a table getting up and moving on its own). Hence we conclude
the first cause was personal rather than mechanical. As for it being
timeless, the first cause could not have existed eternally within some
Newtonian time frame work (because it would have had to traverse an
infinite number of moments, which is impossible), thus the first cause
existed outside of time. That gives us a timeless, personal agent. But
of course, that is something that comes up later in the discussion.
Currently we are discussing Christopher's claim (supported by you)
that we have observed uncaused events. What is the justification for
such a conclusion? This is the question that you and Christopher have
avoided thus far?
Hint: shifting the burden of proof is bad.
Christopher did positively assert that we have observed uncaused
events. Is the burden not on him to support this assertion?
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
And one would be hard pressed to argue that this personal creator
thing had no cause, either.
IOW: don't special plead.
If I were engaging in special pleading,
...which you are.
[snip]
That's a covenient snip. Let me again note that if I were engaging in
special pleading, I would apply a rule across the board and then
suddenly, without justification, abritarily pick something that this
rule does not apply to. While I may be wrong, I do not believe that I
have done such. Feel free to show the propositions I have employed
that are cases of special pleading. Otherwise, with all due respect,
your charge rings hollow.
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question:
Since it cites the sources, then it must have answered your
question, liar.
Actually, I read through everything there, and skimmed some of the
sources cited (though admittedly not all). Thus far I have been unable
to find an answer to the question I have asked.
So you're telling me that you're illiterate.
No, I think I can read just fine. I notice Christopher was also unable
to present an answer to the question I have asked. If you think it is
in that link above, copy and paste it here. I did not see any answer
to the question, which again, is: if we observe an event, on what
grounds can we conclude that it was uncaused?
Oh, you also should know that all first cause arguments simply
devolve into the ontological argument, which of course many people
(including Kant), destroyed many years ago.
I have heard this before
And it's correct.
(if I'm not mistaken, in the works of either
Rowe or Reichenbach this came up), but this may be only with regard to
certain versions of the cosmological argument, though I'm not sure.
Could you elaborate? Or would you prefer that I first present the
version of the cosmological argument that I am leaning on?
You're presenting Craig's version of Kalam. It's fucking dead.
It's ontologically specious.
Care to elaborate on that claim?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
17 Apr 2004 06:21:05 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 17 Apr 2004 12:15:30 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<3ue280tpibaqnuq90aj42tpfbpnfm8s74p@4ax.com>...
...
Greetings Don...
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig,"
First of all, that's wholly irrelevant.
It is relevant in that it shows he is not all that familiar with the
argument, or the history of the argument to be more exact, which is
problematic since he confidently asserts that all proponents of the
argument before Craig employed the premise "everything has to have a
cause," followed by the special pleading "'cept Gawd..."
...because that's PRECISELY what they do.
Who are "they"?
Anyone who uses ANY cosmological argument, kalam included.
Why?
Because that's what the argument is all about.
Don't like it? Don't use it.
along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause")
If they don't, then they are guilty of special pleading. And then
they are fucked.
The argument does not hold the premise "everything has a cause," but
rather "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its
existence."
Which special pleads that god didn't begin. They are fucked.
The argument does not possess a premise that "God didn't begin to
exist".
It does. It's a hidden term.
In fact, God never comes up in the premises at all (it is only
after the conclusion is laid out that it is argued that the first
cause postulated in the argument grinds close to the rough theist
conception of God). You're misrepresenting the argument.
No, I'm explaining the argument. You want the argument to be
something it's not. That's dishonest.
The entire argument is to show that god exists, n'est-ce pas? So
don't be dishonest and say that it doesn't come up in the premises.
God is the illicit premise.
The argument
is that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Then a follow up premise is that you cannot have an infinite causal
regress, therefore there must have been a first cause, and it works
from there. For a good intro to the actual argument, see the
following:
http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/cosmo.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html
, shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
Actually, it's not. It's being dimissively akin to talking about
creationism and referring to "somebody called Gish".
The problem is that creationism is (allegedly, i.e. according to its
proponents) either a scientific or philosophical positions, but it is
not taken serious in either science or philosophy (here I mean young
earth creationism, not necessarily the simple position that the
universe is a created object). The cosmological argument, however,
....is not taken seriously by anyone except lunatic apologists.
No, it is taken serious by real academics.
No, it's not. It's an apologetics thing. Not taken seriously by
anyone outside of the apologetics book-writing field.
