Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[LadyForCamus]

Until I looked it up, I assumed the KCA was deductive (as most cosmological arguments are), but you are right. It's inductive. It wouldn't have killed WLC to use the word probably or likely. It's worded like deductive logic, so please forgive my error. It doesn't really matter though. My problem isn't with the conclusion.

Let's look at the part of the argument that deals with contingency first. I'll quote your post below, with my commentary in bold.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is true of things within the universe, yes.

Yes but why would you exclude things outside of our universe?

Because not doing so would be a composition fallacy, lol. What a silly question.

 The Principle of Sufficient Reason or even just any basic causal principle justifies thinking that causation is a feature of any possible reality. What argument do you think would be successful in undercutting this premise to a point to think it is probably not true (since this is an inductive argument).

No. You don’t get to ‘logic’ into existence the scientific underpinnings of reality.  This argument fails at premise 1.  Full Stop.  You have no way of demonstrating that it is more likely true than not true.  

2. The universe began to exist. This is fine, though it isn't necessarily true.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This does not follow because premise 1 is not necessarily true of the entire universe--composition fallacy.

It does follow unless you can show that (1) is unlikely true. Can you?

He doesn’t have to.  You need to demonstrate that it is more likely true than not true, and with some actual evidence.  Philosophy alone isn’t going to cut it. 

I omitted the contingency part of the argument because in my first response because it has little to with the point I was trying to make--that the cosmological argument is god of the gaps argument. This part of the argument has no god of gaps reasoning, yet it is still problematic because of the composition fallacy. As a youtube video I once saw put it, the composition fallacy works in some cases but not all. If the individual bricks in a wall are red, it follows that the wall itself would be red. True enough. But what if the individual bricks are small? Would it follow that the wall that the wall itself would be small? Not necessarily. You could have a large wall made up of small bricks. https://youtu.be/ppBxkTTGoRQ

Bertrand Russell accused the cosmological argument of the composition fallacy:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmo...-argument/

(1) The premise does not limit itself to the universe or reason from experiences within the universe. You are imposing a limit, not me. The argument claims that it is a general principle, a feature of existence, an obvious metaphysical truth.

It’s true because it’s obvious?  That’s a pretty tight circle, right there.

Steve, the problem (as I see it) with your reasoning throughout this thread, and your debate style in general, is this:

You flip your position on what is knowable beyond our universe depending on which argument is being discussed.  So, when atheists appeal to facts about our observable universe to explain how your god (as he’s often described) can’t logically or scientifically exist, it’s a category error.  He’s supernatural.  We’re making a mistake in our reasoning when we try to apply truths about our known reality to god, and the unknowable state he exists in.

But then out the other side of your mouth, whenever premise 1. of the KCA comes up, atheists are ‘placing unnecessary restrictions’ on what we can know about reality beyond our universe.  All of a sudden you can make predictions, have certain knowledge of “obvious truths”, and reason your way across an obvious category distinction.  We don’t have to provide a defeator for premise 1. because you already did.  It’s a category error. Those are your words.  

So, which is it?

[SteveII]

Sorry, it's not. Both of those things are ideas. Ideas are not material they are abstract.  Reliance on the material for conveyance does not make them material. 

But that's the point, can you show they are anything but material ?  They don't only rely on material for their communication, but also for their very creation, communication, and understanding.

Do they exist or are created outside of a material brain? if so can you demonstrate this ?
Can you give an single example of abstract thought without a brain ?  Can you show they are anything more than material brain pulses. ?

Here is a good debate on the subject for those interested
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que...bout-ideas

Idea's like poetry and music are simply information created materially and passed materially from one place (or person) to another.

Your last sentence is the proof.

A novel or a symphony is something newly created that is not the same as the material object that might contain them. It did not exist before, it is not a reformulation of matter. It is new information. There is no way around this, you have a newly created immaterial object. Insisting that it is material because it relies on material things to exist is just pointing out a feature of our universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so.  

