Self-evident truth is a thing

[downbeatplumb]

You're asking how I can say it's possible? Because any other alternative is impossible.

This is like someone thinking the chances of winning the lottery are 50/50 either he wins or he doesn't.

This discounts all the other possible outcomes.

[Simon Moon]

So a while back, I started a thread defending the Kalam argument. Eventually I got pretty busy and ended up letting the thread expire, but it ended up being mostly about the difference between making a bare assertion and stating a self-evident truth.
The Kalam does presuppose a couple things. It presupposes that nothing can never equal something (which is why everything that has a beginning has a cause) and that anything that moves has a starting point and an ending point (why everything in the universe must have a beginning).
These are not scientific laws, brought about by testing things time and time again and getting a consistent answer. These are mathematical and logical laws, laws that we know because it would be completely impossible for them to be any other way, and the kind of truths that the scientific method itself is based on. If nothing can equal something, then what's the point of looking for a cause for natural phenomena? They could just happen randomly for no reason. Or if motion does not require a starting and ending point, then why would anyone want to know how the history of anything, or how something was before it changed in some way? The fact is that these questions only make any sense because of self-evident truth, which is what a lot of arguments, including the Kalam, are based on.
Can we not agree on this?

The Kalam CA fails for quite a few other reasons than the presuppositions that you state.

The modus ponens of the argument is flawed. It contains several fallacies that invalidate it, before the premises are even taken into consideration.

In particular, Kalam contains the fallacies of: equivocation, affirming the consequent, composition.

[Angrboda]

This is from a previous incarnation of the argument. I'm repeating it because I think it is relevant to a question about affirming the consequent which Cato asked me earlier.

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I've done my research on this, and as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, as far as I have seen, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why.
Avodaiah

Then you haven't done enough research.

The argument contains at least 3 fallacies.

1. The fallacy of equivocation.

---

The argument equivocates on the meaning of 'begins to exist'.

In the first premise, 'begins to exist' is being used to mean, existence out of nothing.

This is existence ex nihilo'.

In the second premise, 'begins to exist' is being used to mean that things we observe in the universe that begin to exist are a rearrangement of existing matter and energy. Trees, tables, animals, iPhones begin to exist by rearranging existing matter and energy.

In other words, existence 'ex materia'.

The argument is using 2 different meanings for the same term.

---

2. Fallacy of composition.

---

Just because something is true of part of a system or part of a whole, does not mean it is true for the entire system.

The argument claims that, because cause and effect are true for all the things we observe withing the universe, they also must be true for the entire universe. This is false.

Example: Because large objects are made of atoms, large objects have the properties of atoms.

I'm sure you can see why the previous example is flawed, for the same reason the Cosmological argument is flawed.

---

3. Circularity.

(This failure could also be considered, 'affirming the consequent', because it smuggles the conclusion into the premises.)

Dan Barker states it well,

"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.”

---

It also contains the fallacy of special pleading. But that one is too obvious to mention.


So, no, the argument is logically invalid. The modus ponens of your argument fails on multiple levels.

---

(emphasis added, in purple)

I think Simon may be mistaken about the affirming the consequent charge, but maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

Let me redraw the original argument in more formal terms:

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

If we restate this formally, we have:

A1. The set of all things has property BE {began to exist...}
A2. For all y, if y has property BE, then y also has property HC {has cause...}
A3-Conclusion. The set of all things has property HC

Additionally, though not stated, I think the following may be being implied:

B1. God does not have property BE
B2-Conclusion. For y=God, y does not have property BE, therefore y=God does not have property HC {by A2}

The form here, if true, is similar to affirming the consequent, but crucially different. Affirming the consequent says, given, "If P, then Q", Q, therefore P. However if one is deriving B2 from A2, for B2 to follow from A2, given "If P, then Q", then "not-P, therefore not-Q" would have to follow. However, "not P, therefore not Q" doesn't follow from "If P, then Q". I don't know if there's a specific name for this fallacy, but if this is what Simon Moon was drawing attention to with his remark about affirming the consequent, the error is structurally similar but not an example of affirming the consequent (AFAIK).

Additionally, there are multiple flaws with the premises as cast in my terms, but I'll leave that to another post. I'll simply point out that defining God as not beginning to exist does not, in itself, guarantee that God himself is not caused. {This is where the stronger versions of the PSR, assumed at the beginning of Kalam, become problematic. If the PSR is restated as "everything that exists requires an explanation for its existence" then God himself gets caught in Kalam's snare.}

[MindForgedManacle]

Yeah, I don't believe Kalam has any formal logical fallacies. It might possibly equivocate on "begins to exist", but it definitely doesn't affirm the consequent. As Rasetsu says, all it really says is:

All members of Set X possess Y;
A is a member of Sex X;
Therefore A posseses Y.

Structurally, it's [Kalam] no different than:

All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man;
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

[Avodaiah]

Whats up all, Sorry I haven't replied lately, but I want to say something more before this thread officially dies. Anyway...