Don't try some crappy argument from numbers/authority, because
you have neither. Only theologians take it seriously, and they have
nothing to stand on.
There is no ad numerum or ad vercundiam logic being employed on my
side, simply because I do not claim that the fact that it is taken
serious in academia establishes its veracity.
Except that you bring up Craig and want us to believe
him...because it's Craig.
first contribution to this thread, I personally have not seen any good
explanation of how such is possible. The first question becomes, on
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event?
One observes them all the time, actually, as was pointed out.
Thanks for being illiterate.
Such as?
Did you read it?
Yes, and it seems you have failed to even take into account the
question I have asked in light of the relevant source.
So you're illiterate.
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
Yes: on what logical grounds could you ever conclude an uncaused
personal creator who wills something from eternity, given that
eternity isn't a valid ontological concept (there's some Craigian
language for you).
First of all, this is skirting the issue.
First of all, that's not. It's showing that the Craigian line is
utter ***** and special pleading AND is linguistically and
ontologically fraudulent. ETERNITY ISN'T A FUCKING PLACE.
I see no special pleading,
I do.
and I don't see the problem with eternity
(or being outside of time, I believe, is how Craig puts it).
What is being outside of time? What is the ontology for it?
Hint: Craig can't describe it. Nor will you be able to. Time is a
property of the continuum we inhabit. It's a derivative of the 2LOT.
We understand temporal existence. Non-temporal existence we understand
ONLY as something that is a concept, i.e. it exists solely in the
mind.
Are you claiming that your god exists SOLELY in your mind? Is
that what you want to do? I don't think so. But then you have the
problem of a nontemporal actual being, which is self-contradictory.
Have fun getting out of the hole Craig dug for you.
Maybe
timelessness is a problem, but that does not answer the question asked
above: on what LOGICAL grounds could one ever conclude that an event
came about uncaused? You continue to avoid this question.
On what logical grounds could one EVER conclude that a being was
uncaused? You continue to avoid this question.
Hint: your attempt at a burden of proof shift is noted and shoved
back at you.
. That does not answer the question asked above:
if you assert an event happened uncaused, on what grounds is this
assertion made? What is the justification for such a conclusion?
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Still dodging the question?
Yes, you are.
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Would you like the justification for a
personal agent? Well, the first cause could not get up and move/act on
its own if it did not have volition (it would be like a first billiard
ball on a table getting up and moving on its own). Hence we conclude
the first cause was personal rather than mechanical.
Not a justification.
As for it being
timeless, the first cause could not have existed eternally within some
Newtonian time frame work (because it would have had to traverse an
infinite number of moments, which is impossible),
My fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
We've killed Zeno's paradoxes. Live with it. Don't fucking try to
apply a math-only concept to the physical. That's just ONE of Craig's
problems.
Hint: I know more about this than you do. You'd best just concede
now or you will be intellectually slaughtered.
thus the first cause
existed outside of time.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Define existence apart from time.
Hint: question-begging is bad.
Yes, there is a begged question.
The begged question is that existence apart from time means
something.
Hint: shifting the burden of proof is bad.
Christopher did positively assert that we have observed uncaused
events. Is the burden not on him to support this assertion?
He gave you the resources. You didn't check them out. Makes it
your problem.
Now get to the ontology of your claim.
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
And one would be hard pressed to argue that this personal creator
thing had no cause, either.
IOW: don't special plead.
If I were engaging in special pleading,
...which you are.
[snip]
That's a covenient snip.
Not really. It's quite valid. You ARE engaged in special
pleading. All cosmological arguments do it.
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question:
Since it cites the sources, then it must have answered your
question, liar.
Actually, I read through everything there, and skimmed some of the
sources cited (though admittedly not all). Thus far I have been unable
to find an answer to the question I have asked.
So you're telling me that you're illiterate.
No, I think I can read just fine.
Doesn't look that way to me.
On what grounds can we conclude an uncaused creator?
Oh, you also should know that all first cause arguments simply
devolve into the ontological argument, which of course many people
(including Kant), destroyed many years ago.
I have heard this before
And it's correct.
(if I'm not mistaken, in the works of either
Rowe or Reichenbach this came up), but this may be only with regard to
certain versions of the cosmological argument, though I'm not sure.
Could you elaborate? Or would you prefer that I first present the
version of the cosmological argument that I am leaning on?
You're presenting Craig's version of Kalam. It's fucking dead.
