(March 19, 2018 at 8:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This is why I like the KCA!  I think that the range and depth of the rebuttals are somewhat humorous.  I've seen the same person argue, that things don't need a cause to begin to exists.  Which one may point out, that the causal principle is foundational to the study of science.  If nothing is a cause, then what are the limits of nothing?   The Causal Principle is not only used to deduce what will happen when some change is introduced, but is also used to infer a cause based on the effect.  And not only must there be a cause to produce an effect, this cause must be sufficient for the effect.  It begs the question how one determines that nothing a cause (how would one falsify it)?

From here, the same person may change up; and say it's the fallacy of composition.   That the things within the universe no require a cause, but the universe does not.   Which leads us to ask why is that?  How is the universe being defined, that makes it different?   First I don't think that it is explicit in the premise (everything that begin to exist; must have a cause) that the whole has the same attributes as the parts.  I do not see anyone making this argument.  It may be said, that this is based on our observation from within the universe.  However if this is true; then, how can a cosmologist say anything about the origin of the universe (which is half of their job description).  If the claim is that the universe doesn't require a cause whereas, that which makes up the universe does.  I ask why is that? 

It is natural to look for a cause for an effect.  It is natural to expect a sufficient cause for a given effect, even if that cause cannot be demonstrated.  We may even infer certain properties about a cause that is unknown based on what we see in the effect.  I am curious for those who invoke nothing as a cause, how often you would accept this in any other circumstance?   Many here are fond of quoting "that which is given without reason, can be dismissed without reason".  Apparently until it comes to the universe and everything in it, then... one doesn't need a reason (at least if the alternative might be something like God).

I'll make all the arguments, and I'm especially fond of the fallacy of composition regarding the universe. Criticizing an argument doesn't require consistency. An argument can have multiple flaws, some of which are mutually contradictory. I don't have to believe that something can result from nothing in order to note that it's an assertion, not a fact, and it's flaws include that the only thing we've ever even indirectly observed coming from nothing are virtual particles, everything else is a recombination of previous states. Something coming from nothing doesn't have to be true for the KSA to fail. Causality not applying to the universe itself does not have to be true for the KSA to fail. The questions themselves show that taking the first premise as a given is not justifiable.

The first premise of the argument fails because the only things we have evidence of beginning to exist (virtual particles) occur without a cause, just because that's what happens when there's nothing preventing it, AND applying within universe rules to the universe is fallacious, AND we don't know the universe ever 'began to exist' in an ultimate sense in the first place. The conclusion of the KSA may be true, but if so, it's not because of the logic used to arrive at it.

(March 19, 2018 at 12:43 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't have to believe that something can result from nothing in order to note that it's an assertion, not a fact, and it's flaws include that the only thing we've ever even indirectly observed coming from nothing are virtual particles

Case in point, how do we know that virtual particles are coming from nothing rather than an underlying process too small for us to measure? We don't. But we can still recognise someone asserting that they do even if we don't know any better.

(March 18, 2018 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: He doesn’t have to.  You need to demonstrate that it is more likely true than not true, and with some actual evidence.  Philosophy alone isn’t going to cut it. 

That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop.

Agreed.  So, if we have no access to observations or data “beyond” that point, then we cannot make any predictions, assumptions, or extrapolations at all.  Full Stop.  What’s baffling is your continued insistence that we can accurately apply philosophical principles from within our known universe out across this unknowable state, despite the fact that we have no information about it.    

You provided a nice wiki article earlier about how philosophy and science work together.  Just as science is headless without philosophy, philosophy without science is wholly untethered to the real world.  If philosophy is our only option in this instance, then there is no way to determine a probability one way or the other, and and premise 1. is completely unjustified. Without access to tangible information, you simply can’t say a damn thing about abstract causal principles beyond our universe.  

Quote:All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle.

So your whole case for determining that premise 1 is more likely true than not is human intuition? That’s weak, Steve.  Plenty of facts about reality go against our “screaming” intuition.  Surely you know this.  No way of getting around it?  Human intuition is demonstrably fallible.  There.  I just got around it.  

So again; there is no way of avoiding the composition fallacy here before we even get to the ‘therefore god’ stuff.  

Quote:Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.

Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe?

Wrong question.  The right question is: is there any reason to think that they should?  Because, your argument assumes that they do, and if you can’t justify that assumption, it’s a damn composition fallacy.

Quote:Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.?

Because they’re scientific theories, Steve.  Category error; remember?

(March 19, 2018 at 12:28 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 12:23 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Goodness no one is saying that the symphony is made of the same material as the object that might create them, just like no one is saying that a symphony is brain matter re-arranged.  If I create a Mandelbrot on my computer and print it out or look at it on the screen would you claim I was inferring that the computer had re-arranged it's matter ?

but a symphony just like the Mandelbrot is entirely created in, stored and distributed by the material world, if not, when does it leave those confines ?   Music is simply a re-arrangement of notes, just because it's the first time we have heard it in that arrangement does not mean we have not heard its constituent parts before, in fact it's probably vital for our enjoyment of it.

