| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MGodwyn" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2004 05:14:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC905877.2039%dix@nospam.com>...
On 3/25/04 4:41 PM, in article c3vu77$ehh$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
6a) The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [premise]
This assumes your conclusion
No it doesn't.
(begging the question) that the universe has
not always existed, it had to have a beginning, and is an effect caused by
some hypothetical first cause creator (God). That's not allowed, since it is
logical fallacy.
There is nothing in that that is the conclusion of the argument.
MG
.
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
09 Apr 2004 02:12:09 AM |
|
|
On 4/8/04 3:14 AM, in article
165948e8.0404080214.27da0d56@posting.google.com, "MGodwyn"
<godwyn@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC905877.2039%dix@nospam.com>...
On 3/25/04 4:41 PM, in article c3vu77$ehh$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
6a) The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [premise]
This assumes your conclusion
(begging the question) that the universe has
not always existed, it had to have a beginning, and is an effect caused by
some hypothetical first cause creator (God). That's not allowed, since it is
logical fallacy.
No it doesn't.
There is nothing in that that is the conclusion of the argument.
Aren't we discussing your argument from first cause for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, as per the subject line of
the thread?
Doesn't your statement, above, "The set of causes cannot extend infinitely
into the past" mean the same as "There must be a first cause" which is
integral to your conclusion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
09 Apr 2004 10:12:55 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
On 4/8/04 3:14 AM, in article
165948e8.0404080214.27da0d56@posting.google.com, "MGodwyn"
<godwyn@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC905877.2039%dix@nospam.com>...
On 3/25/04 4:41 PM, in article c3vu77$ehh$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
6a) The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [premise]
This assumes your conclusion
(begging the question) that the universe has
not always existed, it had to have a beginning, and is an effect caused by
some hypothetical first cause creator (God). That's not allowed, since it is
logical fallacy.
No it doesn't.
There is nothing in that that is the conclusion of the argument.
Aren't we discussing your argument from first cause for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, as per the subject line of
the thread?
1) "God" (personal pronoun for the Judeo-Christian god), is not
mentioned in the argument I present - so you commit a complex question
fallacy.
2) I'm not arguing for the soundness of the argument. I'm simply
presenting *an* argument for discussion.
Doesn't your statement, above, "The set of causes cannot extend infinitely
into the past" mean the same as "There must be a first cause"
Modulo (2), above, pretty much.
which is
integral to your conclusion?
You mean that 6a) is contained in conclusion 6e? No.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
15 Apr 2004 11:32:45 AM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
On 4/8/04 3:14 AM, in article
165948e8.0404080214.27da0d56@posting.google.com, "MGodwyn"
<godwyn@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC905877.2039%dix@nospam.com>...
On 3/25/04 4:41 PM, in article c3vu77$ehh$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca,
"MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
6a) The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [premise]
This assumes your conclusion
(begging the question) that the universe has
not always existed, it had to have a beginning, and is an effect
caused by
some hypothetical first cause creator (God). That's not allowed,
since it is
logical fallacy.
No it doesn't.
There is nothing in that that is the conclusion of the argument.
Aren't we discussing your argument from first cause for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, as per the subject
line of
the thread?
1) "God" (personal pronoun for the Judeo-Christian god), is not
mentioned in the argument I present - so you commit a complex question
fallacy.
2) I'm not arguing for the soundness of the argument. I'm simply
presenting *an* argument for discussion.
An argument wyich you claimis valid, but it is not, it is logical
fallacy of assuming your conclusion as a premise. See below.
Doesn't your statement, above, "The set of causes cannot extend
infinitely
into the past" mean the same as "There must be a first cause"
Modulo (2), above, pretty much.
Since it means the same, as you have just stipulated, you are asssuming
your conclusion as a premise. That is logical fallacy. Case dismissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
17 Apr 2004 04:04:32 PM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
On 4/8/04 3:14 AM, in article
165948e8.0404080214.27da0d56@posting.google.com, "MGodwyn"
<godwyn@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC905877.2039%dix@nospam.com>...