It's ontologically specious.
Care to elaborate on that claim?
I have above.
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: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
18 Apr 2004 09:27:25 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<f9e380dlp96fccto3d6knq0ik8uvduqjtg@4ax.com>...
...
Greetings Don...
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig,"
First of all, that's wholly irrelevant.
It is relevant in that it shows he is not all that familiar with the
argument, or the history of the argument to be more exact, which is
problematic since he confidently asserts that all proponents of the
argument before Craig employed the premise "everything has to have a
cause," followed by the special pleading "'cept Gawd..."
...because that's PRECISELY what they do.
Who are "they"?
Anyone who uses ANY cosmological argument, kalam included.
Well then you're simply wrong, as I can off the top of my head people
who use the cosmological argument but do not say "everything has to
have a cause".
Because that's what the argument is all about.
Actually, it is not even a premise in the argument. The premise is
"everything that begins to exist (or comes into existence) has a cause
for its existence." You're arguing straw man.
along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause")
If they don't, then they are guilty of special pleading.
And then they are fucked.
The argument does not hold the premise "everything has a cause," but
rather "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its
existence."
Which special pleads that god didn't begin. They are fucked.
The argument does not possess a premise that "God didn't begin to
exist".
It does. It's a hidden term.
There is no hidden term - you're simply raising a circumstantial ad
hominem in that you wish to impose a premise that does not exist on
the person pushing the argument because they happen to be a theist. To
solve this problem, let's make it a rule that one cannot presuppose
the existence of God. I would take the premise "God didn't begin to
exist" as a case of presupposing God's existence, so I will not employ
this premise. Now, let's go through the argument step by step.
In fact, God never comes up in the premises at all (it is only
after the conclusion is laid out that it is argued that the first
cause postulated in the argument grinds close to the rough theist
conception of God). You're misrepresenting the argument.
No, I'm explaining the argument.
No, you're misrepresenting the argument. That is a clear straw man.
You want the argument to be
something it's not. That's dishonest.
What is dishonest is your attempt to force a different argument on me.
If you're going to dispute the argument I am putting forth, then
dispute that.
The entire argument is to show that god exists,
It is meant to support the theist position. It does not prove that God
exists, but, if sound, postulates a first cause that grinds close to
theism. You have an a priori bias against theism that keeps you from
actually letting the argument stand on its own merits.
So don't be dishonest and say that it doesn't come up in the premises.
God is the illicit premise.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed the
existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
The argument
is that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Then a follow up premise is that you cannot have an infinite causal
regress, therefore there must have been a first cause, and it works
from there. For a good intro to the actual argument, see the
following:
http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/cosmo.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html
I'll look it over. In the mean time, care to share the portions you
consider relevant?
, shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
Actually, it's not. It's being dimissively akin to talking about
creationism and referring to "somebody called Gish".
The problem is that creationism is (allegedly, i.e. according to its
proponents) either a scientific or philosophical positions, but it is
not taken serious in either science or philosophy (here I mean young
earth creationism, not necessarily the simple position that the
universe is a created object). The cosmological argument, however,
....is not taken seriously by anyone except lunatic apologists.
No, it is taken serious by real academics.
No, it's not. It's an apologetics thing. Not taken seriously by
anyone outside of the apologetics book-writing field.
Maybe you should go to a major university and see if philosophy of
religion is taught there. Then see if the cosmological argument is
brought up in such classes.
Don't try some crappy argument from numbers/authority, because
you have neither. Only theologians take it seriously, and they have
nothing to stand on.
There is no ad numerum or ad vercundiam logic being employed on my
side, simply because I do not claim that the fact that it is taken
serious in academia establishes its veracity.
Except that you bring up Craig and want us to believe
him...because it's Craig.
Another misrepresentation on your part. I never asked anyone to
believe the argument because Craig uttered it. I only brought up Craig
in the first place to note that the argument I am employing is drawn
mostly from his writings.
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event?
One observes them all the time, actually, as was pointed out.
Thanks for being illiterate.
Such as?
Did you read it?
Yes, and it seems you have failed to even take into account the
question I have asked in light of the relevant source.
So you're illiterate.
No, I read the source. I notice you again snipped the follow up point.
Here it is again: It is one thing to claim we have observed uncaused
events, but it is another to back up that claim. So, if one observes
an event (this could be any event in the source called to witness by
Christopher), on what grounds does one conclude that the event just
observed was without a cause? With all due respect brother, I feel
that, thus far, you have ignored this question.
