Total bullshit. There is nothing to "understand".
No one has demonstrated or even attempted to demonstrate or define why this logic applies , or should apply to the conditions of this question.

"First-order logic—also known as first-order predicate calculus and predicate logic—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as Socrates is a man one can have expressions in the form "there exists X such that X is Socrates and X is a man" and there exists is a quantifier while X is a variable.] This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations." - Wiki

1. The OP does not define what this "being" is, or what its nature might be. Saying this logic points to (proves) an "undefined being" which has the "property" "unique" is worthless and meaningless.

2. There are at least 25 logic systems, many of which, while perfectly internally consistent, do not obtain in reality. There is not even an attempt in the OP to show why or how this logic might be applicable to unknown conditions (they would not be internal to this universe) ... which is all we know about. We know nothing about anything about what might be external to this universe, (and 95 % of this universe is unknown ... Dark Energy and Dark Matter) and we know nothing about whether any logic system we know about applies, or some other system applies.

3. Who or what created the reality in which this "unique being" found itself with (only) the specific properties claimed here, and NOT all the other possible properties it could have had, in a concurrent reality ?
Who created the properties this god has ... the reality that defines this god ? No clue here.
Did it give itself these "properties", or did it "find" itself with only these properties, and not other properties ? Where did this reality come from ? A unique being answers nothing. If it's a "cause" of something, where did Causality come from ? Did it cause Causality when Causality did not exist ? Where and how did that happen ? None of the important questions are answered by this lame "proof".
A "being" assumes many things, which are incompatible, (does it have space-time to PROCESS thoughts ?) with the environment assumed for it. Does this being *think* ?  LMAO

4. If this really is a "proof" of a god, then congratulations .... you're the only theist on the planet who needs no faith. If you have proof of something, you need no faith.

The OP admits that this only proves a first cause of some sort. It doesn't prove a supernatural God. He just chooses to call that first cause "God" even though it could perfectly be naturalistic, nothing more.

That said, it's a strange argument to allow the first cause to be a component of the thing it eventually causes. And this is still relying on naive and outdated notions of time and causality. The OP fails to consider the implications of modern cosmology regarding these notions and others.

(December 7, 2018 at 6:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Total bullshit. There is nothing to "understand".
No one has demonstrated or even attempted to demonstrate or define why this logic applies , or should apply to the conditions of this question.

"First-order logic—also known as first-order predicate calculus and predicate logic—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as Socrates is a man one can have expressions in the form "there exists X such that X is Socrates and X is a man" and there exists is a quantifier while X is a variable.] This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations." - Wiki

1. The OP does not define what this "being" is, or what its nature might be. Saying this logic points to (proves) an "undefined being" which has the "property" "unique" is worthless and meaningless.

2. There are at least 25 logic systems, many of which, while perfectly internally consistent, do not obtain in reality. There is not even an attempt in the OP to show why or how this logic might be applicable to unknown conditions (they would not be internal to this universe) ... which is all we know about. We know nothing about anything about what might be external to this universe, (and 95 % of this universe is unknown ... Dark Energy and Dark Matter) and we know nothing about whether any logic system we know about applies, or some other system applies.

3. Who or what created the reality in which this "unique being" found itself with (only) the specific properties claimed here, and NOT all the other possible properties it could have had, in a concurrent reality ?
Who created the properties this god has ... the reality that defines this god ? No clue here.
Did it give itself these "properties", or did it "find" itself with only these properties, and not other properties  ? Where did this reality come from ? A unique being answers nothing. If it's a "cause" of something, where did Causality come from ? Did it cause Causality when Causality did not exist ? Where and how did that happen ? None of the important questions are answered by this lame "proof".
A "being" assumes many things, which are incompatible, (does it have space-time to PROCESS thoughts ?)  with the environment assumed for it. Does this being *think* ?  LMAO

4. If this really is a "proof" of a god, then congratulations .... you're the only theist on the planet who needs no faith. If you have proof of something, you need no faith.

2,3,4 aren't very good arguments.


