(April 28, 2016 at 5:36 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(April 28, 2016 at 4:52 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
As i pointed out quite a bit earlier in this thread, since you only believe one thing did not begin to exist, your argument is guilty of the fallacy affirming the consequent.
Unless you believe there was more then one thing that did not begin to exist.
The KCA is in the same form as the classic syllogism:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
Affirming the consequent would read...
All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man
If Socrates is the name of my dog, then this is clearly incorrect even though both premises are true.
Where do you think, that this is being done in the discussion of the KCA? I think that you are merging separate arguments, to get to affirming the consequent; which, I may understand the confusion, but I don't think your getting this from the conclusion of the argument.
The first two premises of the KCA are suspect ("that everything that begins to exist has a cause" and that the "universe began to exist"). Another great lecture by Professor Sean Carroll discusses this point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI
