(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Good point. I'll rephrase. The question of whether or not the universe had a cause is answerable independently of what the cause was and how the cause worked. The question of what or how the universe was caused into existence would be dependent upon answering the question of whether or not the universe has a cause.
And again, the cosmological argument is an argument that seeks to answer the question: Does the universe have a cause? Within the context of the argument, the 'how' is irrelevant. If it is established that the universe does have a cause, then the 'how' and the specific 'what' do become relevant.
Try to remember that. The only thing your cosmological argument can hope to establish is that the universe had a cause. It cannot establish what that cause was or anything else about the nature of the cause.
(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: If these are the answers you are seeking then you already agree with the premise that the universe had a cause and should be asking questions like: What could cause the universe into existence? How did the 'what' cause the universe into existence?
No, I said that your argument fails to establish that anything caused the universe - that does not imply any acceptance of the premise that the universe had a cause. If I say that your argument fails to establish that a person is guilty of murder, that does not imply that I accept the premise that a murder was committed.
(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I agree that ' If something exists is was caused by a material cause' and ' If something exists it came into existence without a cause' are two distinct propositions. They are both propositions that assert the universe had a beginning. They simply differentiate what the beginning was. If I assert that the universe either began or always existed, offering different specific causes of the universe's beginning is not a 'third option' showing my assertion is a false dichotomy. If something exists and was caused by a material cause it had a beginning. If something came into existence without a cause, it had a beginning. These are the same 'choice,' namely that the universe had a beginning.
Except one of those 'choices' contradicts the second premise of your argument - "Everything that has a beginning has a cause". Given this third premise, you are clearly ignoring one of the distinct propositions (otherwise you wouldn't be able to assert that) making it a false dichotomy.
(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I did not ignore you're fourth option. I gave reasons why it doesn't apply. You are making the knowledge claim that the assertion 'If something exists the spatio-temporal concept of beginning doesn't apply to it.' You are doing so as a third option to my asserted disjunction and are then concluding that my disjunction is a false dichotomy. You are therefore required to support your assertion.
I thought it was obvious - beginning is a spatio-temporal concept. It asks when and where. If something exists that is independent of space and time, then the idea of beginning cannot apply to it. The only counter to this would be that nothing exists independent of space and time - but you can't really argue that, can you?
(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: That would then include the assertion: "nothing can be proven by an assertion."
Who said it was an assertion?
(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: To address #1. If the material cause of the universe is uncaused, then it would be an eternal material.
To address #2-57. All of these options choose an uncaused first cause.
You seem to have an error in your thinking relating to categorical statements. Whether we regress 10 causes to the uncaused first cause or we regress 5 causes to the uncaused first cause we have still chosen the uncaused first cause option. Therefore you have not shown a third option to prove a false dichotomy.
Those were not the options you presented: If you'd said "either there is an uncaused first cause or there is infinite regress", then your argument would have some merit. But your argument was that "either universe has an uncaused first cause or there is infinite regress" - giving a specific placement for that first cause which is a false dichotomy.
(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: The observation of the expansion of the universe, and the second law of thermodynamics have persuaded me that the universe cannot be eternal. Therefore it must have been caused. If the universe was caused, by definition the causality principle is applicable.
That would be an invalid conclusion. What you can conclude, if that, is that the universe as is exists not cannot be eternal. It says nothing about the state of the universe in another form. Further, concluding from "it cannot be eternal" that "it must have a cause" presumes the the applicability of the causality principle - another invalid conclusion. To then use this to prove its applicability is circular reasoning.
(September 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: If the universe has a beginning then it has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
As the argument stands:
If the universe has a beginning then it has a cause - wrong, the applicability of causality principle has not been established.
The universe has a beginning - wrong, the applicability of the spatio-temporal concept of beginning has not been established.
Therefore the universe has a cause - invalid conclusion.