2.You can't control all variables in the universe simultaneously, and suggesting he need to form conclusions about them are self-defeating to your argument, because you must immediately disqualify your argument by not defining them and showing how they must be significant to his equation.  If he has to do it, why shouldn't you follow your own standard of accountability?  Even if you were correct, it doesn't invalid his entire position. It just means you need to add more variables to clarify it.
3. If A is sufficient or A (or whatever letter he used) then he doesn't need to provide the said explanation.  You're also not disqualifying his ascertain.  You're just asking more questions.  Even if you say "the Big Bang" did it instead, you would fall into the same conundrum.  So your choice would either be to invalidate it, validate it by showing something that caused it, or ask more questions to refine your variables.
4. I have proof I own two hounds. I have faith they can track a fox or a raccoon. If I didn't have faith in them, they wouldn't be very good hunting dogs.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:17 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: 2,3,4 aren't very good arguments.

 .... seriously. That's a horseshit rebuttal ... you can't even say why ?

(December 7, 2018 at 9:36 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:17 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: 2,3,4 aren't very good arguments.

 .... seriously. That's a horseshit rebuttal ... you can't even say why ?

I explained. If you didn't understand, that may be an indication that you should take some time to study logic, including commonly committed fallacies.  Sometimes it's hard not to make a fallacy, so it's good to know them.  Admittedly I make them on occasion, but try to go back and fix them when I do.  Good stuff.

(December 7, 2018 at 9:49 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 9:36 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:  .... seriously. That's a horseshit rebuttal ... you can't even say why ?

I explained. If you didn't understand, that may be an indication that you should take some time to study logic, including commonly committed fallacies.  Sometimes it's hard not to make a fallacy, so it's good to know them.  Admittedly I make them on occasion, but try to go back and fix them when I do.  Good stuff.

No you didn't. Your BS is irrelevant.

".You can't control all variables in the universe simultaneously, and suggesting he need to form conclusions about them are self-defeating to your argument, because you must immediately disqualify your argument by not defining them and showing how they must be significant to his equation.  If he has to do it, why should
n't you follow your own standard of accountability?  Even if you were correct, it doesn't invalid his entire position. It just means you need to add more variables to clarify it."

I demonstrated why his variable DO NOT APPLY AT ALL to the conditions. He knows NOTHING ABOUT ANY conditions outside the universe. You bluster well, old man with this fallacy BS, but in fact you refuted nothing.
In fact it's a lack of understanding of Logic of BOTH of you that reeks here. 

Your patronizing shit is dismissed for what it is, pops.

(December 7, 2018 at 9:54 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 9:49 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I explained. If you didn't understand, that may be an indication that you should take some time to study logic, including commonly committed fallacies.  Sometimes it's hard not to make a fallacy, so it's good to know them.  Admittedly I make them on occasion, but try to go back and fix them when I do.  Good stuff.

No you didn't. Your BS is irrelevant.

".You can't control all variables in the universe simultaneously, and suggesting he need to form conclusions about them are self-defeating to your argument, because you must immediately disqualify your argument by not defining them and showing how they must be significant to his equation.  If he has to do it, why should
n't you follow your own standard of accountability?  Even if you were correct, it doesn't invalid his entire position. It just means you need to add more variables to clarify it."

I demonstrated why his variable DO NOT APPLY AT ALL to the conditions. He knows NOTHING ABOUT ANY conditions outside the universe. You bluster well, old man with this fallacy BS, but in fact you refuted nothing.
In fact it's a lack of understanding of Logic of BOTH of you that reeks here. 

Your patronizing shit is dismissed for what it is, pops.

You're making claims that you can't demonstrate and objections that have the same issues you're saying he has.  Even if you had valid questions, no one can automatically assume your objection invalidates his argument(s).  I've read through his claims before and some areas were a bit lacking with detail, but you couldn't discount them on that basis alone.  But that's okay because that is what peer review is for.  That's why even before you do research, you go through variables and control.  If still it is lacking, you conduct the research with better parameters.  At best you can say the research/arguments weren't optimal, but you can also go back and use it to optimize.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 8:14 pm)Grandizer Wrote: The OP admits that this only proves a first cause of some sort. It doesn't prove a supernatural God. He just chooses to call that first cause "God" even though it could perfectly be naturalistic, nothing more.