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
Yes: on what logical grounds could you ever conclude an uncaused
personal creator who wills something from eternity, given that
eternity isn't a valid ontological concept (there's some Craigian
language for you).
First of all, this is skirting the issue.
First of all, that's not. It's showing that the Craigian line is
utter ***** and special pleading AND is linguistically and
ontologically fraudulent. ETERNITY ISN'T A FUCKING PLACE.
I see no special pleading,
I do.
Such as?
and I don't see the problem with eternity
(or being outside of time, I believe, is how Craig puts it).
What is being outside of time? What is the ontology for it?
Hint: Craig can't describe it. Nor will you be able to. Time is a
property of the continuum we inhabit. It's a derivative of the 2LOT.
Could you expand on what 2LOT refers to? I'm unfamiliar with this
term.
We understand temporal existence. Non-temporal existence we understand
ONLY as something that is a concept, i.e. it exists solely in the
mind.
Okay, this is your claim. Now, back up the claim that it exists only
in the mind. If you're claiming atemporal existence is impossible, you
have to back up that claim.
Are you claiming that your god exists SOLELY in your mind?
I have not made any claims at all about "my god".
But then you have the
problem of a nontemporal actual being, which is self-contradictory.
You haven't shown it to be contradictory.
A better objection might be that it is hard to imagine a personal
agent that is timeless, as timelessness gives the impression of being
frozen (i.e. it negates movement, action). That is a different
objection from what you are saying, and it is one I have trouble with.
Nonetheless, I never even brought up God as a premise.
Maybe
timelessness is a problem, but that does not answer the question asked
above: on what LOGICAL grounds could one ever conclude that an event
came about uncaused? You continue to avoid this question.
On what logical grounds could one EVER conclude that a being was
uncaused?
Funny, I'm not the one who claimed that things pop into existence
uncaused. It is amazing that this claim is made, yet you and
Christopher refuse to back up this claim. You're getting ahead of
yourself. If you claim things have come about uncaused, you can either
back up that claim or not. Can you? Are you willing to even try?
Hint: your attempt at a burden of proof shift is noted and shoved
back at you.
I never shifted the burden of proof. Christopher made an assertion and
I asked for the justification for that assertion.
. That does not answer the question asked above:
if you assert an event happened uncaused, on what grounds is this
assertion made? What is the justification for such a conclusion?
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Still dodging the question?
Yes, you are.
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Can't have an infinite causal regress, thus there must have been a
first cause. The first cause was personal rather than mechanical. The
first cause is outside of time, hence a timeless, personal first
cause. That is the argument.
Would you like the justification for a
personal agent? Well, the first cause could not get up and move/act on
its own if it did not have volition (it would be like a first billiard
ball on a table getting up and moving on its own). Hence we conclude
the first cause was personal rather than mechanical.
Not a justification.
How is that not a justification? Which part do you disagree with? Do
you believe that a non-personal agent can get up and move by itself,
without volition? Imagine you saw a billiard ball on a pool table get
up and move, seemingly on its own. What would you conclude? I would
conclude that either there was a cause for that movement, or the ball
somehow possessed volition.
As for it being
timeless, the first cause could not have existed eternally within some
Newtonian time frame work (because it would have had to traverse an
infinite number of moments, which is impossible),
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. The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite, as you can divide the space inifinitely, but it
is not actually infinite. If a being always existed in time, it would
have to traverse an actually infinite number of moments (e.g. an
infinite number of minutes). I'm referring to an actual infinite as
impossible, while you're mentioning a finite distance which can be
divided a potentially infinite number of times. There is a real
difference.
Hint: I know more about this than you do.
Maybe. That is certainly a real possibility, but you have not
demonstrated such yet. In fact, the above makes me wonder.
You'd best just concede
now or you will be intellectually slaughtered.
No, I'd rather continue. Either my argument will pan out, or I'll be
"intellectually slaughtered". Either way, we get closer to the
"truth". I have no fears of losing a debate, so there's no reason to
concede.
thus the first cause
existed outside of time.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Define existence apart from time.
Hint: question-begging is bad.
Yes, there is a begged question.
The begged question is that existence apart from time means
something.