On 3/25/04 4:41 PM, in article c3vu77$ehh$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca,
"MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
6a) The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past
[premise]
This assumes your conclusion
(begging the question) that the universe has
not always existed, it had to have a beginning, and is an effect
caused by
some hypothetical first cause creator (God). That's not allowed,
since it is
logical fallacy.
No it doesn't.
There is nothing in that that is the conclusion of the argument.
Aren't we discussing your argument from first cause for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, as per the subject
line of
the thread?
1) "God" (personal pronoun for the Judeo-Christian god), is not
mentioned in the argument I present - so you commit a complex question
fallacy.
2) I'm not arguing for the soundness of the argument. I'm simply
presenting *an* argument for discussion.
An argument wyich you claimis valid,
Lies. The only argument that I claimed was deductively valid was stage 1
of the argument. The claims you focus on here are in stage 3.
but it is not, it is logical
fallacy of assuming your conclusion as a premise.
If you were right that the conclusion is contained in the premise, then
it would be, of logical necessity, deductively valid. Once again you
demonstrate your manifest ignorance of logic.
The quintessential begging the question argument "P, therefore P" is
deductively valid. (Do I really need to explain to you why? Okay -
because in such a begging the question argument it is impossible for the
premise to be true and at the same time the conclusion false.) Begging
the question would *make* it deductively valid! See, for example, Woods,
Irvine, and Walton, "Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic and the
Fallacies", chapter 10.
See below.
Doesn't your statement, above, "The set of causes cannot extend
infinitely
into the past" mean the same as "There must be a first cause"
Modulo (2), above, pretty much.
Since it means the same, as you have just stipulated, you are asssuming
your conclusion as a premise.
Now you present the charge that, in effect, "The set of causes cannot
extend infinitely into the past" assumes the conclusion: "The best
candidate for (5) is a god." Your proffered reason is that "The set of
causes cannot extend infinitely into the past" is synonymous with "There
must be a first cause". In the spirit of charity, and doing my best to
reconstruct your "reasoning" here, you apparently suppose that "The set
of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past" or "There must be a
first cause" is somehow contained in "The best candidate for (5) is a
god." I await your evidence for that claim. Or, indeed, any evidence for
your charge.
MG
That is logical fallacy. Case dismissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
18 Apr 2004 10:47:19 AM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Now you present the charge that, in effect, "The set of causes cannot
extend infinitely into the past" assumes the conclusion: "The best
candidate for (5) is a god."
Straw man. That's not what I am pointing out. The fatal problem with
your argument which I am pointing out is that your premise, "The set of
causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [meaning there must be a
first cause]" takes your conclusion for granted (begging the question)
that there must be a first cause.
Begging the question is logical fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
19 Apr 2004 01:39:55 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Now you present the charge that, in effect, "The set of causes cannot
extend infinitely into the past" assumes the conclusion: "The best
candidate for (5) is a god."
Straw man. That's not what I am pointing out. The fatal problem with
your argument which I am pointing out is that your premise, "The set of
causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [meaning there must be a
first cause]" takes your conclusion for granted (begging the question)
that there must be a first cause.
Straw man - that's not the conclusion.
MG
Begging the question is logical fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
20 Apr 2004 01:20:15 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Now you present the charge that, in effect, "The set of causes cannot
extend infinitely into the past" assumes the conclusion: "The best
candidate for (5) is a god."
Straw man. That's not what I am pointing out. The fatal problem with
your argument which I am pointing out is that your premise, "The set
of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [meaning there must
be a first cause]" takes your conclusion for granted (begging the
question) that there must be a first cause.
Begging the question is logical fallacy.
Straw man - that's not the conclusion.
Yes it is, and the very idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument is one that cannot have
any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God,
which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
21 Apr 2004 04:43:06 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Now you present the charge that, in effect, "The set of causes
cannot extend infinitely into the past" assumes the conclusion: "The
best candidate for (5) is a god."