Our universe and everything in it is material (so far as we know) to say it's a feature really is redundant.

Quote:I'll use your post to summarize several of them.

Yet, the new thing, whether it be an idea, a novel, a symphony or a Mandelbrot is created. It begins to exists. They are not the same thing as the material that is holding the information (Therefore we have examples of things beginning to exits that are not themselves material. So, a material cause is not needed, only an efficient cause is needed. 

Yes we know they are not the same material as the thing that created it we have already established that.. twice, again no one is claiming that what we see is a part of the computer or brain become unstuck.

Until it appears as a pattern on a printer, screen or sound or written down, it is electrical pulses it never breaks free of our material world the same is true for the brain as in the computer, and just like in a brain or a computer if those  pulses are shut off before being transferred the idea cannot persist, it is a part of those pulses.  They at no point become immaterial.

This is getting silly. An idea is always immaterial. What you mean is that at no time does it not reply on the material. Even if I granted that, so what? It is still an abstract object which by definition is not material. 

Quote:Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum). An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e., an idea, or abstraction.[1] The term abstract object is said to have been coined by Willard Van Orman Quine.[2] The study of abstract objects is called abstract object theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

(March 19, 2018 at 1:06 pm)SteveII Wrote: This is getting silly. An idea is always immaterial. What you mean is that at no time does it not reply on the material.

An idea cannot exist without material brains.

It's like saying a ripple is immaterial because you don't acknowledge that it requires some form of liquid to act in.

(March 19, 2018 at 1:06 pm)SteveII Wrote: Even if I granted that, so what? It is still an abstract object which by definition is not material. 

Equivocation again.

Abstract objects are still dependent upon the existence of some form of matter. As I said, you cannot have a pattern of energy persist without matter.

Whether it's a book, symphony, idea, what you are referring to are patterns. All patterns require something material to be organised.

Not that I know why you are arguing this anyway.

(March 19, 2018 at 8:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:

---

That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop. All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle. There is no way around this and for this reason alone, Premise (1) is more likely true than not. 


Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.

Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe? Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.? Because they seem to think there is such a thing. Why? Because it seems like an objective feature of reality--no matter what physical conditions you find yourself in. These are the points you must answer to be successful in refuting the KCA--not complaining that you can't win after bringing up weak arguments.

---

This is why I like the KCA!  I think that the range and depth of the rebuttals are somewhat humorous.  I've seen the same person argue, that things don't need a cause to begin to exists.  Which one may point out, that the causal principle is foundational to the study of science.  If nothing is a cause, then what are the limits of nothing?   The Causal Principle is not only used to deduce what will happen when some change is introduced, but is also used to infer a cause based on the effect.  And not only must there be a cause to produce an effect, this cause must be sufficient for the effect.  It begs the question how one determines that nothing a cause (how would one falsify it)?

From here, the same person may change up; and say it's the fallacy of composition.   That the things within the universe no require a cause, but the universe does not.   Which leads us to ask why is that?  How is the universe being defined, that makes it different?   First I don't think that it is explicit in the premise (everything that begin to exist; must have a cause) that the whole has the same attributes as the parts.  I do not see anyone making this argument.  It may be said, that this is based on our observation from within the universe.  However if this is true; then, how can a cosmologist say anything about the origin of the universe (which is half of their job description).  If the claim is that the universe doesn't require a cause whereas, that which makes up the universe does.  I ask why is that? 

It is natural to look for a cause for an effect.  It is natural to expect a sufficient cause for a given effect, even if that cause cannot be demonstrated.  We may even infer certain properties about a cause that is unknown based on what we see in the effect.  I am curious for those who invoke nothing as a cause, how often you would accept this in any other circumstance?   Many here are fond of quoting "that which is given without reason, can be dismissed without reason".  Apparently until it comes to the universe and everything in it, then... one doesn't need a reason (at least if the alternative might be something like God).

I  have heard it said that god did not require a cause to exist. Is that what you meant?

(March 19, 2018 at 12:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop.

Agreed.  So, if we have no access to observations or data “beyond” that point, then we cannot make any predictions, assumptions, or extrapolations at all.  Full Stop.  What’s baffling is your continued insistence that we can accurately apply philosophical principles from within our known universe out across this unknowable state, despite the fact that we have no information about it.   

