Cosmological Argument from Contingency

[jlay]

Argument from ignorance.
How about this. "I don't like where this points so I'll appeal to ignorance."

You're obtuse.

[Kenny]

Argument from ignorance.
How about this. "I don't like where this points so I'll appeal to ignorance."

You're obtuse.

Wow! Bet you learned that little slight in 3rd grade huh?
There is a saying Doubt the one who knows all the answers, trust he who seeks answers.
Nothing wrong with admitting to not have an answer yet

Ken

[jlay]

Argument from ignorance.
How about this. "I don't like where this points so I'll appeal to ignorance."

You're obtuse.

Wow! Bet you learned that little slight in 3rd grade huh?
There is a saying Doubt the one who knows all the answers, trust he who seeks answers.
Nothing wrong with admitting to not have an answer yet

Ken

Kenny, the argument has nothing to do with admitting what we don't know. That is a red herring.
So, If the shoe fits......... Obtuse is actually the best case scenario, and I mean that. It could be worse.

Seeking answers is a good thing, no argument. But it isn't the problem with your objection. To try and position your objection as if you are really the open minded one is comical. How can a person be considered a seeker of answers when they won't even consider the answers already before them? That makes no sense. But that is exactly what you are doing here. The sincerely seeking thing to do would be to admit that you are being obtuse, apologize and then actually consider the argument and what it actually states. It is a syllogism that is internally consistent and the conclusion follows from the premise. No one is stating that a premise can't be wrong. It can. But that really isn't the point.

You are saying you don't have the answers.......,yet. That isn't even an argument. It is an appeal to ignorance. But it gets worse because it also requires you to dismiss what we DO KNOW. (That's why I mentioned causality) I'm simply asking you to consider what we DO KNOW. Your refusal to do this, even after your error is pointed out, leaves me with no other conclusion than you are being obtuse. If you think 3rd graders use such descriptions, go call one obtuse and see what kind of response you get. One way to avoid having your own stubbornness pointed out is to simply retreat into the position that we are just picking on you. When I call you a douche bag, then you might be able to make such an appeal.

Arguing from what we DO KNOW isn't a refusal to seek answers. That is absurd, and basically what you are implying. Sure, we could all be detached heads in vats somewhere, hooked up to electrodes and simply ignorant to the fact. But, do you discard what we DO KNOW because of something (no matter how unlikely) we might discover? No. Find me a reasonable person that thinks such. So again, the burden is on you. Cause and effect is a basic law of nature, and you are basically saying that we should not apply this law to the existence of nature (the universe) itself, but should instead appeal to, well, nothing. And, that we should EQUALLY weight ignorance with what we do KNOW about reality. And then you want to say I'm being juvenile for calling you obtuse?

Based on our past conversations, I already suspected you were obtuse. You simply keep providing examples to confirm my theory. You have been given a lot of leeway on this forum, and you've not become one bit less stubborn from what I've seen. I'm honestly shocked you are still allowed here.

[Kenny]

Argument from ignorance.
How about this. "I don't like where this points so I'll appeal to ignorance."

You're obtuse.

Wow! Bet you learned that little slight in 3rd grade huh?
There is a saying Doubt the one who knows all the answers, trust he who seeks answers.
Nothing wrong with admitting to not have an answer yet

Ken

Kenny, the argument has nothing to do with admitting what we don't know. That is a red herring.
So, If the shoe fits......... Obtuse is actually the best case scenario, and I mean that. It could be worse.

Seeking answers is a good thing, no argument. But it isn't the problem with your objection. To try and position your objection as if you are really the open minded one is comical. How can a person be considered a seeker of answers when they won't even consider the answers already before them? That makes no sense. But that is exactly what you are doing here. The sincerely seeking thing to do would be to admit that you are being obtuse, apologize and then actually consider the argument and what it actually states. It is a syllogism that is internally consistent and the conclusion follows from the premise. No one is stating that a premise can't be wrong. It can. But that really isn't the point.

You are saying you don't have the answers.......,yet. That isn't even an argument. It is an appeal to ignorance. But it gets worse because it also requires you to dismiss what we DO KNOW. (That's why I mentioned causality) I'm simply asking you to consider what we DO KNOW. Your refusal to do this, even after your error is pointed out, leaves me with no other conclusion than you are being obtuse. If you think 3rd graders use such descriptions, go call one obtuse and see what kind of response you get. One way to avoid having your own stubbornness pointed out is to simply retreat into the position that we are just picking on you. When I call you a douche bag, then you might be able to make such an appeal.