Existence outside of time is not problematic for me, though movement
outside of time might be problematic. Though, if I'm not mistaken,
some serious physicists (in the field of string theory or brane
theory) postulate a cause for the Big Bang being the collision of
interdimensional "branes". I'm very unfamiliar with the topic, but it
would seem these branes move outside of time, thus showing that
physicists seem to have no problem with movement or existence out of
time. Of course, this is not a proof on my part. I would ask why you
consider existence outside of time problematic.
Hint: shifting the burden of proof is bad.
Christopher did positively assert that we have observed uncaused
events. Is the burden not on him to support this assertion?
He gave you the resources. You didn't check them out. Makes it
your problem.
I checked the link, and read it over. It never answered the question -
the same question you and Christopher keep avoiding: on what grounds
do you claim an event was actually uncaused?
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and
investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
And one would be hard pressed to argue that this personal
creator thing had no cause, either.
IOW: don't special plead.
If I were engaging in special pleading,
...which you are.
[snip]
That's a covenient snip.
Not really. It's quite valid. You ARE engaged in special
pleading. All cosmological arguments do it.
You snipped my point again! What are you afraid of? Let me again note
that if I were engaging in special pleading, I would apply a rule
across the board and then suddenly, without justification, abritarily
pick something that this rule does not apply to. While I may be wrong,
I do not believe that I have done such. Feel free to show the
propositions I have employed that are cases of special pleading.
Otherwise, with all due respect, your charge rings hollow. So, are you
going to continue to make the charge without backing it up?
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question:
Since it cites the sources, then it must have answered your
question, liar.
Actually, I read through everything there, and skimmed some of the
sources cited (though admittedly not all). Thus far I have been unable
to find an answer to the question I have asked.
So you're telling me that you're illiterate.
No, I think I can read just fine.
Doesn't look that way to me.
Based on what? You just make assertions without backing them up.
Oh, you also should know that all first cause arguments simply
devolve into the ontological argument, which of course many people
(including Kant), destroyed many years ago.
I have heard this before
And it's correct.
(if I'm not mistaken, in the works of either
Rowe or Reichenbach this came up), but this may be only with regard to
certain versions of the cosmological argument, though I'm not sure.
Could you elaborate? Or would you prefer that I first present the
version of the cosmological argument that I am leaning on?
You're presenting Craig's version of Kalam. It's fucking dead.
It's ontologically specious.
Care to elaborate on that claim?
I have above.
Actually, no you have not. There is not a single point in this thread
where you have demonstrated that the cosmological argument necessarily
rests on the ontological argument.
-Nico
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
18 Apr 2004 10:42:00 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 18 Apr 2004 07:27:25 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<f9e380dlp96fccto3d6knq0ik8uvduqjtg@4ax.com>...
...
Greetings Don...
First of all, the fact that Christopher refers to William Lane Craig
as "somebody called Craig,"
First of all, that's wholly irrelevant.
It is relevant in that it shows he is not all that familiar with the
argument, or the history of the argument to be more exact, which is
problematic since he confidently asserts that all proponents of the
argument before Craig employed the premise "everything has to have a
cause," followed by the special pleading "'cept Gawd..."
...because that's PRECISELY what they do.
Who are "they"?
Anyone who uses ANY cosmological argument, kalam included.
Well then you're simply wrong,
Well then I'm simply correct. It is the heart of the cosmological
argument. You can delude yourself all you like; it won't make a damned
bit of difference.
as I can off the top of my head people
who use the cosmological argument but do not say "everything has to
have a cause".
....because they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god didn't
begin.
Either way it's special pleading.
You lose.
Because that's what the argument is all about.
Actually, it is not even a premise in the argument
Actually, it is. It's a hidden premise.
You're being intellectually dishonest.
along with his misrepresentation of the
argument (i.e. claiming proponents of first cause arguments assert
that "everything has a cause")
If they don't, then they are guilty of special pleading.
And then they are fucked.
The argument does not hold the premise "everything has a cause," but
rather "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its
existence."
Which special pleads that god didn't begin. They are fucked.
The argument does not possess a premise that "God didn't begin to
exist".
It does. It's a hidden term.
There is no hidden term
There certainly is, liar.
In fact, God never comes up in the premises at all (it is only
after the conclusion is laid out that it is argued that the first
cause postulated in the argument grinds close to the rough theist
conception of God). You're misrepresenting the argument.
No, I'm explaining the argument.
No, you're misrepresenting the argument.
No, I'm explaining the argument, liar.
You want the argument to be
something it's not. That's dishonest.