Straw man. That's not what I am pointing out. The fatal problem with
your argument which I am pointing out is that your premise, "The set
of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [meaning there must
be a first cause]" takes your conclusion for granted (begging the
question) that there must be a first cause.
Begging the question is logical fallacy.
Straw man - that's not the conclusion.
Yes it is,
No it isn't. The conclusion is "The best candidate for (5) is a god". I
suggest you read the argument again.
MG
and the very idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument is one that cannot have
any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God,
which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
21 Apr 2004 10:45:40 AM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Now you present the charge that, in effect, "The set of causes
cannot extend infinitely into the past" assumes the conclusion:
"The best candidate for (5) is a god."
Straw man. That's not what I am pointing out. The fatal problem with
your argument which I am pointing out is that your premise, "The set
of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [meaning there must
be a first cause]" takes your conclusion for granted (begging the
question) that there must be a first cause.
Begging the question is logical fallacy.
Straw man - that's not the conclusion.
Yes it is,
No it isn't.
Showing your logical fallacy of begging the question is as simple as
one, two, three.
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that has
comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence) [premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1 and 2]
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
23 Apr 2004 04:33:15 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Now you present the charge that, in effect, "The set of causes
cannot extend infinitely into the past" assumes the conclusion:
"The best candidate for (5) is a god."
Straw man. That's not what I am pointing out. The fatal problem
with your argument which I am pointing out is that your premise,
"The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [meaning
there must be a first cause]" takes your conclusion for granted
(begging the question) that there must be a first cause.
Begging the question is logical fallacy.
Straw man - that's not the conclusion.
Yes it is,
No it isn't.
Showing your logical fallacy of begging the question is as simple as
one, two, three.
Even simpler is pointing out that you initially accused the argument of
begging the question by having the "conclusion" in premise 6a: "The set
of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past". See above where you say:
"The fatal problem with your argument which I am pointing out is that
your premise "The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past
[meaning there must be a first cause]" takes your conclusion for granted
(begging the question) that there must be a first cause."
But suddenly, instead, you've started accusing the argument of begging
the question earlier in the argument and citing premises and conclusion
that appear well before either 6a or the conclusions drawn from it.
Very well, let's turn to the new accusation ...
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that has
comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence) [premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1 and 2]
.... you're going to have to tell us which of the above premises, (1) or
(2), you think begs the conclusion (3) and why. When you do, I'll tell
you why you're wrong.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
23 Apr 2004 12:26:03 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that has
comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1 and 2]
That's just the same old lame argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of everything, in slightly different form, and you have
not overcome the fatal problem (special pleading for God) inherent in
the very idea of God, which Russell has highlighted. (See quote below.)
Rather than providing a logical answer to the question, "Might there be
a first cause/creator, God, as theist true believers hypothesize?" your
argument here just RAISES two more questions:
1. If there can be anything eternal (without a cause), why try to get
away with a logically fallacious special pleading for that one thing,
your hypothetical first cause/creator, why can't it just as well be the
universe as God that exists without a cause?
2. If anything must have a cause, then to be logically consistent and
avoid the logical fallacy of special leading for one thing to the
exclusion of everything else, your hypothetical first cause/creator must
have a cause, right?
See, the problem for you true believers is that the very idea of God,
the hypothetical first cause/creator, depends upon the argument that
there must be a first cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument
is one that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God,
which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
24 Apr 2004 12:18:18 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that has
comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1 and 2]
That's just the same old lame argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of everything, in slightly different form, and you have
not overcome the fatal problem (special pleading for God) inherent in
the very idea of God, which Russell has highlighted. (See quote below.)
Rather than providing a logical answer to the question, "Might there be
a first cause/creator, God, as theist true believers hypothesize?" your
argument here just RAISES two more questions:
1. If there can be anything eternal (without a cause), why try to get
away with a logically fallacious special pleading for that one thing,
your hypothetical first cause/creator, why can't it just as well be the
universe as God that exists without a cause?
