cause and effect is logic
if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? how could you eat the mushroom without adding, and how could you pick it up without minusing? and this equals, if you didn't pick it up and eat it there is no equal of you getting poisoned and a missing mushroom on the forest floor somewhere
i determines where cause and effect begins and ends, but existence determines cause and effect as it is
minus is the effect of a cause
equal is where im holding my hand in front of me, plus is where i can move my hand to, and minus is how my hand got to where it is, and where ever my hand is, is equal. i equal because i can plus and minus
Before I begin, I would like to state my approach in explaining why this argument is false:
Does every event require a preceding event causing it? I say no. Here's why.
Using Recursive process (inductive logic)
If after a maximum of n-1 iterations we still didn't find an event without a preceding event, the size of set E will become 1. Now think of this for a second. If there's only one event left in the set, then there are no other events that could precede it. This proves my point that this final event will be an event without a preceding event. End of proof.
Conclusion: I used this exact logic in a different debate. The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 cause which was uncaused. There's no escape from this conclusion. This conclusion refutes your argument.
Can there be an infinite number of past events? I say no. Here's why.
When we say past events… these are events that have already occurred. So to prove my point, I'll first assume that there is an infinite number of past events (Null Hypothesis) and show how that's impossible.
But there's another way to illustrate this in laymen's term. (This was illustrated by German's great mathematician's David Hilbert).
Let's say that an infinite number of new tenants want to enter the hotel. The owner again will say "Of course! Why not..." So he asks everyone in room 1 to go to room 2, room 2 to 4, 3 to 6...etc. Now all even numbered rooms have been taken, and all odd numbered rooms are available (Infinite of them)! Now the infinite number of new tenants have available rooms for them!
I was not trying to prove in this debate that every cause has an effect, or every effect was caused. I agree with this. What I argued was that the argument "cause and effect is logic" suggests that "Every effect has a cause, which also means that every cause has a cause." My opponent agreed that his argument would be refuted if I am able to prove that "Not every cause has a cause". The logic above confirms my assertion that there must exist at least one uncaused cause.
a cause, causes, so a cause that didnt cause anything, isnt a cause, therfore any cause is caused by another cause, as a first cause would have to be caused by a cause that is not a cause
matter can only transform, this destroys all your little logic games above
í agree no infinity in the past
chaos+order=the sum of all logic
random cause+effect=chaos(any non intended change in eternity)
without 2 causes, motion cant exist
funny you mention these points about 2 causes, i naturally found that very fast
You stated in your response that "A cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause". I don't disagree! I never claimed that. What I proved in my argument is that "a cause is not necessarily caused". These are not the same. An uncaused cause must have caused something else... otherwise it would be, as you stated correctly, not a cause.
You also made this fallacious argument:
1. Premise A: A cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause. (I agree. It's not even premise, but that doesn't change the point)
2. Conclusion: Therefore any cause is caused by another cause.
This is a non sequitur (doesn't follow)! An uncaused cause would have caused something (which meets the criteria of your premises) but conflicts with your conclusion.
Your logic is similar to the following:
1. Premise A: Numbers 1 and up are real numbers.
2. Conclusion: Therefore all numbers are greater or equal to one!!
It's a non sequitur (doesn't follow).
You also stated that "matter can only transform". This is a presupposition. You're basically using a "Begging the question" or a "Circular reasoning" fallacy. You're referring to matter conservation (matter can neither be created nor destroyed) as you presupposed premise.
Does that mean that I don't believe in Newton's law? I do believe in it, but it has its limitations. For example, that law doesn't apply nor explain how matter was created from nothing (Regardless if you believe in God's hypothesis, M-theory or something else). Also consider this:
"The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It is approximately true except in certain high energy applications." - Wikipedia
Regarding your equations: cause + cause = motion, cause + order...etc: I won't argue those because you haven't shown how these statements (which I don't fully understand) refute my argument in any way. I can't say John + Jane = Love, therefore marriage exists.
In summary, your rebuttal doesn't refute my premises. In fact you agree with them. Also, you didn't challenge the coherence of my logic itself. Yet, you refuse the conclusion which follows necessarily from the premises. Also your rebuttal includes logical arguments which I demonstrated to be fallacious.
a cause is necessarily casued, because a first cause cant be caused by a cause, first cause is a fallacy in itself
if any cause is caused by another cause, a first cause is necessarily non sense, as there is no such thing as an uncaused cause
how could a beginning be uncaused?
there is no, your and my logic, logic is determined by existence as it is.
make the matter that is an apple nothing, matter can at best transform, is true, is logic, not circular, but absolute
creation takes a creator, nature is not created. anything the is created or constructed is a machine
´cause+cause=motion=i punch you in the face, you fall backwards, you wouldnt have if i didnt punch you, or unless something else caus you to fall
You're in trouble my friend! :-)
You stated that "a cause is necessarily casued, because a first cause cant be caused by a cause" This is self defeating and doesn't make any sense. This is similar to: I love you, because I don't love you!
