Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 11:43 am
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 11:58 am by robvalue.)
I agree. I see no way anyone can claim that. It's just slipped in, hoping to pass by "common sense".
Regarding your exception MK, it's just something you make up and you assume must exist. It is an exception simply because you define it that way. That's not the same as proving it's possible it can exist, let alone does exist.
Let me give you another example:
I define x as being the smallest real number.
If x < 1 then x*x < x so it's not the smallest number
If x > 1 then sqrt(x) < x so it's not the smallest number
Therefor x=1, the only remaining option. 1 is the smallest real number.
See the problem?
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 11:56 am
(July 23, 2015 at 10:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Why don't you guys meet up with an Atheist Logician or philosopher (professor) in university, and ask him if this is special pleading. I think you guys misunderstand special pleading. When you make an exception that is IRRELEVANT then it's special pleading. If you make an exception, and it has notable difference that shows the case doesn't apply, it's not considered special pleading.
The change to the first premise is specifically re-worded to get us to god (sometimes disingenuously referred to as a "first cause" or "uncaused cause"). With the "begins to" part, god is as easily dismissed as any other explanation. The change is made in order to provide an exception for god. Isn't that special pleading, by definition?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:02 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 12:04 pm by robvalue.)
It may as well say this:
Everything needs a cause, except God.
Therefor God caused everything else ultimately.
It's simultaneously special pleading and begging the question, just defining your answer to fit an otherwise impossible scenario you claim is the case.
The problem is, there is no paradox with an infinite past. Not one you've been able to explain to me in any way that makes sense anyhow.
But please do get another opinion. I don't have access to anyone particular. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Ask them about infinite past paradox and special pleading.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:04 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 12:05 pm by Mystic.)
(July 23, 2015 at 11:56 am)Tonus Wrote: The change is made in order to provide an exception for god. Isn't that special pleading, by definition?
It's not special pleading. Special pleading is when the rule applies to it, and you point to an irrelevant difference. If however, you show the rule/premise/case doesn't apply to it, it's not special pleading.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:05 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 12:18 pm by robvalue.)
No. It's not sound, it's absolute rubbish.
By all means, go contact a logician.
PS: you keep avoiding this question MK: how do you know it's possible that the thing you describe can actually exist?
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm
If we include sun, earth, etc, as part of the universe, we know that these things in the universe all began to exist. If similarly, the universe is in a state of constant change, none of it's states didn't begin to exist. All of it states began to exist, then how can than whole it said to not began to exist. And how can it be said "any" of it didn't begin to exist, when we clearly acknowledge the opposite. This shows things subject to change all began to exist.
The logical conclusion is a changeless existence started the changing existence. This is because we know things with change all began to exist. And we know things could not have began from nothing. Therefore this is a sound conclusion.
It needing will and magical power is obvious, just as it's obvious right now, a single atom or dollar or gum cannot be causing our spirits to exist or the universe to exist, the same is true of a immaterial lifeless being causing time and change and things subject to change to come into being.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:21 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 12:24 pm by robvalue.)
No. Energy/matter changes forms. The sun didn't pop out of nowhere. It formed out of other things, which already existed.
You can't just say "magic is required". That's a complete abandonment of any kind of logic. What does magic even mean?
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:23 pm
(July 23, 2015 at 12:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: No. Energy/matter changes forms.
The argument is about the universe though. The premise that the universe didn't begin to exist is shown to be wrong.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:25 pm
You said the sun began to exist. I was pointing out that was incorrect. You then tried to apply this to the universe itself, which is a fallacy, based on an incorrect premise that I just highlighted. This is all flawed.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
July 23, 2015 at 12:27 pm
(July 23, 2015 at 12:25 pm)robvalue Wrote: You said the sun began to exist. I was pointing out that was incorrect. You then tried to apply this to the universe itself, which is a fallacy, based on an incorrect premise that I just highlighted. This is all flawed.
Sun began to exist. This is true. Are you saying the Sun always existed? Can you point to me what state of the universe always existed? All it's states have been in motion, changing, so they all began to exist. None of them always existed.
|