2. If anything must have a cause, then to be logically consistent and
avoid the logical fallacy of special leading for one thing to the
exclusion of everything else, your hypothetical first cause/creator must
have a cause, right?
See, the problem for you true believers is that the very idea of God,
the hypothetical first cause/creator, depends upon the argument that
there must be a first cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument
is one that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God,
which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
I see that you've completely given up on the "begging the question"
charge for the argument I presented. Good.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
26 Apr 2004 02:16:04 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that has
comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1
and 2]
That's just the same old lame argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of everything, in slightly different form, and you have
not overcome the fatal problem (special pleading for God) inherent in
the very idea of God, which Russell has highlighted. (See quote below.)
Rather than providing a logical answer to the question, "Might there
be a first cause/creator, God, as theist true believers hypothesize?"
your argument here just RAISES two more questions:
1. If there can be anything eternal (without a cause), why try to get
away with a logically fallacious special pleading for that one thing,
your hypothetical first cause/creator, why can't it just as well be
the universe as God that exists without a cause?
2. If anything must have a cause, then to be logically consistent and
avoid the logical fallacy of special leading for one thing to the
exclusion of everything else, your hypothetical first cause/creator
must have a cause, right?
See, the problem for you true believers is that the very idea of God,
the hypothetical first cause/creator, depends upon the argument that
there must be a first cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument
is one that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of
God, which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might
be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which
Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
I see that you've completely given up on the "begging the question"
charge for the argument I presented.
An argument like yours that raises more questions than it answers is
just another form of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Taking
one's conclusion for granted as a premise, or using premises which are
at least as questionable than one's conclusion, it all ammounts to the
same thing, logical fallacy.
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging
"This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as
the conclusion reached."
See also http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
27 Apr 2004 03:57:32 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that has
comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1
and 2]
That's just the same old lame argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of everything, in slightly different form, and you have
not overcome the fatal problem (special pleading for God) inherent in
the very idea of God, which Russell has highlighted. (See quote below.)
Rather than providing a logical answer to the question, "Might there
be a first cause/creator, God, as theist true believers hypothesize?"
your argument here just RAISES two more questions:
1. If there can be anything eternal (without a cause), why try to get
away with a logically fallacious special pleading for that one thing,
your hypothetical first cause/creator, why can't it just as well be
the universe as God that exists without a cause?
2. If anything must have a cause, then to be logically consistent and
avoid the logical fallacy of special leading for one thing to the
exclusion of everything else, your hypothetical first cause/creator
must have a cause, right?
See, the problem for you true believers is that the very idea of God,
the hypothetical first cause/creator, depends upon the argument that
there must be a first cause, and, as Russell points out, that
argument is one that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of
God, which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might
be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it,
which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
I see that you've completely given up on the "begging the question"
charge for the argument I presented.
An argument like yours that raises more questions than it answers is
just another form of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Taking
one's conclusion for granted as a premise, or using premises which are
at least as questionable than one's conclusion, it all ammounts to the
same thing, logical fallacy.
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging
"This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as
the conclusion reached."
See also http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus
So far, you've refused to identify which premise (1 or 2) begs the
conclusion (3) or how. So your charge remains completely empty.
Secondly, begging the question is *not* "when the premises are at least
as questionable as the conclusion reached". Whoever wrote that crap
above confuses begging the question with raising the question.
For something more authoratitive and accurate see:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Begging the question is:
"Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the
premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a
premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."
However, it notes with regret that:
"The phrase "begs the question" has come to be used to mean "raises the
question" or "suggests the question", as in "that begs the question"
followed by the question supposedly begged. The following headlines are
examples:
Warm Weather Begs the Question: To Water or Not to Water Yard Plants
Latest Internet Fracas Begs the Question: Who's Driving the Internet Bus?
Hot Holiday Begs Big Question: Can the Party Continue?