You also stated that a first cause is a fallacy by itself. You didn't demonstrate how, but I think I can explain what you're trying to do. Your argument is like this: "Because every cause is caused, therefore first cause is a fallacy by itself". But why is your premise true? If you believe it's true, then this is a truth claim and you have the burden of proof. What proof do you have? On the other hand, I just proved that your premise is false by showing that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause.
Regarding your statement "How could a beginning be uncaused?": This is a red herring (a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue). Why do I say that? That's because knowing or not knowing the answer to your question doesn't change anything. We don't have to know how the beginning was uncaused to come to the conclusion that there exists at least one uncaused cause. To illustrate this: Just because we don't know why we yawn, doesn't mean that we don't yawn.
Regarding your statement "creation takes a creator, nature is not created. anything the is created or constructed is a machine". This is a red herring. This is not a debate about God. Your statement has nothing to do with refuting my argument... Not to mention that you are presupposing your opinions and world views into the argument, which is another fallacy. If there's an issue in my argument, you have to show that either my premises are false or that my logic is incoherent.
Your last sentence is an ad hominem. I won't respond to it.
a first cause cant be caused when a cause is something that causes.. is another way of putting it
its a first cause that is self defeating.
its simple really
the proof is, that a cause is a cause, not not a cause. the claim that there is a first cause is where you are in trouble :)
no uncaused causes can exist, thats the equevelant of being punched in the head out of nothing
i have no presuppositions
there is no your and my logic, cause and effect is logic
I will address your points one point at a time.
You stated: "a first cause cant be caused when a cause is something that causes.. is another way of putting it"
Exactly my point. A first cause can't be caused.
You stated: its a first cause that is self defeating.
That doesn't follow from the above. You actually proved my point.
You stated: its simple really. The proof is, that a cause is a cause, not not a cause. the claim that there is a first cause is where you are in trouble :)
This is illogical. But I'll try anyways. Your argument is like this:
Premise A: A cause is a cause.
Premise B: A cause is not not a cause.
Conclusion: Therefore first cause can't exist
Do I need to explain why this is a non sequitur?
You stated: no uncaused causes can exist, thats the equevelant of being punched in the head out of nothing
This is inproper explanation. I didn't claim that nothing is caused. Almost all things are caused. But you can't use an example in this form, because the example doesn't cover all possible scenarios. Your argument is similar to this: No women exist, because there are no women in a men's washroom.
You stated: i have no presuppositions
Yes you did. Your presuppostion was "nature is not created" (See argument from round 3). And again, my argument is valid regardless if you believe in naturalism or believe in God.
You stated: know=physical experience
That's not true. We know that number 5 is greater than number 4. Don't get me started! :-)
You stated: there is no your and my logic, cause and effect is logic
Oh I see. I guess I lost the debate here. Here is effectively what you're trying to saying: Cause and effect is logic therefore cause and effect is logic!
I rest my case your honor!
thats it man, a first cause cant be caused, therfore its impossible, it defeats itself
1=1, never 0
a cause that didnt cause anything, isnt a cause, therfore any cause is caused by another cause, you see?
all things are causal
anything this is created or constructed is a machines, nature comes first, nature is not a machine, supernaure also comes after nature, as an extension of nature, like super man
you havnt adressed any of my examples of cause and effect
Once again, my opponent's rebuttal doesn't refute my argument in any way or form. It doesn't even weaken it! He again makes the same fallacious arguments. I won't go through all of them as they are self evident.
Also, my opponents made some comments that are not related to the subject matter (Red herrings) such as supernature from nature. I won't respond to these claims. Not to mention the formulas that are not logical in any sense (e.g. math=absolute=not belief!!?) I won't argue those too.
In summary, my opponent and I agreed before the debate that if I am able to prove that there could exist at least one uncaused cause, then his argument would be refuted. My opponent on the other hand had the burden to prove that his claim is true, but he failed to do so.
I believe that my argument is rock solid. As long as my premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Also, I've demonstrated how my premise (that there cannot be an infinite number of past events) is also true. My opponent didn't disagree with my assertion. But he's still not happy with the conclusion that follows.
I understand that the existence of an uncaused raises many questions. How could that be? What does it mean? What's the best explanation? But that's a different question and a discussion for a different debate. Theists state that the best explanation of this is God... Some naturalists say that this is best explained by M theory... Other naturalists state that they don't know the answer and leave it at that... And there's those who simply say logic is illogical in some cases.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|