I was interviewed by a world religions class student

[RoadRunner79]

---

Well... first, I don't think that a newspaper report has causal sufficiency to crash a ship (at least not directly, perhaps as a secondary cause through misinformation).

---

It doesn't matter what you think, impeach the validity of the form or the sound nature of the propositions.  

I call shenanigans as your initial claim was about what seems to be an effect.  I could equally claim that what seems to you doesn't matter as well in response to your query first.  This is nothing more than sophistry of my choice of the word "think".  I am actually fairly confident that a newspaper report is insufficient as a cause (at least directly) for the crashing of a ship. 

---

Secondly, I was say that your transposition is a demonstration of the principle of causality in making an inference, not a causal force.  Lastly, a lack of a report in the newspaper does not necessarily mean that a ship has not crashed.

---

It's a demonstration of our logic's difficulties in handling causal inference.  Your first cause argument is a claim regarding causal inference.  I just wanted you to see one of the most extreme examples of how that system buckles under those types of propositions.  I offered you an example of how following the rules -to the letter- can lead us to a conclusion which the mind immediately reels against.  If you feel that your first cause argument is a compelling reason to believe in god, or that the argument in and of itself is compelling as to some first cause, you should believe that this ship in the night argument is a good reason to believe in symmetric time and cause.  

I think you are misunderstanding modus tollens, in implying that it changes the causality direction.  It presupposes the law of causality to make an inference which is then valid.  It doesn't say that the newspaper report tomorrow effects a ship crashing today, but that we may make an inference based on the effect (or lack thereof) to make and inductive conclusion to the cause.  Also, as stated before,  when involving a personal agent or cause, they can choose not to produce the effect in accordance with the cause.  So it does call into question the necessity of the effect to the cause.  Or it is possible to have the cause but not the effect.

I don't, personally, believe that the papers report causes the shipwreck myself - no more than you do....but the rules of our system tell us that it does.  One mans MT is another mans MP, or not...lol...but that would be troubling, since that would mean we have the rules wrong......  If, however, we have those rules wrong, what reason do you have to believe in the truth of -any- logical statement, including Kalam?

I don't think that the issue is with the rules, but your understanding of them.... In my understanding, I do not have to say that the rules of logic are wrong.  You are the one who appears to be making that case, and I believe it is a misunderstanding of the rules, rather than an issue with the rules of logic themselves. 

So, as of yet, I don't think I'm ready to rid myself of asymmetric time and cause.

Then a valid argument with sound propositions is not enough to compel you, and thusly I seriously doubt that you have been compelled by Kalam.  It seems more likely to me, given your refusal to accept what is valid and sound as true, that the first cause argument is just a front for your beliefs, which are in no way affected by that argument.

I have given reasons why I do not accept that a newspaper report is the cause of a ship crashing previously.  Further I questioned the sufficiency of a report being capable of causing the crash directly.  I also believe that this is largely the result of  a misunderstanding of the "rules" by yourself.  I don't think that you have made a good case for this being "valid or true".  And it would seem that your whole argument here, is against something which you admittedly do not believe yourself.  Are you making a case against logic and reason?