Arguing from what we DO KNOW isn't a refusal to seek answers. That is absurd, and basically what you are implying. Sure, we could all be detached heads in vats somewhere, hooked up to electrodes and simply ignorant to the fact. But, do you discard what we DO KNOW because of something (no matter how unlikely) we might discover? No. Find me a reasonable person that thinks such. So again, the burden is on you. Cause and effect is a basic law of nature, and you are basically saying that we should not apply this law to the existence of nature (the universe) itself, but should instead appeal to, well, nothing. And, that we should EQUALLY weight ignorance with what we do KNOW about reality. And then you want to say I'm being juvenile for calling you obtuse?

Based on our past conversations, I already suspected you were obtuse. You simply keep providing examples to confirm my theory. You have been given a lot of leeway on this forum, and you've not become one bit less stubborn from what I've seen. I'm honestly shocked you are still allowed here.

I've repeatedly said I don't have the answers to the Universe. I do not agree with your answers, and I explained why. You may not like my answers, but that doesn't mean I am being stubborn, it just means we don't agree.

Ken

[jlay]

I haven't given an answer.
I've not even presented this argument. I'm simply pointing out that your objection to #3 is ridiculous, self defeating, and at odds with your alleged humility ("I don't have all the answers.")

[Proinsias]

I cannot go along with #3, I don't think we know enough about the Universe to exclude this option. As far as #5; as I said previously, I can't make the leap that whatever is responsible for the Universe is also kind, perfect, all knowing, and all the other adjectives people attach to God.

Ken

What we don't know about the universe (nature: space, time, matter) doesn't negate what we DO know. All of these type of arguments are really only asking, "what is MORE likely the case?" So, the burden of proof is on you to show that based on what we do KNOW that #3 is invalid. Cause and effect in physics is considered a law. What you are saying is that the law of nature is arbitrary and can be simply ignored at our convenience.

As far as #5, you've completely gone beyond the argument. That isn't the argument. So, your "leap" is a straw man and prejudicial.

Is it not you who is abandoning cause and effect by inferring an unmoved mover? Causality boils down to change or impermenance...and time, of which there are many interpretations. Artistotle, Hume & Shankara provide rather conflicting ideas, all of which are quite nice to the point that it is a matter of taste imo. It does seem reasonable to infer the unchanging from the changing but if our experience is one of change it's still a leap to those who hold to the laws of physics methinks.

[Jac3510]

Is it not you who is abandoning cause and effect by inferring an unmoved mover? Causality boils down to change or impermenance...and time, of which there are many interpretations. Artistotle, Hume & Shankara provide rather conflicting ideas, all of which are quite nice to the point that it is a matter of taste imo. It does seem reasonable to infer the unchanging from the changing but if our experience is one of change it's still a leap to those who hold to the laws of physics methinks.

This is very incorrect. You are assuming (wrongly) that "the laws of physics" are in some sense a competing philosophy with Aristotle or whomever. As a matter of fact, if we hadn't gotten off onto the stupidity that Descartes gave us, we probably would have discovered much of modern physics (including quantum indeterminacy) much earlier than we did, as Aristotle's view of time and causality is the sole philosophy (I'm aware of) consistent with what modern science is now producing. Of course, philosophers don't study Aristotle anymore, so they don't know this . . .

Secondly, causality does not "boil down to change or impermanence." Unless, of course, you are Cartesian/Kantian/Humian or anything Eastern. Without going into a long discussion of that, suffice it to say that classical Christian theism holds to an absolutely unchanging First Cause. This Cause is unchanging. On this view, causality is about actuality, and actuality is decidedly not about change. Change is about potentiality.

The point here is that jlay is not the one making the leap. He is actually taking modern science--the "laws of physics"--and placing them on the only philosophical grounds that works (in fact, the very philosophical grounds that they entail) and taking those premises to their logical conclusion. But fools who refuse to recognize the necessary distinctions are just making a host of category errors and transfers of authority, as if because someone is skilled at a mathematical analysis of motion that they therefore are qualified to speak to the nature of motion. It's absurd on its face, but that's the philosophical dept of people these days. It would be embarrassing if it weren't so harmful.

[abelcainsbrother]

Why should we abandon the laws of physics just because we reject the idea of a creator? Because the first law states energy can neither be created nor destroyed,keep in mind this law came into being at the big bang.OK but we have the 2nd law too and these laws came into being at the big bang and effect this universe.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-quantum-sc ... amics.html

The fact is that those who reject a creator ignore the BBT that points to the God of the bible.

The bible said the universe had a beginning.Confirmed by the BB and both science and the bible tells us the universe has an ending.

[Kenny]

I haven't given an answer.
I've not even presented this argument. I'm simply pointing out that your objection to #3 is ridiculous, self defeating, and at odds with your alleged humility ("I don't have all the answers.")

Maybe I am misunderstanding #3. It says:

3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*

Now exactly what do you mean by this?