You are not differentiating between our inductive experience and our inductive reasoning. They are not the same thing. For the past nearly 100 years people have dedicated their lives to figuring out what might have come before our universe. A super-obvious assumption MUST be present to even begin that enterprise: that there exists, as an objective feature of reality, a Causal Principle. Why do you think they assumes such a thing? They know the laws of physics don't apply so they are not applying our experiences. They REASONED into this assumption. 

Quote:You provided a nice wiki article earlier about how philosophy and science work together.  Just as science is headless without philosophy, philosophy without science is wholly untethered to the real world.  If philosophy is our only option in this instance, then there is no way to determine a probability one way or the other, and and premise 1. is completely unjustified. Without access to tangible information, you simply can’t say a damn thing about abstract causal principles beyond our universe. 

Quote:All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle.

So your whole case for determining that premise 1 is more likely true than not is human intuition? That’s weak, Steve.  Plenty of facts about reality go against our “screaming” intuition.  Surely you know this.  No way of getting around it?  Human intuition is demonstrably fallible.  There.  I just got around it.  

So again; there is no way of avoiding the composition fallacy here before we even get to the ‘therefore god’ stuff.   

When debating something like this, one possible goal is to show the high intellectual price your opponent has to pay for objecting to a premise. This is one such case. Let's see:

A) Because the KCA is a inductive argument and the premises are probabilities, what you are actually claiming when you say Premise (1) is false is that it is more probable that it is false. That a causal principle is not an objective feature of reality is more likely true.  You have to propose that it was at least possible for our universe to just pop into being. But what makes universes so special that only they can pop into being? Why doesn't just anything pop into being today? 
B) But, you just seem to be saying is that it "might be the case" there is no Causal Principle that is an objective feature of reality. You don't seem to have a positive argument that makes this a defeater for the premise. It is just an objection--and not one that weakens the premise enough to think that it is not probably true. 

Quote:

Quote:Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.

Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe?

Wrong question.  The right question is: is there any reason to think that they should?  Because, your argument implies that they do, and if you can’t justify that assumption, it’s a damn composition fallacy.

Because a state of existence cannot be described coherently without a causal principle. Go ahead, try to describe such a state of affairs. What can or cannot happen when you need no prior state for absolutely nothing (or is it everything)? I'm interested to hear you try. 

Quote:

Quote:Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.?

Because they’re scientific theories, Steve.  Category error.

Nope. Cosmogony has large amounts of metaphysics built in.

(March 19, 2018 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: For reference, the KCA:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Fallacious.

It fails with a affirming the consequent fallacy at the first premise.

Here's why:

Premise 1 makes the distinction between things that 'begin to exist', and things that 'don't begin to exist'. That is defining 2 sets, the set with everything that begins to exist, and the set of things that don't begin to exist.

If the only thing that you believe is in the set of things that don't begin to exist, is your god, then you are smuggling in your conclusion in the first premise.

KCA also has an equivocation fallacy in the 2nd premise. But since it fails on the 1st, there is no reason to continue.

(March 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: For reference, the KCA:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Fallacious.

It fails with a affirming the consequent fallacy at the first premise.

Here's why:

Premise 1 makes the distinction between things that 'begin to exist', and things that 'don't begin to exist'. That is defining 2 sets, the set with everything that begins to exist, and the set of things that don't begin to exist.

If the only thing that you believe is in the set of things that don't begin to exist, is your god, then you are smuggling in your conclusion in the first premise.

KCA also has an equivocation fallacy in the 2nd premise. But since it fails on the 1st, there is no reason to continue.

This is affirming the consequent:

P implies Q
Q 
therefore P

Also called the fallacy of the converse. An example is:

1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox (P), then Bill Gates is rich (Q).
2. Bill Gates is rich. (Q)
3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. (P)

This is the KCA

P implies Q 
P 
therefore Q

1. Everything that begins to exist (P) has a cause. (Q)
2. The universe began to exist. (P)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Q)

Nope. Definitely not Affirming the Consequent. 

You point out two possibilities: those things that don't begin to exist and those things that do. That is very simply put the distinction between something that is necessary and something that is contingent. You could insert the phrase "All contingent objects" in the Premise (1) and it would mean exactly the same thing. The universe by definition is a contingent object. The reason that Premise (1) is formulated that way is because necessary objects don't have a cause--so don't belong in Premise (1)

(March 19, 2018 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: This is the KCA

P implies Q 
P 
therefore Q

1. Everything that begins to exist (P) has a cause. (Q)
2. The universe began to exist. (P)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Q)

Nope. Definitely not Affirming the Consequent. 

Nope.

This is the KCA

P implies Q
R
therefore Q

You are assuming that 2, the universe, began to exist for the sake of your argument.

As Mister Agenda said, you are asserting without backing it up with evidence.

Fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST.

So what you are actually doing is:

1. Everything that begins to exist (P) has a cause. (Q)
2. The universe began to exist. ( R )
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Q)