This is a confusing usage which is apparently based upon a literal
misreading of the phrase "begs the question". It should be avoided, and
must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy."
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
27 Apr 2004 12:28:07 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that
has comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1
and 2]
That's just the same old lame argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of everything, in slightly different form, and you
have not overcome the fatal problem (special pleading for God)
inherent in the very idea of God, which Russell has highlighted.
(See quote below.)
Rather than providing a logical answer to the question, "Might there
be a first cause/creator, God, as theist true believers
hypothesize?" your argument here just RAISES two more questions:
1. If there can be anything eternal (without a cause), why try to
get away with a logically fallacious special pleading for that one
thing, your hypothetical first cause/creator, why can't it just as
well be the universe as God that exists without a cause?
2. If anything must have a cause, then to be logically consistent
and avoid the logical fallacy of special leading for one thing to
the exclusion of everything else, your hypothetical first
cause/creator must have a cause, right?
See, the problem for you true believers is that the very idea of
God, the hypothetical first cause/creator, depends upon the argument
that there must be a first cause, and, as Russell points out, that
argument is one that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything,
due to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very
idea of God, which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a
cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that
does not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of
it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
I see that you've completely given up on the "begging the question"
charge for the argument I presented.
An argument like yours that raises more questions than it answers is
just another form of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Taking
one's conclusion for granted as a premise, or using premises which are
at least as questionable than one's conclusion, it all ammounts to the
same thing, logical fallacy.
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging
"This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as
the conclusion reached."
See also http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus
So far, you've refused to identify which premise (1 or 2) begs the
conclusion (3) or how. So your charge remains completely empty.
Isn't it obvious? The whole argument takes your conclusion for granted,
that the universe must have had a creator.
Secondly, begging the question is *not* "when the premises are at least
as questionable as the conclusion reached". Whoever wrote that crap
above confuses begging the question with raising the question.
For something more authoratitive and accurate see:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Begging the question is:
"Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the
premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a
premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."
However, it notes with regret that:
"The phrase "begs the question" has come to be used to mean "raises the
question" or "suggests the question", as in "that begs the question"
followed by the question supposedly begged. The following headlines are
examples:
Warm Weather Begs the Question: To Water or Not to Water Yard Plants
Latest Internet Fracas Begs the Question: Who's Driving the Internet Bus?
Hot Holiday Begs Big Question: Can the Party Continue?
This is a confusing usage which is apparently based upon a literal
misreading of the phrase "begs the question". It should be avoided, and
must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy."
Your question-begging argument:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that
has comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1
and 2]
Your argument is based on premises that are just as questionable as your
conclusion, and your whole argument takes for granted your conclusion,
"The universe must have had a creator" (begging the question).
To be logically consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your
hypothetical first cause/creator must have a cause. If there can be
anything without a cause, then it might as well be the universe.
So, as Russell points out, the argument upon which God (the theists'
hypothetical first cause) depends, the argument that there must be a
first cause, is an argument that cannot have any validity, so there is
not a snowball's chance in hell of there being any such thing.
The very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause, comes in dead on
arrival due to the fatal problem of special pleading for that one thing,
God, inherent in the very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause. Any
questions about this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
27 Apr 2004 06:25:16 PM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that
has comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1
and 2]
That's just the same old lame argument for God, the hypothetical
first
cause/creator of everything, in slightly different form, and you
have not overcome the fatal problem (special pleading for God)
inherent in the very idea of God, which Russell has highlighted.
(See quote below.)
Rather than providing a logical answer to the question, "Might
there be a first cause/creator, God, as theist true believers
hypothesize?" your argument here just RAISES two more questions:
1. If there can be anything eternal (without a cause), why try to
get away with a logically fallacious special pleading for that one
thing, your hypothetical first cause/creator, why can't it just as
well be the universe as God that exists without a cause?
2. If anything must have a cause, then to be logically consistent
and avoid the logical fallacy of special leading for one thing to
the exclusion of everything else, your hypothetical first
cause/creator must have a cause, right?