Granted granted granted granted granted......now what.  Cmon, let's get to the god part already, lol? You've been arguing this stuff for pages and we haven't seen the first bit about that, and this is supposed to be a good argument for a god? I kindof thought that a good argument for a god might at least mention a god, eventually.

[SteveII]

First, you can break any causal concept into four parts: material, formal, efficient, and final. 


Since the argument is talking about 'cause' in a broader sense, the argument uses the concept of agent or efficient cause. Your whole objection deals with a material cause which when talking about things outside of our universe, is an inadequate concept. If it helps, you can just insert the word 'efficient' in front of cause in both (1) and (3)


As I explained above, you are zeroing in on one aspect of causation that is obviously too restrictive when talking about thing that may have happened prior to the first moments of the universe. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.

BTW, this is spelled out in the extensive writings on the KCA.

No, that changes in the form of matter and energy have causes is appaerent.  That matter or energy coming into existence must have a cause is not.  Give me just one example of anything causing matter or energy to be created out of anything but existing matter and energy.

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?

---

What was the material cause of Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony? These things began to exist (along with like 4 trillion other examples I could give).

You're talking about the sound waves and words on paper, or the abstract parts? Be clear on what you're referring to here when you say "Anna Karenina" or "Fifth Symphony".

There are other problems with you list, but let's start there.

I'm sure there are problems with the argument; this is because we're going along with outdated notions of causality/movement. As such, your "efficient cause" argument is problematic in various ways as well.

---

So this is even more interesting. There is no material cause to a novel or symphony (only an efficient cause). Both are abstract objects. Yet they can be a cause of their own once read or heard. You can be compelled to act by a novel or emotionally moved by a symphony. In the same way, ideas (conveyed through language) are not material and yet can have so much causal power. So not only is it possible that the immaterial is the efficient cause on the material (us), but it happens constantly.

But concrete/material objects do require material causes (according to human intuition, at least). If the universe is considered to be material and concrete, then Aristotelian-based logic necessitates that it has always been because it couldn't have had a material cause external to it.

If, however, the universe is an abstract collective of material things, then it seems like it doesn't need a material cause after all. It just is, and always has been (in one form or another).

EDIT: One could also argue abstract objects that begin to exist have their "material cause" in the mind itself. Or that abstract objects emerge from the material objects that they are linked to.

No, one can't argue that. The novel or symphony is not made out of the same material as the brain or paper. They have not material cause. Only efficient causes. You are not arguing with me on some sort of interpretation. You are arguing with established definitions. 

Requiring material objects to exist is just a feature of our universe.

---

Look at the quote I used above in response to Astreja . Especially the last paragraph where it pulls it all together.

Oh look it happened exactly as expected ...

Oh look, another nebulous term that is not properly defined.

I bet the answer will be logic.

That's all you have Stevell. Bullshit abstract terms that allow you to equivocate and conflate.

Anybody can argue for anything they want using such terms. For example, that Ford C-Max cars are telepathic, the existence of pixies, for the existence of another religion's god. And if religionists had any solid evidence at all then they wouldn't bother with such  nonsense, they'd say, look, this is my god here.

I know philosophy is hard. But you should really learn some if you want to discuss things past a middle-school level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

[GrandizerII]

You're talking about the sound waves and words on paper, or the abstract parts? Be clear on what you're referring to here when you say "Anna Karenina" or "Fifth Symphony".



I'm sure there are problems with the argument; this is because we're going along with outdated notions of causality/movement. As such, your "efficient cause" argument is problematic in various ways as well.

---

But concrete/material objects do require material causes (according to human intuition, at least). If the universe is considered to be material and concrete, then Aristotelian-based logic necessitates that it has always been because it couldn't have had a material cause external to it.

If, however, the universe is an abstract collective of material things, then it seems like it doesn't need a material cause after all. It just is, and always has been (in one form or another).

EDIT: One could also argue abstract objects that begin to exist have their "material cause" in the mind itself. Or that abstract objects emerge from the material objects that they are linked to.