That said, it's a strange argument to allow the first cause to be a component of the thing it eventually causes. And this is still relying on naive and outdated notions of time and causality. The OP fails to consider the implications of modern cosmology regarding these notions and others.

I think it's a fair assumption even if you can't specifically define the trigger.  No matter what you say it is, you have to assume it was sufficient of itself or prove at least two simultaneous anomalies.  Because if 1 can't be sufficient of itself, you need a minimum of 2 to generate it, which would make those two things the trigger.  This is conjecture here, but that would be a stretch since they would need to be random anomalies.  If you rule both those things out, then you pretty much have to default to something supernatural, because ..well, what else could it be?

(December 7, 2018 at 10:10 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think it's a fair assumption even if you can't specifically define the trigger.  No matter what you say it is, you have to assume it was sufficient of itself or prove at least two simultaneous anomalies.  Because if 1 can't be sufficient of itself, you need a minimum of 2 to generate it, which would make those two things the trigger.  This is conjecture here, but that would be a stretch since they would need to be random anomalies.  If you rule both those things out, then you pretty much have to default to something supernatural, because ..well, what else could it be?

Why couldn't a naturalistic entity be sufficient of itself?

For me, supernatural would be something outside of (or beyond) nature itself. If the OP argument allows for the first cause to be a part of nature, then while you are certainly free to call it "God", I have as much freedom to consider it to nevertheless be perfectly naturalistic. For me, a supernatural God would have to be the kind of God defended by proponents of arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument: one that defies logic (or at least our intuition of it) by existing "outside" of space-time and that created natural existence from the "outside".

(December 7, 2018 at 11:30 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 10:10 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think it's a fair assumption even if you can't specifically define the trigger.  No matter what you say it is, you have to assume it was sufficient of itself or prove at least two simultaneous anomalies.  Because if 1 can't be sufficient of itself, you need a minimum of 2 to generate it, which would make those two things the trigger.  This is conjecture here, but that would be a stretch since they would need to be random anomalies.  If you rule both those things out, then you pretty much have to default to something supernatural, because ..well, what else could it be?

Why couldn't a naturalistic entity be sufficient of itself?

For me, supernatural would be something outside of (or beyond) nature itself. If the OP argument allows for the first cause to be a part of nature, then while you are certainly free to call it "God", I have as much freedom to consider it to nevertheless be perfectly naturalistic. For me, a supernatural God would have to be the kind of God defended by proponents of arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument: one that defies logic (or at least our intuition of it) by existing "outside" of space-time and that created natural existence from the "outside".

It can be sufficient.  Or we can at least assume it can be.  If we assume it can't be, we would need a minimum value of 2 since that's the next possible value.  Really though, anything beyond 1 would be difficult to explain.  We discussed it some the other day.  It would be similar to tipping a domino to create a chain reaction, but the domino would have to be able to tip itself as to meet the definition as being the initial cause.  Every cause after that would then we subject to that first cause.

(December 7, 2018 at 11:55 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 11:30 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Why couldn't a naturalistic entity be sufficient of itself?

For me, supernatural would be something outside of (or beyond) nature itself. If the OP argument allows for the first cause to be a part of nature, then while you are certainly free to call it "God", I have as much freedom to consider it to nevertheless be perfectly naturalistic. For me, a supernatural God would have to be the kind of God defended by proponents of arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument: one that defies logic (or at least our intuition of it) by existing "outside" of space-time and that created natural existence from the "outside".

It can be sufficient.  Or we can at least assume it can be.

That's sufficient for now. Until the OP can rule out naturalistic first causes, then the principle of parsimony suggests we don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain the existence of the universe.

And the first domino may need someone/something to tip it over and thus start a chain reaction, but that someone/something may also need someone/something else to move it to tip the first domino over. We don't have any good analogy to suggest that only a supernatural could be the first cause (or that there is a first cause for that matter), but a lot of good analogies to suggest an infinite regress of some sort.