Ken

[Kurieuo]

I haven't given an answer.
I've not even presented this argument. I'm simply pointing out that your objection to #3 is ridiculous, self defeating, and at odds with your alleged humility ("I don't have all the answers.")

Maybe I am misunderstanding #3. It says:

3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*

Now exactly what do you mean by this?

Ken

If something exists in the necessity of its own nature, then it exists in and of itself depending upon nothing else for its existence.

There are only two options if Something exists:
1) Something exists necessarily and is the foundational cause of all other things that exist, or
2) Something exists contingently due to something other that caused it to exist.

[Kenny]

I haven't given an answer.
I've not even presented this argument. I'm simply pointing out that your objection to #3 is ridiculous, self defeating, and at odds with your alleged humility ("I don't have all the answers.")

Maybe I am misunderstanding #3. It says:

3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*

Now exactly what do you mean by this?

Ken

If something exists in the necessity of its own nature, then it exists in and of itself depending upon nothing else for its existence.

There are only two options if Something exists:
1) Something exists necessarily and is the foundational cause of all other things that exist, or
2) Something exists contingently due to something other that caused it to exist.

Thanx for clearing that up. So in theory; if some of the matter in the Universe has always existed, (first cause) and is responsible for the existence of other types of matter in the Universe, that would be door #1; exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist. Is this correct?

Ken

[RickD]

I haven't given an answer.
I've not even presented this argument. I'm simply pointing out that your objection to #3 is ridiculous, self defeating, and at odds with your alleged humility ("I don't have all the answers.")

Maybe I am misunderstanding #3. It says:

3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*

Now exactly what do you mean by this?

Ken

If something exists in the necessity of its own nature, then it exists in and of itself depending upon nothing else for its existence.

There are only two options if Something exists:
1) Something exists necessarily and is the foundational cause of all other things that exist, or
2) Something exists contingently due to something other that caused it to exist.

Thanx for clearing that up. So in theory; if some of the matter in the Universe has always existed, (first cause) and is responsible for the existence of other types of matter in the Universe, that would be door #1; exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist. Is this correct?

Ken

Talk about grasping at straws!

[Kurieuo]

I haven't given an answer.
I've not even presented this argument. I'm simply pointing out that your objection to #3 is ridiculous, self defeating, and at odds with your alleged humility ("I don't have all the answers.")

Maybe I am misunderstanding #3. It says:

3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*

Now exactly what do you mean by this?

Ken

If something exists in the necessity of its own nature, then it exists in and of itself depending upon nothing else for its existence.

There are only two options if Something exists:
1) Something exists necessarily and is the foundational cause of all other things that exist, or
2) Something exists contingently due to something other that caused it to exist.

Thanx for clearing that up. So in theory; if some of the matter in the Universe has always existed, (first cause) and is responsible for the existence of other types of matter in the Universe, that would be door #1; exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist. Is this correct?

Ken

Yes, and I'm glad you said "some of the matter" and not the whole universe.

For, if you said "if the Universe has always existed" I believe this ignores the parts of the universe that we plainly see and experience.
There is an informal composition fallacy being committed whenever someone retorts: Why can't the Universe have always existed?
A more correct way of framing the retort would be: "Why can't some part of the universe have always existed?"
I'm sure you can see the difference here.

That is, unless actually does in fact mean the whole Universe and all that is in it has always existed.
Thereby one presumes that the universe is static and there is no movement in it whatsoever -- but such seems to go against our intuition and experience where some things really are caused by other things.
For example, that there are new states arising in the universe which previously didn't exist; I did not exist 100 years ago and in all probability won't exist 100 years from now. This all suggests many parts of the universe that we live within have not always existed.

So as far as the universe is concerned, what one really needs is some part of universe always existing.

The questions then become what is this part of the universe (i.e., "some matter")?
What makes "this matter" qualitatively different such that it is the First Cause when all other matter is contingent?
That is, what makes it the "necessary matter" requiring no other cause for its existence.

Whether you concede God created (and this doesn't require anything other than some supreme being who created regardless of whether or not they're loving, good, etc),
or you prefer to say some part of universe has always existed -- both answers enter into territory that I expect you'll feel uncomfortable with.
AND yet, we know Something has always existed or else there would be nothing.

[Kenny]

I haven't given an answer.
I've not even presented this argument. I'm simply pointing out that your objection to #3 is ridiculous, self defeating, and at odds with your alleged humility ("I don't have all the answers.")

Maybe I am misunderstanding #3. It says:

3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*

Now exactly what do you mean by this?

Ken

If something exists in the necessity of its own nature, then it exists in and of itself depending upon nothing else for its existence.

There are only two options if Something exists:
1) Something exists necessarily and is the foundational cause of all other things that exist, or
2) Something exists contingently due to something other that caused it to exist.

