Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Angrboda]

You claim that under any theory of time there exists a set of causal relationships.  But then you go on to put forth descriptions and arguments which are necessarily tied to the A theory of time and so are not in fact applicable "under any theory of time."  Both you and Roady commit this same error.  Either way, you don't appear to have thought this through particularly well.  Perhaps there exists an argument to be made based upon the nature of causation but I'm inclined to believe that if there is, you do not possess it.

That's nit picking. Anyone can rewrite that with ambiguous B-theory-friendly terms. But at least you got a couple of Kudos from your fans. Glad I could help.

Prove it.

[Amarok]

That's nit picking. Anyone can rewrite that with ambiguous B-theory-friendly terms. But at least you got a couple of Kudos from your fans. Glad I could help.

False 

And jealous ?

[Ravenshire]

You claim that under any theory of time there exists a set of causal relationships.  But then you go on to put forth descriptions and arguments which are necessarily tied to the A theory of time and so are not in fact applicable "under any theory of time."  Both you and Roady commit this same error.  Either way, you don't appear to have thought this through particularly well.  Perhaps there exists an argument to be made based upon the nature of causation but I'm inclined to believe that if there is, you do not possess it.

That's nit picking. Anyone can rewrite that with ambiguous B-theory-friendly terms. But at least you got a couple of Kudos from your fans. Glad I could help.

---

@steve, no one is obligated to offer defeaters to your premises.  It’s on you to demonstrate they are true, or more likely to be true than not.

First, that smells a little defeatist to me. 

Second, while it seems to me the premises are self evidence, I did offered in the very first post on the KCA which premises you wanted me to defend. Only Vulcan took me up on it. So...there's that...

Since I have the site open...

You and Kalam had better hope this doesn't prove out. If it does, you're both royally fucked.

[Amarok]

That video was crap . Just more apologist flim flam .

[GrandizerII]

Since we're doing videos, how about this one video series that thoroughly debunks the KCA in all sorts of manners:






Or you know what? Let's remind Steve what William Lane Craig has to say about the KCA:

From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.

[Amarok]

Since we're doing videos, how about this one video series that thoroughly debunks the KCA in all sorts of manners:






Or you know what? Let's remind Steve what William Lane Craig has to say about the KCA:

From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.

And B theory has way more support then A among physicists

[Angrboda]

No, that's not actually true.  In addition, there are multiple PSRs depending upon specifically what one does or does not want to exempt from the rule.  But I'm used to your penchant for exaggeration by now, so I'll just let that slide.

What I do find troubling is that you are justifying "being comes only from being" via ex nihilo nihil fit, as that seems to be an axiom rather than a justified truth, so asserting its complement ("being only comes from being") appears to be nothing more than begging the question.  I'd like to see the statement justified, not simply assumed.  You implied that you could provide examples from "reality."  That at least would provide you with the basis of an inductive argument, but given your last reply, it doesn't seem that you are able to do that.  Is ex nihilo nihil fit an a priori truth?  I don't think it is.  Therefore I'd appeal to Hitchens' razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, Spinoza thought it was an axiom (Axiom 7). In fact, I read in some places he says it is a necessary truth. 

In a brief explanatory note to this axiom, Spinoza adds:

Since existing is something positive, we cannot say that it has nothing as its cause (by Axiom 7). Therefore, we must assign some positive cause, or reason, why [a thing] exists—either an external one, i.e., one outside the thing itself, or an internal one, one comprehended in the nature and definition of the existing thing itself. (Geb. I/158/4–9)[3]

Axiom 7, to which Spinoza appeals in the explanation, is a variant of the “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (“from nothing, nothing comes”) principle, and stipulates that an existing thing and its perfections (or qualities) cannot have nothing or a non-existing thing as their cause. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

In all of our observations, something has never come from nothing. Everything as always come from something. Is that enough evidence for the principle: being comes from being?

As far as a priori, perhaps. Robert Koons came up with something like this: 

Start with the observation that once we admit that some contingent states of affairs have no explanations, a completely new sceptical scenario becomes possible: No demon is deceiving you, but your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all, with no prior causes.

