(July 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 1:45 pm)ktulu Wrote: Well, it is question begging because premise 1 breaks all things down into things that begin to exist, and things that do not begin to exist. In order for the argument to not be question begging, the subset of things that do not begin to exist needs more elements other then "THE CAUSE". Otherwise your argument becomes:

1. Everything that begins to exist, except for THE CAUSE has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist (due to THE CAUSE)
3. Therefore the universe has THE CAUSE.

I can kick KCA around more if you want to in a different thread, I don't want to douchjack this thread.

No, that's not true. Say that the set of things that "begin to exist" is B, and everything else is in B'. Let Q(x) be the proposition "x has a cause".

According to your argument, if B' = {THE CAUSE}, then (1) becomes:

1. For all x in B, except for THE CAUSE, Q(x)

But this is not question begging; there is no exception being made for THE CAUSE, since THE CAUSE is not in B.

And how do you know that THE CAUSE doesn't begin to exist?

lol,
very good self refutation on the last line.
If THE CAUSE began to exist it would be x.
The argument is question begging because you are not trying to prove that the universe has A CAUSE, but that the universe has THE CAUSE.
You cannot use the thing you attempting to prove in your premise. You arrive at a self contained circular mambo jumbo.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -without a known cause-

No, Mystic, it isn't becoming potent again because it falls on it's face in entirely the same place for entirely the same reasons. It is perceived to be becoming potent again because people are selling it again, to folks like yourself.

Why does anything need to be eternal? Who needs this? What needs this?

As I said, if you believe existence can pop out of non-existence, then this argument fails. I said it makes use of the intuition, "from nothing, nothing follows".

Every argument for God makes some use of intuition related to God except for the teleological argument (which doesn't prove God, but just a Designer).

In this case, it's intuitive that God couldn't pop out of nothing to existence, but must be eternal. We know this about God, and the Kalam argument is making use of this intuition about God.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What you guys aren't realizing is that the premise that use to be disputed is "the universe began to exist". Atheists long before scientific evidence came up, would state the universe is eternal.

Now we have scientific evidence that the universe has a beginning. So this argument is becoming potent again. In fact, big bang theory didn't dismiss universe being eternal. However, right now, scientists are concluding that the universe must have had beginning or there wouldn't be planets, suns, etc.. it would be total darkness. That is if you say there is an infinite past.

Something needs to be eternal.

well, we technically don't have "evidence". (Hubble is doing cartwheels in his grave). We have a scientific theory that explains what we're observing around us. There are many unanswered questions about the big bang model. It is by far the most plausible explanation, but we don't have scientific evidence.

If anything needs to be eternal, you would have to give it the least amount of properties in form of assumptions. Quantum foam is likely the one thing that is eternal.

From nothing, nothing follows isn't actually intuition amigo. I'm sorry...did you just say that you knew something about god...you mean an actual god, like poof there you go from the storybooks.....somehow I doubt that.

There isn't scientific evidence that the last big bang was the beginning of the universe, but there is scientific evidence, that the universe must have had a beginning.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:25 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: There isn't scientific evidence that the last big bang was the beginning of the universe, but there is scientific evidence, that the universe must have had a beginning.

what? lol I'm having difficulty following you. Do you care to cite any scientific sources?

I'm also unclear as to what you mean by the universe having a beginning, especially if you're not referring to the "Big Bang"

(July 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm)ktulu Wrote: lol,
very good self refutation on the last line.
If THE CAUSE began to exist it would be x.
The argument is question begging because you are not trying to prove that the universe has A CAUSE, but that the universe has THE CAUSE.
You cannot use the thing you attempting to prove in your premise. You arrive at a self contained circular mambo jumbo.

But the argument doesn't assert that THE CAUSE doesn't have a cause.

Remember, it's:

(1) For all x in X, Q(x).
(2) y is in X.
(3) Therefore, Q(y).

Now, maybe the cause of y, let's call it c, is also in X. Then you'd have Q©. Where's the contradiction? It isn't circular reasoning; neither Q© nor ~Q© was assumed in (1) or (2); neither was Q(y).

Beings to exists. (a)
Has a Cause. (b)

A -> B
is the same as saying

Not B -> Not A

This is basic logic people.

So Not B (Doesn't have a cause) implies (Not A) doesn't have a beginning.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:32 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm)ktulu Wrote: lol,
very good self refutation on the last line.
If THE CAUSE began to exist it would be x.
The argument is question begging because you are not trying to prove that the universe has A CAUSE, but that the universe has THE CAUSE.
You cannot use the thing you attempting to prove in your premise. You arrive at a self contained circular mambo jumbo.

But the argument doesn't assert that THE CAUSE doesn't have a cause.

Remember, it's:

(1) For all x in X, Q(x).
(2) y is in X.
(3) Therefore, Q(y).

Now, maybe the cause of y, let's call it c, is also in X. Then you'd have Q©. Where's the contradiction? It isn't circular reasoning; neither Q© nor ~Q© was assumed in (1) or (2); neither was Q(y).

causation is a temporal phenomena. Time is a property of y, therefore Q(y) makes no sense. You are looking for a completely different animal.

Let's change back to English.

Back to my original observation.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
this obviously breaks things down into two categories. Things that begin to exist, and things that DO NOT begin to exist.

here's the argument
1. Everything that begins to exists, except for THIS ONE THING THAT DOES NOT begin to exist, has a cause
2. The universe begins to exist (since it is the container of all things, it was caused by THIS ONE THING THAT DOES NOT begin to exist)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause. (implication being that it is THIS ONE THING THAT DOES NOT begin to exist)

you really cannot see the question begging? you should see the logic gymnastics that Craig Lane performs on this point. Talk about things that make you go hmmmmmmmm....

---

(July 6, 2012 at 2:38 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Beings to exists. (a)
Has a Cause. (b)

A -> B
is the same as saying

Not B -> Not A

This is basic logic people.

So Not B (Doesn't have a cause) implies (Not A) doesn't have a beginning.

I'm not sure how this helps you in any way, but I'm sure you will impress me with a mindblowing punchline.