Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 26, 2018 at 12:28 pm (This post was last modified: March 26, 2018 at 1:16 pm by Jenny A.)
(March 26, 2018 at 11:44 am)SteveII Wrote:
(March 26, 2018 at 3:21 am)Jenny A Wrote: Extrapolating From What We Know Of Cause And Effect Does Not Lead Necessarily to God.
Here is my own little syllogism:
1 The present and past forms of all material things each have a past material cause(s).
2 The universe is a material thing.
3 Therefore, the universe has a past material cause, and that cause has a past material cause an so on for eternity.
I do not offer this as proof of an infinite godless regression, but only as demonstration of the futility of using our knowledge of cause and effect within the universe to extrapolate what occurred before the universe (assuming there is a before) or outside the universe.
Premise (1) is only true within the universe.
Is premise (2) true? I'm not sure it is. I think it is the sum or all material things--not another thing at the end of the list of all other material things. The distinction is important.
If that is true, then conclusion (3) is a composition fallacy:
Quote:The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
So...not really a demonstration of anything.
You miss the point. I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.
The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe. This it shares with all first cuase arguments. And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail. That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail.
It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.
Quote:A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is the "time crawled", which if taken literally is not just false but a category mistake. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.
To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error.
It is also error to compare the actual creation of new material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter. There is no equivalency.
(March 26, 2018 at 8:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(March 26, 2018 at 3:21 am)Jenny A Wrote:
First of all, the validity of an argument or proof should not depend upon it's result, be that god, an endless regress, an endless time loop, or things "poofing" into existence out of nothing. However, as unlikely as I find the idea of an elephant popping into existence in my backyard, I find both the idea of anything existing externally, and infinite regress equally unlikely. That there is something outside the universe also boggles my mind. The human mind isn't equipped to consider any of these possibilities in any realistic or coherent way. Try for example to talk about a timeless space without tenses messing up what it is you are trying to say. Or try to think of a nothing so nothing that it includes neither time nor space.
1. Beyond the Universe, the Flatland Thought Experiment
When we are looking for a cause of the universe (assuming for the moment that it has one) we are postulating about something on the other side of a singularity. And what actually on the other side might be beyond our ability to imagine or describe. By way of illustration, I'm going to borrow a thought experiment from Edwin A Abbott's 1884 novel, Flatland. Flatland takes place in a universe with only three dimensions, one of which is time. Space has only two dimentions there. We visualise such a world as if we are looking down on it as on a blueprint. But that is not how it would look to the inhabitants of Flatland who do not have the words up or down in their vocabulary. Nor do they speak of jumping, falling, or flying. Digging to China is not a Flatland expression.
In the novel, Flatland is visited by a sphere from outside the two dimensional universe outside Flatland. Obviously, the sphere appears to be a circle in Flatland. It convinces a square that it is from a 3rd spacial dimension by demonstrating it's ability to grow a shrink as it passes through the two dimensional Flatland.
Imagine for a moment Abbott had had a cube visit instead. If it came through precisely from one corner to the opposite corner, it would grow and shrink like the sphere. But if it tilted back and forth it would change shape becoming various four sided shapes as it went. Or image a human who could appear variously as an iregular oval, two iregular ovals, ten much smaller irregular ovals and so on depending on which body part or parts intersected Flatland.
Thier universe could actually be a point thin skin around a very large sphere. (This idea is mine not Abbotts). If the sphere were small enough, they might eventually figure this out by traveling away from home in one direction and eventually arrive at home from the opposite direction. But the concept of sphere would remain mysterious, at best a mathematical explaination that the very best minds could not grasp.
I'm afraid that imagining either the outside of the universe (if there is such a thing) or a time before the universe began (again assuming that such time existed) is as difficult and fruitless, as the Flatlanders imagining what a third spacial dimension might be.
2. Existence, Cause, and Agency
What we know of existence, change, and cause/agency comes entirely from our knowledge of this universe. At the human scale and larger, nothing in this universe poofs into existence out of nothing without cause. In fact no matter or energy is ever ultimately created or destroyed. Everything was previously something else and will in turn become yet something else later. Changes in motion and form all happen because of material causes acting on material forms. The cause is equally and oppositely affected. Matter and energy is never either created or lost. There are no immaterial agents anymore than there are things changing without cause. Materiality of the agency is part and parcel of causation.
And so is time. Without time, change, and hence causation, are not meaningful concepts. If Flatland really had just two dimensions, there would be no story because no inhabitant, could move or think, or change in anyway at all.
