Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 3:13 pm
(July 23, 2015 at 2:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If we had a painting. The whole painting was blue, and every dot of it was blue, would you say it's logical to say "yes we know every part of it is blue, and the whole of it is blue...but then it can possibly be other then blue in color."
The same logic applies if every state of the universe began to exist, and all the states of it together began to exist, it's not really logical to say "well how do you know that it didn't always exist?".
That's a fallacy of composition: the temporal framework you're seeking to apply is a condition that is only necessarily true within the universe, you can't extrapolate outward so that it's true outside of the universe. In fact, given the connection of space and time, what we know about the origins of our current expansionary universe denotes a highly different configuration of space, and thus the same is true for time. The odds are actually against the fallacy you're making anyway, even if we just ignore the flaw in the logic and treat it as a serious contention.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 7:29 pm
(July 23, 2015 at 3:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote: That's a fallacy of composition: the temporal framework you're seeking to apply is a condition that is only necessarily true within the universe, you can't extrapolate outward so that it's true outside of the universe. In fact, given the connection of space and time, what we know about the origins of our current expansionary universe denotes a highly different configuration of space, and thus the same is true for time. The odds are actually against the fallacy you're making anyway, even if we just ignore the flaw in the logic and treat it as a serious contention. It works to everything that is in state of change from one state to another.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 8:57 pm
(July 23, 2015 at 7:29 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It works to everything that is in state of change from one state to another.
... Within the universe. How can you possibly determine how it works in other states of existence, like that of the pre-big bang universe? Actual scientists throw their hands up at answering that question within the framework of our current capabilities, they say we'll require a whole new set of physics, an entire new lexicon, before we can even begin discussing it, and yet you're going to tell me that you just know?
When I tell you that beyond certain boundaries we're discussing things so far outside of our frame of reference that even the language we use to talk about it is unsuitable, tainted as it is by the assumptions and processes of the temporal reality that formed it, I'm not joking. Quit trying to force your intuitive sense that everything works like the world you've been exposed to does into the conversation; it's simply not applicable.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 3634
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 9:05 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 9:06 pm by Simon Moon.)
(July 23, 2015 at 5:37 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The premise is not everything needs a cause. The premise is everything that begins to exist needs a cause.
It's not only proven to be a valid argument, but a sound argument.
Not in the least is it valid or sound.
Your first premise affirms the consequent.
Which I'm sure, you know is a fallacy.
Modus ponens fails. This version of the first cause argument fails.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 24, 2015 at 10:44 am
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2015 at 10:45 am by Alex K.)
(July 23, 2015 at 1:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (July 23, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Alex K Wrote: Again - states of the universe... what do you mean??? Take your best guess to what I mean, and if it's not correct, I
Wow, you outright refuse to define your terms. That's lame. Are you trying to waste our time with meaningless waffling?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 24, 2015 at 1:07 pm
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2015 at 1:08 pm by robvalue.)
(July 23, 2015 at 12:50 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'll leave you with these two final questions MK before I give up.
1- How do you know what happened before the Plank time when all of science has failed?
2- How do you know it is possible that this God you define can actually exist? These haven't been addressed. I'd be interested to see how anyone who thinks first cause style arguments are valid can deal with these.
Posts: 4659
Threads: 123
Joined: June 27, 2014
Reputation:
40
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 24, 2015 at 4:59 pm
No one knows, because there is no valid answer 
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 25, 2015 at 1:02 pm
Unknowns do not mean anything goes. Science, even at the QM level is not out to justify shit people utter outside a lab.
It still remains to confirm any claim it has to be testable and falsifiable with control groups and peer reviewed.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 25, 2015 at 1:05 pm
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2015 at 1:06 pm by robvalue.)
The thing is, the definitions of "God" are so ridiculously vague that whatever is finally discovered to be the other side of the plank time will be pointed to feverishly:
"That! I meant that! Where is its butthole so I can polish it?"
Posts: 4659
Threads: 123
Joined: June 27, 2014
Reputation:
40
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 25, 2015 at 8:30 pm
Indeed, if you consider god to be nature, you can find him when you look at a tree, or a mountain. God is one of those words that means a lot of things, though normally it's a supernatural being with powers.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
|