See, the problem for you true believers is that the very idea of
God, the hypothetical first cause/creator, depends upon the
argument that there must be a first cause, and, as Russell points
out, that argument is one that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing
as God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of
everything, due to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in
the very idea of God, which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a
cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
argument for God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the
universe, that does not run into this fatal problem inherent in the
very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
I see that you've completely given up on the "begging the question"
charge for the argument I presented.
An argument like yours that raises more questions than it answers is
just another form of the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Taking
one's conclusion for granted as a premise, or using premises which
are at least as questionable than one's conclusion, it all ammounts
to the same thing, logical fallacy.
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging
"This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable
as the conclusion reached."
See also http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus
So far, you've refused to identify which premise (1 or 2) begs the
conclusion (3) or how. So your charge remains completely empty.
Isn't it obvious?
No.
The whole argument takes your conclusion for granted,
that the universe must have had a creator.
Do you mean premises 1 and 2 taken together? No it doesn't.
Secondly, begging the question is *not* "when the premises are at
least as questionable as the conclusion reached". Whoever wrote that
crap above confuses begging the question with raising the question.
For something more authoratitive and accurate see:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Begging the question is:
"Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the
premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a
premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."
However, it notes with regret that:
"The phrase "begs the question" has come to be used to mean "raises
the question" or "suggests the question", as in "that begs the
question" followed by the question supposedly begged. The following
headlines are examples:
Warm Weather Begs the Question: To Water or Not to Water Yard Plants
Latest Internet Fracas Begs the Question: Who's Driving the Internet Bus?
Hot Holiday Begs Big Question: Can the Party Continue?
This is a confusing usage which is apparently based upon a literal
misreading of the phrase "begs the question". It should be avoided,
and must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy."
Your question-begging argument:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that
has comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1
and 2]
Your argument is based on premises that are just as questionable as your
conclusion,
Which is not a fallacy of begging the question: see
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
and your whole argument takes for granted your conclusion,
"The universe must have had a creator" (begging the question).
See above.
To be logically consistent, if anything must have a cause, then your
hypothetical first cause/creator must have a cause. If there can be
anything without a cause, then it might as well be the universe.
So, as Russell points out, the argument upon which God (the theists'
hypothetical first cause) depends, the argument that there must be a
first cause, is an argument that cannot have any validity, so there is
not a snowball's chance in hell of there being any such thing.
The very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause, comes in dead on
arrival due to the fatal problem of special pleading for that one thing,
God, inherent in the very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause. Any
questions about this?
See previous posts for the numerous errors in the above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
28 Apr 2004 12:45:48 AM |
|
|
In article <HKwjc.51387$IW1.2968702@attbi_s52>, Dixit
AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
MG wrote:
1) Everything that has had a beginning in time (everything that
has comes into existence) must have had a cause/creator [premise]
2) The universe had a beginning in time (it came into existence)
[premise]
therefore
3) The universe must have had a cause/creator [conclusion, from 1
and 2]
Your argument is based on premises that are just as questionable as your
conclusion, and your whole argument takes for granted your conclusion,
"The universe must have had a creator" (begging the question).
Assumption (2) is based on the current cosmological theory of a "big
bang" before which nothing is known, so it is science that says that (2)
is probably true. If a question is begged here, it is begged by
sscience, not MG.
To be logically consistent, if everything must have a cause, then your
hypothetical first cause/creator must have a cause. If there can be
anything without a cause, then it might as well be the universe.
And it might as well not be the universe. So the possibility of a god
has not been eliminated.
So, as Russell points out...
Russell's argument is irrelevant, since it does not speak to the
possibility of a first cause, but only to its necessity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
28 Apr 2004 02:46:21 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
And it might as well not be the universe.