Agency or cause without time and matter is just as absurd as elephants appearing without cause. It too is magic. You won't see it in your backyard, or anywhere else.
3. What Is Eternity and What does it Mean To Be Eternal?
Colloquially, eternity is forever. But what does forever mean? It could be a timeless, an ever present. Matter might exist in such a space but not movement or energy. Or it could be thought of as an infite regress of time. In that case an infinite regress of cause and effect would appear possible, or even required--if nothing changes, does it make any sense to say time exists? Or it could be loop of cause and effect in which there is neither a first nor a last cause and effect and yet there are a finite number of causes and effects. Or we could concede that there was one a first moment in time, and call eternity time from that point forward. However, unless something was in motion from that very first moment, there would be no time or change in any functional sense. It would be as static as timeless eternity--in fact it would be a contradition in terms, a timeless place with a beginning.
A sentient being, however unlikely, might exist either as an infinite regression of being or as a always present member of a loop. It might be in motion at the beginning of time. But it could not be sentient, changimg, or moving in a timeless space.
4. Extrapolating From What We Know Of Cause And Effect Does Not Lead Necessarily to God.
Here is my own little syllogism:
The present and past forms of all material things each have a past material cause(s).
The universe is a material thing.
Therefore, the universe has a past material cause, and that cause has a past material cause an so on for eternity.
I do not offer this as proof of an infinite godless regression, but only as demonstration of the futility of using our knowledge of cause and effect within the universe to extrapolate what occurred before the universe (assuming there is a before) or outside the universe.
5. Subatomic Matter Does Not Appear To Behave Like Matter We Perceive
At the subatomic level, things do appear to begin to exist, cease to exist, and change without cause(s). Any extrapolation concerning the cause of the universe (if any) based on what we know about the inside of the universe must take quantum mechanics into account.
6. Our Inability to Know Is Proof of Nothing in Particular
Even when postulating what is outside the universe and beyond what we may ever know, the god of the gaps remains a fallacy.
Jenny,
Thanks for a well thought out post. I agree it does seem that when you get to things at or beyond the beginning of the universe, that you need to make some sort of jump from what is familiar. And I do realize, that what one might may be willing to concede for one, may not be for another.
Thank you. I took the time because you are actually considering the possibility that the first cause argument does not work. I think one essential difference between theist and atheist minds is the willingness to accept I don't know, and cannot know a a definitive answer. I really do not know how the universe or anything that came before it began. That I don't and won't ever know is not a concept that troubles me.
(March 26, 2018 at 9:17 am)SteveII Wrote:
(March 22, 2018 at 6:09 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The proposition you have stated is:
All things that begin to exist have a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe had a cause
I should have been clearer. The premises themselves are derived inductively. The syllogism is in the form of a deductive argument. This means exactly what I have been saying. The conclusion is based on the probability of the premises being true. In the case of the argument, it is the vast majority of scientists, philosophers, and regular people that both premises are likely true. Therefore it follows that the conclusion is probably true. There is no logical fallacy or problem with the structure.
Quote:To determine the probability of two or more things all being true you multiply to probability of each thing together. And yes the probability of both propositions being true will be the same if all chances are 100% nd lower if they are not. https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre...-of-events. Look it up. It's Pre Calc 101.
If you roll a pair of dice the chance of rolling a six is one in six for each die. If you want to know what the chances are that at least on of the die will come up six, you add the probabilities together. So, 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3. But, if you want to know what the chances are of both die rolling 6, you multiply the probabilites.p 1/6 × 1/6 = 1/36.
Since both proposition 1 and two must be true for the conclusion to follow, it is correct to multiply the probability of the propositions together to determine the probability that the conclusion is proved as stated by the syllogism.
The probability that your syllogism proves that the universe has a cause is dependant on both (1) everything that begins to exist having a cause, and (2) the universe beginning to exist. So to determine the likelihood that the syllogism proves that the universe has a cause we multiply the probability of the first two propositions together.
That reasoning will not work for inductive reasoning. It just does not. Using your method, the more reasons you list that something might be true, the probability of it being true goes down. That is simply not logically possible, so the principle cannot apply.
Quote:[Edit: Polymath correctly notes that the computation of the probability of the two propositions both being true would be affected if the the truth of one proposition makes the other proposition more or less likely. I agree. ]
Notice that I did not say that that gives us the absolute probability of whether the universe has a cause because there might other evidence besides your syllogism, that the universe has a cause. Perhaps you might have inductive evidence that the universe has a cause?
