You left out, "Nothing is better than a ham sandwich."

(September 14, 2014 at 5:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Given: being changes.
The only thing into which being can change is non-being.
Non-being does not exist.
Therefore: being does not change.

What I see in this is a compelling deduction of a single and immutable ground of being.

Something I'm wondering about that one, "non-being" as a state or as a concept does not exist? I think the wording is too loose to trust the conclusion. Obviously non-being exists in some form....or the argument is incoherent. What doesn't exist, again? Maybe something is lost in the mechanics of translation to english?

(September 14, 2014 at 7:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 5:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Given: being changes.
The only thing into which being can change is non-being.
Non-being does not exist.
Therefore: being does not change.

What I see in this is a compelling deduction of a single and immutable ground of being.

Something I'm wondering about that one, "non-being" as a state or as a concept does not exist? I think the wording is too loose to trust the conclusion. Obviously non-being exists in some form....or the argument is incoherent. What doesn't exist, again? Maybe something is lost in the mechanics of translation to english?

As he said, it seems to be sound "only if applied to the totality of existence."

I'm still not sure why it seems to be sound when applied to anything, let alone the totality of existence (or any specific area). Mechanical issues with the statements. Are we aiming more for a "non-existence doesn't exist" sort of thing or a "that which is non-existent does not exist"?

(September 15, 2014 at 3:23 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm still not sure why it seems to be sound when applied to anything, let alone the totality of existence (or any specific area). Mechanical issues with the statements. Are we aiming more for a "non-existence doesn't exist" sort of thing or a "that which is non-existent does not exist"?

I take it to mean that non-existence as a stand-alone concept does not change; change requires a "something" to act upon; a "something" for which change can be said to apply.

(September 2, 2014 at 9:52 am)Michael Wrote: Yes, I think it's always important to remember these arguments don't provide certainties. They simply proceed from 'reasonable' (but uncertain) premises to conclusions. I don't know anyone personally who has come to faith through philosophical arguments. I'm sure there are some somewhere, but I think it's pretty rare. I see these arguments more as showing that belief in God (or, in this case, an uncaused cause, or an unmoved mover) is not unreasonable. So stating that the universe had a beginning is a reasonable premise; it is in line with what data we do have and some philosophers also highlight problems with infinite regresses. But it's not certain, no.

No, for the most part, people come to faith by childhood indoctrination.

How could non-existence be a standalone concept in the first place? It's the negation of another concept, necessarily referential. Non existence or things that are non-existent do not change, I can follow with that, but what does that have to do with the argument or the conclusion? Under that understanding we're just accepting that existence and non-existence are different, one changes and the other does not. That what exists is different from what does not - but did we need an argument for that (and clearly that argument isn't looking to establish that at all - it's harpoon is pointed at a different whale)?

Or, to put it another way, if we modify the argument along the lines you've suggested we aren't even discussing the same argument anymore. In trying to resolve the mechanical issues with word usage we've left the field and decided to skirmish on another.

Given: being changes.
The only thing into which being can change is non-being.
Non-being does not change
Therefore:

Therefore what?
(see any new issues we may have just created for this series of statements? Still haven't sunk my teeth into the line directly above the newly modified bolded bit, but I'm guessing that's next judging by what we might be able to plug into the "therefore", lol)

Therefore:
Being A always exists prior (or has the potential to change into) to Being B or Non-Being but the same cannot be said for Non-Being?

In other words, Being A always exists as an antecedent, while Non-Being never does?

(To practically restate Rhythm's aforementioned tautology).

(September 15, 2014 at 3:22 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Therefore:
Being A always exists prior (or has the potential to change into) to Being B or Non-Being but the same cannot be said for Non-Being?

In other words, Being A always exists as an antecedent, while Non-Being never does?

(To practically restate Rhythm's aforementioned tautology).

The starting point for the argument is within a reality that already has being. The idea that it could change into non-being would also include never having been in the first place. If the situations were indeed the reverse, that non-being was logically prior to being, then there would not be anything capable of change in the first place.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 3:16 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: An eternal being fits the criteria of an 'uncaused first cause' and does have explanatory power.

It doesn't explain how he did it - therefore, no explanatory power.

'How' is irrelevant to the argument. Seeking to answer the question of what X caused Y is different than seeking to answer how X caused Y. These two questions can be answered independently of one another. The cosmological argument does not address the 'how', nor does it need to.


My proposition: If something exists it either began or always has existed.

Your propositions:
1. If something exists is was caused by a material cause, or
(it began)
2. If something exists it came into existence without a cause, or
(it began)
3. If something exists it has always existed, or
(it always existed)
4. If something exists the spatio-temporal concept of beginning doesn't apply to it.
(Given the universe includes time, space, and matter, the spatio-temporal concept of beginning does apply to it. It [the concept] would not apply before the universe.)

No false dichotomy.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm)genkaus Wrote: And if you argue that it began to exist without a material cause, you must prove it as well.

It is 'proven' in the assertion that 'the universe began to exist with a material cause' leads to an infinite regress. If material caused the universe into existence, then what caused that material? If it was caused then it is not an uncaused first cause, and you're on your way to the infinite regress. If nothing caused it, then the material must be eternal. If material caused the universe into existence, the only logical conclusion is that the material is eternal.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm)genkaus Wrote: Hang on - why would you assume that the causality principle is applicable to the beginning of the universe?

If you accept the premises: Everything that has a beginning has a cause and the universe has a beginning, then the causality principle would be applicable. To show the causality principle not applicable you would need to show either of these premises untrue.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm)genkaus Wrote: But, being extremely generous and granting your baseless assertions - all we can say about the cause of the universe is that it is the material which transformed into the universe.

If what caused the universe is material which transformed into the universe, then what caused the material which was transformed into the universe? It's an infinite regress. You're back to choosing either an uncaused first cause, or eternal material.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm)genkaus Wrote: You can't call it the "first cause" without proving that that is where the causality principle stops. And you certainly cannot assert any intelligence there.

If there is a first cause, then by definition this is where the causality principle stops.

Hello by the way.