RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 19, 2018 at 11:39 am
(March 18, 2018 at 11:39 am)Jenny A Wrote:(March 18, 2018 at 9:03 am)SteveII Wrote: That was a long reply that you answered with 3 sentences. You have simply restated the question the KCA is asking. Which premise are you objecting to?
I am objecting to the fact that the phrase "begin to exist" is used to describe one kind of change in premise one and another in premise two. Premise one concerns change within the universe. That kind of change involves only the change in form of pre-existing matter and energy. Premise two refers to the creation of matter and energy. We know that changes in the form of matter and energy within the universe requires causes. We do not know if the creation of matter does.
Regarding, "begins to exist", that can be dealt with in two ways.
1) is to provide a univocal meaning of the phrase in both premises. So, let's go with comes into being.
2) is to provide a more detailed meaning that would apply to both premises: x begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t' prior to t at which x exists.
either one eliminates your objection.
Quote:Similarly, while we can postulate about cause and effect within the universe, we cannot postulate from knowledge about the rules of cause and effect (If any) outside the universe. Premises based on cause and effect within the universe cannot be used to describe event outside the universe, as we have no way of knowing if they are true outside of the universe.
We are not talking about cause and effect in the sense of governing laws. We are talking about a principle or concept that there is an order to all reality. There is no reason at all to think that absent our particular universe there can be a reality that has no structure. Is it even logically possible?-- I'm not sure it is. But since the KCA is an inductive (a probabilistic) argument, the premises only have to be more likely than not for the argument to be successful. You have literally nothing to undercut all of the reasoning on a causal principle other than "well...maybe".