What is dishonest is
...your attempt to claim that there is no special pleading.
The entire argument is to show that god exists,
It is meant to support the theist position.
....which is to show that there is a god. Don't be dishonest.
Oh, and your attempt at an ad hom about an "a priori bias against
theism" is noted.
So don't be dishonest and say that it doesn't come up in the premises.
God is the illicit premise.
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.
The argument
is that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Then a follow up premise is that you cannot have an infinite causal
regress, therefore there must have been a first cause, and it works
from there. For a good intro to the actual argument, see the
following:
http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/cosmo.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html
I'll look it over. In the mean time, care to share the portions you
consider relevant?
All of it. So read the whole thing. And this time, read the whole
thing.
Yes, this time, read the whole thing.
Read the whole thing.
, shows an unfamiliarity with the
subject. Craig's 1979 doctoral dissertation (in the subject of
Philosophy) on the cosmological argument is generally considered the
definitive history on the subject (it was later published in book form
for public consumption under the title "The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz"). To discuss the cosmological argument and
disparagingly refer to "somebody called Craig" is analogous to
discussing the position that there are an infinite number of points
along a line, and then disparagingly refer to ""somebody called
Euclid."
Actually, it's not. It's being dimissively akin to talking about
creationism and referring to "somebody called Gish".
The problem is that creationism is (allegedly, i.e. according to its
proponents) either a scientific or philosophical positions, but it is
not taken serious in either science or philosophy (here I mean young
earth creationism, not necessarily the simple position that the
universe is a created object). The cosmological argument, however,
....is not taken seriously by anyone except lunatic apologists.
No, it is taken serious by real academics.
No, it's not. It's an apologetics thing. Not taken seriously by
anyone outside of the apologetics book-writing field.
Maybe you should go to a major university
Maybe you should follow your own advice. It's not taken seriously
by anyone outside of apologetics.
Regardless if it is taught in a philosophy class, that doesn't
mean it's taken seriously. You can teach something to show why it's a
load of *****, dumbfuck. Does that mean you take it seriously? NO!
Don't try some crappy argument from numbers/authority, because
you have neither. Only theologians take it seriously, and they have
nothing to stand on.
There is no ad numerum or ad vercundiam logic being employed on my
side, simply because I do not claim that the fact that it is taken
serious in academia establishes its veracity.
Except that you bring up Craig and want us to believe
him...because it's Craig.
Another misrepresentation on your part
Not in the least. You have made it quite clear of your admiration
and worship of Craig.
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW. IT HAPPENS. IT IS OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED. IT IS
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL APART FROM THE FACT THAT EG
WITHOUT THE TUNNELLING EFFECTS THAT IT EXPLAINS THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
CHIPS IN YOUR COMPUTER.
The problem here is that Christopher has said such has been observed.
How does one observe an uncaused event?
One observes them all the time, actually, as was pointed out.
Thanks for being illiterate.
Such as?
Did you read it?
Yes, and it seems you have failed to even take into account the
question I have asked in light of the relevant source.
So you're illiterate.
No,
Yes, you are.
[snip]
what philosophical grounds could one ever conclude that an event
What has philosophy got to do with it?
This question by Christopher shows a real problem with his approach to
the issue (and I think he shows that he does not understand what
philosophy is). I guess I should have asked, on what LOGICAL grounds
could one ever conclude that an event came about uncaused?
Yes: on what logical grounds could you ever conclude an uncaused
personal creator who wills something from eternity, given that
eternity isn't a valid ontological concept (there's some Craigian
language for you).
First of all, this is skirting the issue.
First of all, that's not. It's showing that the Craigian line is
utter ***** and special pleading AND is linguistically and
ontologically fraudulent. ETERNITY ISN'T A FUCKING PLACE.
I see no special pleading,
I do.
Such as?
That god didn't begin to exist.
and I don't see the problem with eternity
(or being outside of time, I believe, is how Craig puts it).
What is being outside of time? What is the ontology for it?
Hint: Craig can't describe it. Nor will you be able to. Time is a
property of the continuum we inhabit. It's a derivative of the 2LOT.
Could you expand on what 2LOT refers to?
2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
We understand temporal existence. Non-temporal existence we understand
ONLY as something that is a concept, i.e. it exists solely in the
mind.
Okay, this is your claim.
It's fact.
Now, back up the claim that it exists only
in the mind.
Show me something nontemporal that exists outside of the mind.