Moreover,objective probabilities are tied to laws of nature or objective tendencies, and so if an objective probability attaches to some contingent fact, then that situation can be given an explanation in terms of laws of nature or objective tendencies.  Hence, if the PSR is false of some contingent fact, no objective probability attaches to the fact. 

Thus we cannot even say that violations of the PSR are improbable if the PSR is false. Consequently, someone who does not affirm the PSR cannot say that the sceptical scenario is objectively improbable.  It may be taken to follow from this that if the PSR were false or maybe even not known a priori, we wouldn’t know any empirical truths.  But we do know empirical truths.  Hence,the PSR is true, and maybe even known a priori.

from Blackwells Companion to Natural Theology. I don't have the exact reference since I had this chapter in Evernote. I can get it upon request.

I'm going to be curt because I'm not feeling well, but you keep circling back to ex nihilo nihil fit, a principle that you cannot actually demonstrate. Regardless, quoting Spinoza doesn't actually answer my objection, nor does your inductive argument go far. If the universe came from nothing then every thing we observe came from nothing. You seem to be simply begging the question rather than actually justifying the principle. As regards Koons, if we are in fact brains in vats, and all our perceptions are fictions unrelated to what is in fact the case, then all his arguments follow in the same manner. In such a situation, it is impossible to know empirical truths. Since we would not know that we are brains in vats, our belief that we know empirical truths would in fact be false. I'm not overly impressed by the argument given that his conclusion follows from our knowing something which may in principle be unknowable.

[Amarok]

Brain in vat scenarios are worthless and self defeating . Steves simply begging the question .

[Jenny A]

I don't like the Wikipedia formulation. Here is the one I use:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

and what must that cause be like:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

This avoids a misunderstanding of the argument and also eliminates parody attempts like above. 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which number(s) do you think are false?

I'll start with the inconsistency in the use of the phrase, "begin to exist."
The argument can be reduced to this:

1 Everything that did A must have had B
2 C did A
3 Therefore C must have had B

In order for this argument to work, A must mean the same thing in both premise 1 and 2. You use the phrase "that begins to exist" for A in both lines. But, begin to exist does not mean the same thing in both lines.

Line one refers to the type of coming into existence that we observe around us. People are born, sedimentary rocks are formed, wood burns to ash, trees grow, houses are built, metal is cast, and so on. None of these things involve new matter/energy coming into existence. They all merely involve rearranging existing matter into new configurations. Matter might become energy or vice versa, but no new matter or energy is created out of nothing. This is the transformation of existing matter and energy only. It is not an ultimate coming into existence. And each of these transformations of existing matter and energy follow the laws of the universe. No new physical laws are created by these transformations. So while, beginning to exist might be a good loose way of describing these transformations, they don't involve new matter/energy comming into existence.

It's intuitively obvious to us from observation that every transformation of this kind has a, or more likely many, many causes.

But line two refers to the creation of all the matter and energy there is, plus all of the laws governing it. This is a completely different type of beginning to exist. You and I have never seen anything begin to exist in this way. Unlike "begin to exist" in line one which is really just a transformation, this really is beginning to exist. It is nothing like the beginning to exist of line one. It is the difference between carving a stake out of a stick and having a stick magically pop out of the air made out of entirely new matter. Even that doesn't cover it unless the stick comes with its own brand new set of physical laws.

Extrapolating from our knowledge about the transformation of existing matter and energy to the actual creation of matter and energy is a leap because we know nothing about the actual creation of matter and energy except that it all came from a single point in space.

I would reformulated lines one and two to better describe what is actually being described by, "beginning to exist."

1. Each transformation of one configureation of matter and/or energy into a different cofigurations matter or energy has a cause or causes.
2. The universe began with the creation of all matter and energy
3. Therefore the universe has a cause or causes

Number three no longer follows from numbers one and two.

Instead you have:

1. Everything that did A had a B
2. C did D
3. Therefore, C had B

It is a broken syllogism.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah guys how can you be so "blind"?