A premise in any syllogism has to have support. If could have a 10 pages of arguments that support a 10 word premises. Fleshing out the KCA alone takes like 40 pages in my reference books (philosophers are very careful in their published works).
That the universe began to exist can be argued on scientific grounds as well a metaphysical grounds. The most promising models for 50+ years have posited the beginning of the universe. All recent observations continue to confirm it and NEVER undercut it. Of course you can find a fringe theory that says otherwise. Metaphysically speaking, there is no way to rationally believe that an infinite number of events could have already happened. This (and more) translates into premise (2) being much more likely true than not.
Listen, if you want to hang onto the % of uncertainty in the argument and say it is not convincing, fine. That is the only option open to you. What you cannot show is that the argument is wrong or fallacious.
I think you are rather behind hand about current scientific thinking about the beginning of the universe and the necessity of cause and effect.
That people who agree with you get published, is merely an appeal to authority. Many people who disagree are also published. To choose between them, we must consider the argument itself, and not the stature of its proponent.
I will add that there are Christian philosophers, some of them theologians who do not accept the validity of Kalam's proof of god or any proof of god through reasoning for that matter. Read Kierkegaard on proofs of god.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 26, 2018 at 1:15 pm
(March 26, 2018 at 12:25 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(March 26, 2018 at 11:46 am)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, and the probability of the conclusion is the product of the (relative) probabilities for the premises involved in the conclusion.
In your addition of other premises, you are providing alternative ways to get to the conclusion, not additional premises for a deduction of that conclusion.
So, for example, suppose we have
A and B implies Z
and also
C and D implies Z
and also
E and F implies Z.
We first multiply the probabilities of A and B to get the probability of going *that* route to Z. Then we multiply the probabilities of C and D for *that* route to Z. Finally, we multiply the probabilities of E and F for the probability that *that* route to Z works.
Then, to find the *overall* probability of Z, we multiply the probabilities that *all* routes fail and subtract that from 1.
Of course, at each stage we should use relative probabilities.
Yes. So the example of these observations:
1. Mary usually goes to the market only on Wednesday (95%)
2. Mary is at the market.
3. The street cleaners usually run on Wednesday (80%)
4. The street cleaner just went around the corner
5. The garbage is picked up on Tuesday evening (80%)
6. The garbage cans in the alley are empty
yields the probability that today is Wednesday 1-(5% x 20% x 20%) at 99.8%
OK, you added a bit from previous premises: that Mary usually *only* goes to the market on Wednesday. That is important for the deduction. You should also have the word *only* in 3 and 5 for this to be a correct computation. This is crucial for the computation.
I want to point out that these are NOT the same as your previous premises. And the differences are relevant in the computations.
In particular, the previous ways you stated your premises allowed for Mary to go to the market on a day other than Wednesday with an undermined probability. The same is true of the street washers and the garbage collection.
But, and this is also important. The deduction scheme in each branch of this computed probability are single steps. If the branches had more steps, then along each branch, the probabilities would be multiplied. And *that* is relevant to how this discussion started.
If we have the following:
A implies B (with 70% probability)
A (with 80% probability)
and we want to conclude B, the probability of a correct conclusion (assuming independence of the first and second premises) would be .7*.8=.56, or 56%. This is NOT analogous to the scheme above where several different branches apply.
In particular, you have been dishonest a couple of times:
1. In changing the premises used in the discussion.
2. In suggesting that the *original* scheme is similar to the scheme you just introduced.
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 26, 2018 at 3:03 pm
(March 26, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(March 26, 2018 at 11:44 am)SteveII Wrote: Premise (1) is only true within the universe.
Is premise (2) true? I'm not sure it is. I think it is the sum or all material things--not another thing at the end of the list of all other material things. The distinction is important.
If that is true, then conclusion (3) is a composition fallacy:
So...not really a demonstration of anything.
You miss the point. I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.
The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe. This it shares with all first cuase arguments. And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail. That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail.
This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you.
Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655
Quote:It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.
To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error.
It is also error to compare the actual creation of new material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter. There is no equivalency.
There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:
1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions
Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made.
This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:
A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training. They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training. Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 26, 2018 at 10:33 pm
(March 26, 2018 at 3:03 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(March 26, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You miss the point. I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.
The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe. This it shares with all first cuase arguments. And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail. That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail.
This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you.
Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655
No, that is not the result of reason. That is the result of a variety of assumptions as listed in the post you referred to. In particular, the 'causal principle' is not proven, but is, instead *assumed* without further reason.