No, one can't argue that. The novel or symphony is not made out of the same material as the brain or paper. They have not material cause. Only efficient causes. You are not arguing with me on some sort of interpretation. You are arguing with established definitions. 

Requiring material objects to exist is just a feature of our universe.

Abstract objects are mental/mind-based, so one could argue that they have a material cause in the "mind material". But it doesn't matter either way, because material objects that begin to exist must require material causes (per the outdated Aristotelian logic). And even Aristotle himself argued that the universe/world must be eternal. In fact, the argument I presented earlier is virtually the same as the argument presented by Aristotle.

[Jenny A]

No, that changes in the form of matter and energy have causes is appaerent.  That matter or energy coming into existence must have a cause is not.  Give me just one example of anything causing matter or energy to be created out of anything but existing matter and energy.

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.

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.

[possibletarian]

But that's the point, can you show they are anything but material ?  They don't only rely on material for their communication, but also for their very creation, communication, and understanding.

Do they exist or are created outside of a material brain? if so can you demonstrate this ?
Can you give an single example of abstract thought without a brain ?  Can you show they are anything more than material brain pulses. ?

Here is a good debate on the subject for those interested
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que...bout-ideas

Idea's like poetry and music are simply information created materially and passed materially from one place (or person) to another.

Your last sentence is the proof.

A novel or a symphony is something newly created that is not the same as the material object that might contain them. It did not exist before, it is not a reformulation of matter. It is new information. There is no way around this, you have a newly created immaterial object. Insisting that it is material because it relies on material things to exist is just pointing out a feature of our universe.

Goodness no one is saying that the symphony is made of the same material as the object that might create them, just like no one is saying that a symphony is brain matter re-arranged. If I create a Mandelbrot on my computer and print it out or look at it on the screen would you claim I was inferring that the computer had re-arranged it's matter ?

but a symphony just like the Mandelbrot is entirely created in, stored and distributed by the material world, if not, when does it leave those confines ? Music is simply a re-arrangement of notes, just because it's the first time we have heard it in that arrangement does not mean we have not heard its constituent parts before, in fact it's probably vital for our enjoyment of it.

Our universe and everything in it is material (so far as we know) to say it's a feature really is redundant.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Idea's like poetry and music are simply information created materially and passed materially from one place (or person) to another.

Your last sentence is the proof.

A novel or a symphony is something newly created that is not the same as the material object that might contain them. It did not exist before, it is not a reformulation of matter. It is new information. There is no way around this, you have a newly created immaterial object. Insisting that it is material because it relies on material things to exist is just pointing out a feature of our universe.

So fucking what? It still requires material and energy, i.e. physical stuff, in order to persist.

---

Granted granted granted granted granted......now what.  Cmon, let's get to the god part already, lol?  You've been arguing this stuff for pages and we haven't seen the first bit about that, and this is supposed to be a good argument for a god?  I kindof thought that a good argument for a god might at least mention a god, eventually.

I think the script was that we're meant to go 'ooooh that's blown my mind therefore maybe god'.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh.         

[I_am_not_mafia]

I know philosophy is hard. But you should really learn some if you want to discuss things past a middle-school level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Yeah, you're saying that to a doctor of philosophy. Doesn't mean to say that I don't recognise bollocks when I see it.

Rather than a wikipedia link, I'll give you a scientific paper to read.

'The scientific status of artificial life' by J Noble.

This is an excellent paper written at the beginning of the new scientific field of Artificial Life that gave focus to why people should be researching it.

The premise of Artificial Life is 'life as it could be',. Jason Noble argued that simulations cannot prove theories concerning the real world. All they can do is test whether hypotheses are logically consistent. Simulations are not a tool for empirical study. Once you think you have come up with a good model, you still need to apply it to the real world to see if it's correct.

This is precisely what you are not doing. Both computer simulations that run on logic, and logical arguments have the same characteristic. GIGO. Garbage In Garbage Out.

If it does not apply to the real world in some way then it has no use. You may think that you are doing philosophy but you're not. You're just trying to fool yourself and others into believing some made up fantasy.