Ou contraire, Msr., if there can be anything without a cause it might as
well be the universe as your hypothetical God, since the universe is
known to exist, unlike your purely hypothetical God; so if there can be
anything without a cause it might as well be the universe, which rules
out any possibility of your hypothetical God, the hypothetical uncaused
first cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
01 May 2004 05:04:38 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<hjJjc.1993$Rd4.439593@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
And it might as well not be the universe.
Ou contraire, Msr., if there can be anything without a cause it might as
well be the universe as your hypothetical God, since the universe is
known to exist,
Really? The 'collection of everything that exists' (your own
definition of 'universe,' remember?) is something that you know
exists? By all means, then, please demonstrate some collection spoor
immediately.
unlike your purely hypothetical God; so if there can be
anything without a cause it might as well be the universe, which rules
out any possibility of your hypothetical God, the hypothetical uncaused
first cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
02 May 2004 02:10:36 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<hjJjc.1993$Rd4.439593@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
And it might as well not be the universe.
Ou contraire, Msr., if there can be anything without a cause it might as
well be the universe as your hypothetical God, since the universe is
known to exist,
Really? The 'collection of everything that exists' (your own
definition of 'universe,' remember?) is something that you know
exists?
For sure. What are you, a solipsist?
unlike your purely hypothetical God; so if there can be
anything without a cause it might as well be the universe, which rules
out any possibility of your hypothetical God, the hypothetical uncaused
first cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
02 May 2004 09:08:53 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<M91lc.12473$Ik.996978@attbi_s53>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<hjJjc.1993$Rd4.439593@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
And it might as well not be the universe.
Ou contraire, Msr., if there can be anything without a cause it might as
well be the universe as your hypothetical God, since the universe is
known to exist,
Really? The 'collection of everything that exists' (your own
definition of 'universe,' remember?) is something that you know
exists? By all means, then, please demonstrate some collection spoor
immediately.
For sure.
Hope it doesn't take too long.
What are you, a solipsist?
No.
unlike your purely hypothetical God; so if there can be
anything without a cause it might as well be the universe, which rules
out any possibility of your hypothetical God, the hypothetical uncaused
first cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
02 May 2004 12:27:09 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
What are you, a solipsist?
No.
You are if you question the existence of the universe. The existence of
the universe is one of those self-evident truths we discussed earlier.
axiom : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
[www.m-w.com]
How do they get established? Google reductio ad absurdum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
04 May 2004 12:44:16 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Nbalc.17069$I%1.1193560@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
What are you, a solipsist?
No.
You are if you question the existence of the universe.
Nonsense. A solipsist questions whether anything exists independently
of his mind, not whether 'the collection of everything that exists'
exists independently of his mind.
The existence of
the universe is one of those self-evident truths we discussed earlier.
axiom : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
[www.m-w.com]
So the reality (and, I note from some of your other posts, the
physical reality) of 'the collection of everything that exists' is
self-evident to you. Is it evident to your senses, or to your
understanding? IOW, do you 'know' that the 'collection of everything
that exists' is real from actually observing that collection, or from
reasoning (like Anselm) that your just conceiving of such a collection
proves that it physically exists?
How do they get established? Google reductio ad absurdum.
So you want to go the same route as Anselm? Fine with me. You can
start by showing your reductio ad absurdum proof, please.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
04 May 2004 01:13:02 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Nbalc.17069$I%1.1193560@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
What are you, a solipsist?
No.
You are if you question the existence of the universe.
Nonsense. A solipsist questions whether anything [read: 'anything in the universe' D] exists independently
of his mind ...
That's not true. A solipsist is one who argues _ad ignornatiam_ as you
do that the single tenet of solipsism is an hypothesis which even a
genius like Galileo could not prove false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
04 May 2004 02:22:48 PM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<Nbalc.17069$I%1.1193560@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
What are you, a solipsist?
No.
You are if you question the existence of the universe.
Nonsense. A solipsist questions whether anything [read: 'anything in
the universe' D] exists independently
of his mind ...
That's not true. A solipsist is one who argues _ad ignornatiam_ as you
do that the single tenet of solipsism is an hypothesis which even a
genius like Galileo could not prove false.