I'm waiting.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Are you claiming that your god exists SOLELY in your mind?
I have not made any claims at all about "my god".
It was a rhetorical question, dipshit.
But then you have the
problem of a nontemporal actual being, which is self-contradictory.
You haven't shown it to be contradictory.
Yes, I have.
A better objection might be that it is hard to imagine a personal
agent that is timeless,
That's what I did, dumbshit.
as timelessness gives the impression of being
frozen (i.e. it negates movement, action). That is a different
objection from what you are saying, and it is one I have trouble with.
Nonetheless, I never even brought up God as a premise.
Yes, you have.
Maybe
timelessness is a problem, but that does not answer the question asked
above: on what LOGICAL grounds could one ever conclude that an event
came about uncaused? You continue to avoid this question.
On what logical grounds could one EVER conclude that a being was
uncaused?
Funny, I'm not the one who claimed that things pop into existence
uncaused.
Yes, you are (hint: god).
Hint: your attempt at a burden of proof shift is noted and shoved
back at you.
I never shifted the burden of proof.
Yes, you did.
. That does not answer the question asked above:
if you assert an event happened uncaused, on what grounds is this
assertion made? What is the justification for such a conclusion?
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Still dodging the question?
Yes, you are.
What is the justification for an eternal personal agent?
Can't have an infinite causal regress,
Can't have an eternal being.
thus there must have been a
first cause.
False.
The first cause was personal rather than mechanical.
Ontologically specious.
The
first cause is outside of time,
Ontologically specious.
Want to try again without the crap ontology?
Would you like the justification for a
personal agent? Well, the first cause could not get up and move/act on
its own if it did not have volition (it would be like a first billiard
ball on a table getting up and moving on its own). Hence we conclude
the first cause was personal rather than mechanical.
Not a justification.
How is that not a justification?
Because it's specious.
Where did that first cause being come from? IT MUST COME FROM
SOMEWHERE. BEINGS CANNOT BE ETERNAL OR TIMELESS.
As for it being
timeless, the first cause could not have existed eternally within some
Newtonian time frame work (because it would have had to traverse an
infinite number of moments, which is impossible),
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.
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. Yet I traverse them. But I shouldn't be
able to, given that Craig and Zeno apply a mathematical concept to
reality in the way they do.
See another of the problems with the cosmological argument?
as you can divide the space inifinitely, but it
is not actually infinite. If a being always existed in time, it would
have to traverse an actually infinite number of moments
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
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!
BOOM! Argument killed yet again.
(e.g. an
infinite number of minutes). I'm referring to an actual infinite as
impossible,
Yet you're using a bounded set. Curious how you're calling that
infinite when it's not. Do you even have the faintest first clue as to
what Craig is doing?
Hint: I know more about this than you do.
Maybe.
There's no maybe about it: I do. I know Craig's argument better
than you. I know mathematics better than you.
You'd best just concede
now or you will be intellectually slaughtered.
No, I'd rather continue. Either my argument will pan out, or I'll be
"intellectually slaughtered"
You're already being intellectually slaughtered.
. Either way, we get closer to the
"truth".
Who's this "we"? I already have the truth that your argument is
dead. You're just not realizing it yet.
thus the first cause
existed outside of time.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Define existence apart from time.
Hint: question-begging is bad.
Yes, there is a begged question.
The begged question is that existence apart from time means
something.
Existence outside of time is not problematic for me,
Then you will be ever-so-obliging to state for me the ontology of
existence apart from time in the sense that it also must be apart from
the universe.
Go to it.
Hint: shifting the burden of proof is bad.
Christopher did positively assert that we have observed uncaused
events. Is the burden not on him to support this assertion?
He gave you the resources. You didn't check them out. Makes it
your problem.
I checked the link, and read it over.
I highly doubt that you ever did.
On what grounds do you claim that this universe-creator being was
uncaused?
We're talking about the real world where things are observed and
investigated, not the world of air-heads who use argument in the
absence of evidence as a substitute for observation and
investigation.
The issue of philosophical (or logical) grounds is still relevant,
because I, personally don't see how one could truly observe an
uncaused event (or to put this another way, observe an event and
logically conclude that the event was uncaused). For example, we may
not know the cause of an event, but that is not the same as the event
coming about uncaused. So under what conditions does one conclude that
an event was uncaused? Craig (leaning on the Atheist philosopher Kai
Nielsen I believe) has given the humorous example of us being in the
kitchen, and we hear a loud BANG! come from outside. You ask "what was
that, what caused that?" and I reply "nothing - it simply happened."