I don't think the cosmos gives a fig what our human logic finds necessary.

In order for something to be self evident, it needs to be evident, which means you need evidence that demonstrates it to be true.

Outside of our limited world, however, logic breaks down.

Are you guys honestly saying that logic itself is not true outside of what we can see and detect? The whole point of logic is that it works EVERYwhere and ALLways. We have a concept called motion, which is a transition from a starting point to an ending point. No matter where or when you are, if something doesn't have a starting or ending point, it's not motion. EVER. There is motion, therefore there is a starting point. Self-evident truth. True everywhere.
We have a concept called nothing. Anything you can imagine, and anything you can't imagine, is not it. No matter where you are or how much time elapses. nothing will NEVER equal anything, because nothing is not something. Nothing is nothing. Self-evident truth. True everywhere.
MindForgedManacle's response was refreshingly different:

The Kalam presupposes (among other things):

1) The A-theory of time
2) That there cannot be actual infinities
3) Something cannot come from nothing

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1 and 3 seem like 2 aspects of the same thing. If the A-theory of time is correct, things stop existing in one state and start existing in the next one as time elapses, and nothing cannot become something, as I've explained above. Of course, I could be misunderstanding the A and B theories. Can you please elaborate?
And when I hear "Actual Infinities", I think "Hilbert's Hotel". Any thoughts?

[Losty]

Why do you feel like misspelling the word always with some capslock furthers or emphasizes your point? That really bothers me. I couldn't even read the rest of your post because I'm so traumatized that someone would intentionally misspell a word and think that helps their point. *weeping*

[Lemonvariable72]

Why do you feel like misspelling the word always with some capslock furthers or emphasizes your point? That really bothers me. I couldn't even read the rest of your post because I'm so traumatized that someone would intentionally misspell a word and think that helps their point. *weeping*

Fuck dear you can get my posts. You will be fine aviodiah.

[Avodaiah]

Why do you feel like misspelling the word always with some capslock furthers or emphasizes your point? That really bothers me. I couldn't even read the rest of your post because I'm so traumatized that someone would intentionally misspell a word and think that helps their point. *weeping*

You can read the rest. I only did it the one time, I promise.

[Losty]

Ok, so I'm not super sciency. One day I will be better at science. That's my goal anyways. Well I'm getting off track now. Anyways, I have some questions. Nothing, is just a concept right? Nothing isn't really real though, I mean it can't exist or else it wouldn't be nothing, right?
I don't really know how you can prove that something in motion must have stop point, but I'll take your word for it. So the point you're making is that the universe has a starting point, and something caused it? If so, I think I agree with you.

[Esquilax]

Are you guys honestly saying that logic itself is not true outside of what we can see and detect? The whole point of logic is that it works EVERYwhere and ALLways.

Yes, and logic is only as good as the premises you feed into it, and those premises need to be demonstrated to be true before logic can lead them anywhere that's also true. Like, for example:

We have a concept called motion, which is a transition from a starting point to an ending point. No matter where or when you are, if something doesn't have a starting or ending point, it's not motion. EVER. There is motion, therefore there is a starting point. Self-evident truth. True everywhere.

You say this, apparently skipping over that we know how motion works, that we have evidence of motion working in accordance with the laws of physics, that we can make predictions based on our knowledge of motion, that we can observe motion and cause motion and alter motion. It's not self evident just 'cuz, it's self evident because it's a self demonstrating phenomenon. It does have evidence for its existence.

Additionally, you don't know that what you've said is true everywhere, you're just making an inductive statement based on what you perceive to be true because of your observations of our physical world. It's the same kind of limited, blanket generalization you've been warned off of making before.

We have a concept called nothing. Anything you can imagine, and anything you can't imagine, is not it. No matter where you are or how much time elapses. nothing will NEVER equal anything, because nothing is not something. Nothing is nothing. Self-evident truth. True everywhere.

We've also never had a nothing to examine, so you can't make any statements about its properties, or even if it's a logically coherent concept. And yet you're still sitting there telling us how self evident it is that nothing has this property, when you don't even know if nothing is possible; what is nothing? How do you know there ever was any? Can you explain to me whether what I just asked even makes sense? Doesn't it seem contradictory, expecting there to be a time where nothing existed?

See, that's the problem you're having here; you keep making leaps to what you want to be true, based on little to no actual information, and then attempting to make those statements invulnerable to criticism by calling them self evident; sorry, I don't play that game. The properties of a self evident thing are emblazoned right there in the name, they're self evidencing, and when you make statements about nothing while not ever giving us a nothing to examine, then the last part of the appellation has suddenly dropped right out, and the first part might not even be applicable.

Because how can any property of nothing be self evident if nothing can't even have a self to be evident on account of how it isn't anything even if you could produce some of it and now I've gone cross-eyed...

I'm sure you get my point, though.