There appears to be not a single philosophical or logical concept that
you understand. You have exhibited a positive lack of understanding of:
claim
proposition
argument
logic
fallacy (in general and in each case)
inference
solipsism
belief
knowledge
possibility
probability
agnosticism
contradiction
consistency
premise
conclusion
presupposition
..... and many, mamy others.
I suggest, therefore, you give up your pitiful attempts to communicate
about philosophical or logical issues in English. Perhaps you might try
Klingon - I think you'd make more sense (you could hardly make less).
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
04 May 2004 02:35:51 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Dixit wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<Nbalc.17069$I%1.1193560@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
What are you, a solipsist?
No.
You are if you question the existence of the universe.
Nonsense. A solipsist questions whether anything [read: 'anything in
the universe' D] exists independently
of his mind ...
That's not true. A solipsist is one who argues _ad ignornatiam_ as you
do that the single tenet of solipsism is an hypothesis which even a
genius like Galileo could not prove false.
There appears to be not a single philosophical or logical concept that
you understand. You have exhibited a positive lack of understanding of:
claim
proposition
argument
logic
fallacy (in general and in each case)
inference
solipsism
belief
knowledge
possibility
probability
agnosticism
contradiction
consistency
premise
conclusion
presupposition
..... and many, mamy others.
I suggest, therefore, you give up your pitiful attempts to communicate
about philosophical or logical issues in English. Perhaps you might try
Klingon - I think you'd make more sense (you could hardly make less).
MG
Argument _ad hominem_ like that pitiful display above won't help you
make your case for God, sir, it is just more logical fallacy on your part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
04 May 2004 06:00:49 PM |
|
|
Argument _ad hominem_ like that...
It's not argumentum ad hominem if you attack the functional definitions
of words used by the arguer as being inconsistent with either their
Plain English or technical meaning.
Which, I might point out, is one more observation in proof of the
poster's case.
Not to mention your obvious hypocrisy.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
16 May 2004 11:34:50 AM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
Argument _ad hominem_ like that...
It's not argumentum ad hominem if you attack the functional definitions
of words used by the arguer as being inconsistent with either their
Plain English or technical meaning.
Well, let's just consider the term, 'claim' for example. A claim is a
statement standing in need of proof. "There is no God" is not a claim,
it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial, right? So atheists have nothing (no thing) to
prove, theists do, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
16 May 2004 01:07:24 PM |
|
|
It's not argumentum ad hominem if you attack the functional definitions
of words used by the arguer as being inconsistent with either their
Plain English or technical meaning.
You didn't address the above paragraph.
Well, let's just consider the term, 'claim' for example. A claim is a
statement standing in need of proof. "There is no God" is not a claim,
it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial, right? So atheists have nothing (no thing) to
prove, theists do, right?
This of course depends on the strength of the claim (which is a claim)
that "there is, definitively, no God." While if someone wishes to
convince you -- for you to accept as proven -- that there _is_ a god,
they certainly do have a burden of proof, the converse is also true:
if you want to convince someone else -- for them to accept as proven --
that there is _no_ god, then you will have a burden of proof, without
question.
Finally, if you make the concrete claim that you _believe_ there are no
gods, creator whatzits, or other ridiculous notions, this statement is,
for all intents and purposes, completely unassailable.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
16 May 2004 05:28:32 PM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
It's not argumentum ad hominem if you attack the functional definitions
of words used by the arguer as being inconsistent with either their
Plain English or technical meaning.
You didn't address the above paragraph.
Well, let's just consider the term, 'claim' for example. A claim is a
statement standing in need of proof. "There is no God" is not a claim,
it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial, right? So atheists have nothing (no thing) to
prove, theists do, right?
This of course depends on the strength of the claim (which is a claim)
that "there is, definitively, no God."
Except that a claim is a statement standing in need of proof, agreed?
"There is no God" is not a claim, it is the denial (the negation) of
one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, agreed? So
atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, agreed?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