The answer is very unsatisfactory, and while we may never determine
the cause of the "BANG," one would be hard pressed to sensibly argue
that it had no cause.
And one would be hard pressed to argue that this personal
creator thing had no cause, either.
IOW: don't special plead.
If I were engaging in special pleading,
...which you are.
[snip]
That's a covenient snip.
Not really. It's quite valid. You ARE engaged in special
pleading. All cosmological arguments do it.
You snipped my point again!
Because I've already dealt with it. Why are you so dishonest?
asserts must prove, so if you're going to claim (a) that something can
come into existence without a cause for its existence, and (b) that
such events have, in fact, happened, you're going to have to present
some evidence for such asserted propositions.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
This is an interesting link, and it cites numerous sources that claim
things can come about uncaused, but I, personally, could not find an
answer to my question:
Since it cites the sources, then it must have answered your
question, liar.
Actually, I read through everything there, and skimmed some of the
sources cited (though admittedly not all). Thus far I have been unable
to find an answer to the question I have asked.
So you're telling me that you're illiterate.
No, I think I can read just fine.
Doesn't look that way to me.
Based on what?
The fact that you still take Craig seriously.
Oh, you also should know that all first cause arguments simply
devolve into the ontological argument, which of course many people
(including Kant), destroyed many years ago.
I have heard this before
And it's correct.
(if I'm not mistaken, in the works of either
Rowe or Reichenbach this came up), but this may be only with regard to
certain versions of the cosmological argument, though I'm not sure.
Could you elaborate? Or would you prefer that I first present the
version of the cosmological argument that I am leaning on?
You're presenting Craig's version of Kalam. It's fucking dead.
It's ontologically specious.
Care to elaborate on that claim?
I have above.
Actually, no you have not.
Actually, I have.
There is not a single point in this thread
where you have demonstrated that the cosmological argument necessarily
rests on the ontological argument.
It's the maximal being. Nothing greater than it can be. It is the
nes plus ultra. It must be to exist apart from the universe. If
something greater than it exists, it would have been created, too. But
it wasn't.
http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/immanuelk_bie.html
http://www.ccel.org/o/orr/view/l3nc.html
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: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments (Re: can ANYONE offer a sound argument for atheism?) |
18 Apr 2004 01:17:18 PM |
|
|
In article <2c68d44e.0404180627.12e274a9@posting.google.com>,
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:<f9e380dlp96fccto3d6knq0ik8uvduqjtg@4ax.com>...
...
[big snip]
As for it being
timeless, the first cause could not have existed eternally within some
Newtonian time frame work (because it would have had to traverse an
infinite number of moments, which is impossible),
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. The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite, as you can divide the space inifinitely, but it
is not actually infinite. If a being always existed in time, it would
have to traverse an actually infinite number of moments (e.g. an
infinite number of minutes). I'm referring to an actual infinite as
impossible, while you're mentioning a finite distance which can be
divided a potentially infinite number of times. There is a real
difference.
[big snip]
About actual infinities being impossible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
[quote]
A number of defenders of the cosmological argument, among others William Lane
Craig, for the existence of God have attempted to use Hilbert's hotel as an
argument for the physical impossibility of the existence of an actual infinity.
Their argument is that, although there is nothing mathematically impossible
about the existence of the hotel (or any other infinite object), intuitively
(they claim) we know that no such hotel could ever actually exist in reality,
and that this intuition is a specific case of the broader intuition that no
actual infinite could exist. They argue that a temporal sequence receding
infinitely into the past would constitute such an actual infinite.
However, the paradox of Hilbert's hotel involves not just an actual infinite,
but also supertasks; it is unclear whether this claimed intuition is really the
physical impossibility of an actual infinite, or merely the physical
impossibility of a supertask. A causal chain receding infinitely into the past
need not involve any supertasks.
[unquote]
The topic of "supertasks" seems to be pretty unsettled:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2FF14E08
(That's a Google cached page of a Plato-Stanford URL; they still seem to be
down.)
Here's a tantalizing tidbit from that page:
[quote]
A well known property of black holes is that, in the view of those who remain
outside, unfortunates who fall in appear to freeze in time as they approach the
event horizon of the black hole. Indeed those who remain outside could spend | | | | | | | |