Thanx for clearing that up. So in theory; if some of the matter in the Universe has always existed, (first cause) and is responsible for the existence of other types of matter in the Universe, that would be door #1; exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist. Is this correct?

Ken

Yes, and I'm glad you said "some of the matter" and not the whole universe.

For, if you said "if the Universe has always existed" I believe this ignores the parts of the universe that we plainly see and experience.
There is an informal composition fallacy being committed whenever someone retorts: Why can't the Universe have always existed?
A more correct way of framing the retort would be: "Why can't some part of the universe have always existed?"
I'm sure you can see the difference here.

That is, unless actually does in fact mean the whole Universe and all that is in it has always existed.
Thereby one presumes that the universe is static and there is no movement in it whatsoever -- but such seems to go against our intuition and experience where some things really are caused by other things.
It goes against our knowledge there are new states arising in the universe which previously didn't exist. I did not exist 100 years ago and in all probability won't exist 100 years from now.

So as far as the universe is concerned, what one really needs is some part of universe always existing.

The questions then become what is this part of the universe (i.e., "some matter")?
What makes "this matter" qualitatively different such that it is the First Cause when all other matter is contingent?
That is, what makes it the "necessary matter" requiring no other cause for its existence.

Whether you concede God created (and this doesn't require anything other than some supreme being who created regardless of whether or not they're loving, good, etc),
or you prefer to say some part of universe has always existed -- both answers enter into territory that I expect you'll feel uncomfortable with.
AND yet, we know Something has always existed or else there would be nothing.

You've made some excellent points! And thanks for clearing that up for me.

Ken

[Proinsias]

Is it not you who is abandoning cause and effect by inferring an unmoved mover? Causality boils down to change or impermenance...and time, of which there are many interpretations. Artistotle, Hume & Shankara provide rather conflicting ideas, all of which are quite nice to the point that it is a matter of taste imo. It does seem reasonable to infer the unchanging from the changing but if our experience is one of change it's still a leap to those who hold to the laws of physics methinks.

This is very incorrect. You are assuming (wrongly) that "the laws of physics" are in some sense a competing philosophy with Aristotle or whomever. As a matter of fact, if we hadn't gotten off onto the stupidity that Descartes gave us, we probably would have discovered much of modern physics (including quantum indeterminacy) much earlier than we did, as Aristotle's view of time and causality is the sole philosophy (I'm aware of) consistent with what modern science is now producing. Of course, philosophers don't study Aristotle anymore, so they don't know this . . .

Secondly, causality does not "boil down to change or impermanence." Unless, of course, you are Cartesian/Kantian/Humian or anything Eastern. Without going into a long discussion of that, suffice it to say that classical Christian theism holds to an absolutely unchanging First Cause. This Cause is unchanging. On this view, causality is about actuality, and actuality is decidedly not about change. Change is about potentiality.

The point here is that jlay is not the one making the leap. He is actually taking modern science--the "laws of physics"--and placing them on the only philosophical grounds that works (in fact, the very philosophical grounds that they entail) and taking those premises to their logical conclusion. But fools who refuse to recognize the necessary distinctions are just making a host of category errors and transfers of authority, as if because someone is skilled at a mathematical analysis of motion that they therefore are qualified to speak to the nature of motion. It's absurd on its face, but that's the philosophical dept of people these days. It would be embarrassing if it weren't so harmful.

Philosophy and physics often overlap and influence each other. If I seen much conflict I wouldn't be suggesting one can use a variety of philosophical frameworks whilst still respecting modern science. To suggest the stupidity of Descartes has hampered the progress of physics and we're better off with Aristotle is quite a claim, the science of physics was pretty dormant for the two thousands years or so whilst Aristotle went in and out of fashion, within a generation of Descartes we have Newton's laws of physics...one of his biggest influences, if not the biggest, was Descartes himself. By the late middle ages Aristotle was on a fairly high pedastal in Europe, not long after Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton & Francis Bacon all objected to Aristotle in different ways and with the help of others kick started modern philosophy & science.

Someone skilled at mathematical analysis of motion is as qualified to speak on the nature of motion as anyone, that one should be properly qualified to speak about the nature of motion precludes listening to most peoples opinions on the most basic of observations, if you were interested in a logical approach to change I would think talking to someone who has dedicated their life to modeling mathematical change would be a worthwhile chat to have. Absurdity does not bother me nor embarrass me, I rather enjoyed Camus' Myth of Sysiphus. The absurd is where we get comedy & tradgedy, as much a part of life as reasoning things through in a proper fashion......you seem to recognize that many of the great philisophical giants who spent their lives attempting to properly think things though look like wise sages to some and absurd fools to others.