In this, I assume you are identifying 'sufficient cause' with 'efficient cause' in the other post. But there is no proof that when something 'begins to exist', that there is necessarily 'things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement'. In fact, that is not even true *within* the universe and there is no reason to assume such is the case *outside* of the universe (whatever that *could* mean).
Quote:
Quote:It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.
To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error.
It is also error to compare the actual creation of new material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter. There is no equivalency.
There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:
1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions
Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made.
This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:
A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training. They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training. Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.
Well, first of all, the material cause as you defined it is simply the composition. So, I am a biological creature and my composition is that of such a creature.
Mathematical objects are NOT 'objects' in the sense of this discussion: they have no causal influence at all and are, in essence, language constructs.
Ideas, novels, etc. Arew ALL based on the physical world. Ideas happen in brains, Novels have a variety of different aspects, but can be on paper, electronic patterns, etc.
Language is a convention we humans use to communicate. Again, it is an aspect of our brains and biology.
Classes, properties, and descriptions are, once again, conventions.
I have had a fair amount of philosophical training. I just think your viewpoints are wrong. They have to be updated to a more modern approach.
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 27, 2018 at 3:18 am
This is so far away from disproving Odin that I think we can conclude no theists can do it. So hopefully they can at least acknowledge that asking an atheist to disprove “god” is a silly thing to do.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 27, 2018 at 7:00 am (This post was last modified: March 27, 2018 at 7:07 am by GrandizerII.)
(March 26, 2018 at 3:03 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(March 26, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You miss the point. I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.
The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe. This it shares with all first cuase arguments. And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail. That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail.
This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you.
Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655
Quote:It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.
To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error.
It is also error to compare the actual creation of new material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter. There is no equivalency.
There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things.
The KCA is an argument about the universe, not about the irrelevant abstract stuff you keep mentioning. There is a reason Aristotle was compelled by the same logic you're relying on to believe that the universe had no beginning. And we all know why you won't agree with Aristotle here.
Quote:Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made.
And material objects are not made of "nothing".
Quote:This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:
A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training.
Yeah, the smart "Internet atheists" with PhDs in various important subjects (including philosophy), pointing out the various mistakes you keep making when it comes to mathematics and logic, while you ignore their corrections and continue to hopelessly defend the indefensible. So I wonder which one of them suffers from a "complete lack of philosophical training". Sometimes, Steve, you can be pathetic beyond belief with the way you think so highly of yourself when it's clearly unwarranted.
Quote:They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training.
And you clearly have no high-level training in mathematics or much to do with science. And honestly, you aren't that good with the logic either, so I also question the thought of you having sufficient training in philosophy. Just because you may have had some training in Christian apologetics doesn't make you an exemplary philosopher all of a sudden.
Quote:Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.
You keep saying that, but you don't even try to point out the specifics that would demonstrate what you're saying is true. Just saying stuff repeatedly, while continually appealing to some vague "consensus", doesn't make what you're saying true.
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 27, 2018 at 8:07 am
(March 27, 2018 at 7:00 am)Grandizer Wrote:
(March 26, 2018 at 3:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you.
Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655
There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things.
The KCA is an argument about the universe, not about the irrelevant abstract stuff you keep mentioning. There is a reason Aristotle was compelled by the same logic you're relying on to believe that the universe had no beginning. And we all know why you won't agree with Aristotle here.
Quote:Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made.
And material objects are not made of "nothing".
Quote:This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:
A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training.
Yeah, the smart "Internet atheists" with PhDs in various important subjects (including philosophy), pointing out the various mistakes you keep making when it comes to mathematics and logic, while you ignore their corrections and continue to hopelessly defend the indefensible. So I wonder which one of them suffers from a "complete lack of philosophical training". Sometimes, Steve, you can be pathetic beyond belief with the way you think so highly of yourself when it's clearly unwarranted.
Quote:They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training.
And you clearly have no high-level training in mathematics or much to do with science. And honestly, you aren't that good with the logic either, so I also question the thought of you having sufficient training in philosophy. Just because you may have had some training in Christian apologetics doesn't make you an exemplary philosopher all of a sudden.
Quote:Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.
You keep saying that, but you don't even try to point out the specifics that would demonstrate what you're saying is true. Just saying stuff repeatedly, while continually appealing to some vague "consensus", doesn't make what you're saying true.
Fuck yes steve is a living mass of dunning kruger and thinks his "so called" philosophical training " gives him a leg up.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 27, 2018 at 8:59 am
(March 26, 2018 at 3:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:
1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions
How many of these exist apart from our material universe ?
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
