Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Leibniz vs Kalam

philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:48:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:37:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which cosmological argument is better, and why?

I think the conclusion of Leibniz argument is more certain than the conclusion of Kalam, so it's better in that sense, but I think Kalam can give you more attributes of God than Leibniz can. So I don't know which one is better over all.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 12:33:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can I had link to leibniz argument?
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 12:33:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 12:33:15 PM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Can I have a link to a leibniz argument?
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 1:57:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:48:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:37:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which cosmological argument is better, and why?

I think the conclusion of Leibniz argument is more certain than the conclusion of Kalam, so it's better in that sense, but I think Kalam can give you more attributes of God than Leibniz can. So I don't know which one is better over all.

I like the Leibniz argument better, as it doesn't depend on a controversial theory of time (A-Theory). By the way, your blog is being used by a lot of theists in arguments on Facebook. Quite the popular one are we? lol
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 2:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 1:57:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:48:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:37:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which cosmological argument is better, and why?

I think the conclusion of Leibniz argument is more certain than the conclusion of Kalam, so it's better in that sense, but I think Kalam can give you more attributes of God than Leibniz can. So I don't know which one is better over all.

I like the Leibniz argument better, as it doesn't depend on a controversial theory of time (A-Theory). By the way, your blog is being used by a lot of theists in arguments on Facebook. Quite the popular one are we? lol

I had no idea! I guess I need to be more careful about what I write. I mostly write off the top of my head on my blog.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 2:31:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:37:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which cosmological argument is better, and why?

If A-series time is true, or if I knew how to defend A-series time sufficiently, then I'd say Kalam.

But LCA seems to get to the heart of the issue more, and argues for a theistic God, rather than a deistic one.

But in debates, KCA is typically quicker and easier to defend.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 3:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
WLC pickup line: Believe me, I'll Kalam you all night... ON STAGE.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 5:27:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
WLC pick up line: "You may only feel like a finite temporal effect baby, but I can show you my timeless cause, and it can get personal ;)"
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 5:52:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 5:27:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
WLC pick up line: "You may only feel like a finite temporal effect baby, but I can show you my timeless cause, and it can get personal ;)"

Hahaha, that's a good one XD
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 6:22:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
WLC pick up line: "For you, I would transverse an infinite past... but since that is metaphysically impossible, would you take chocolates?"
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 6:22:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
WLC pick up line: "For you, I would transverse an infinite past... but since that is metaphysically impossible, would you take chocolates?"

Girl: I know what you're thinking... Unfortunately, it only exists in your mind, and doesn't exist in reality. It's a figment of your imagination- an idea! Just look at all the problems that would spring from it.

Ken Ham pickup line: Would you like to sit on my 4000 year old Velociraptor?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:09:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:48:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:37:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which cosmological argument is better, and why?

I think the conclusion of Leibniz argument is more certain than the conclusion of Kalam, so it's better in that sense, but I think Kalam can give you more attributes of God than Leibniz can. So I don't know which one is better over all.

What is it about the KCA you think makes it uncertain?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:10:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
WLC: Killing prostitutes isn't all that bad. After all, after they send you to heaven, you send them to heaven!
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:53:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:09:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:48:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:37:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which cosmological argument is better, and why?

I think the conclusion of Leibniz argument is more certain than the conclusion of Kalam, so it's better in that sense, but I think Kalam can give you more attributes of God than Leibniz can. So I don't know which one is better over all.

What is it about the KCA you think makes it uncertain?

I used to be a lot more convinced by the KCA than I am now. My biggest reason for doubts is the difficulty in accounting for how there could be a state of affairs in which God exists timelessly without the universe since that state of affairs could not have obtained before the beginning of the universe (since there was no "before") nor since the beginning of the universe (since it has existed since then). But unless there was such a state of affairs, then it cannot be the case that God caused the universe to begin to exist.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 10:39:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Speaking as a debater of the other side, there are multiple fronts one could attack Kalam from, be it the A-theory point, infinity paradoxes or the interpretation of the science.

With Leibniz, it's much harder to find contention. The PSR, which is usually the target for most atheists seems, extremely plausible to me, at least on the surface.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 12:51:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 10:39:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as a debater of the other side, there are multiple fronts one could attack Kalam from, be it the A-theory point, infinity paradoxes or the interpretation of the science.

With Leibniz, it's much harder to find contention. The PSR, which is usually the target for most atheists seems, extremely plausible to me, at least on the surface.

I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 1:13:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?

The easiest rebuttal to either of these arguments comes in two parts:
1.) Why is God not contingent upon the negation premise (begin's to exist, has an explanation, is initially moved)
2.) For whatever reason given for God to be an exception, then why can't those reasons be part of a natural process.

E.g. for the KCA

1.) God is Timeless, and so it's meaningless to ask why God has no beginning. Therefore can be the first cause
2.) A (perhaps unknown) natural process could also be timeless, and hence can be the first cause

If this possibility is accepted, then I will add the Occum's razor argument, to cut out any unnecessary attributes which God will usually have over a natural process, since there is no reason to appeal to any larger unknown than is necessary.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 1:13:32 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?

The easiest rebuttal to either of these arguments comes in two parts:
1.) Why is God not contingent upon the negation premise (begin's to exist, has an explanation, is initially moved)

Because there's no reason to believe God began to exist, or has an explanation, or is moved by another. Also, when you say "initially moved" I believe you're referring to the Unmoved Mover argument... But that argument has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

2.) For whatever reason given for God to be an exception, then why can't those reasons be part of a natural process.


Depends what you mean by "natural." Usually people interpret that to be physical. And if the physical world began to exist, and causa sui is impossible, then it can't be a physical process.

E.g. for the KCA

1.) God is Timeless, and so it's meaningless to ask why God has no beginning. Therefore can be the first cause
2.) A (perhaps unknown) natural process could also be timeless, and hence can be the first cause

If this possibility is accepted, then I will add the Occum's razor argument, to cut out any unnecessary attributes which God will usually have over a natural process, since there is no reason to appeal to any larger unknown than is necessary.

It sounds to me like you're referencing Bertrand Russell's horned argument, which I summarize thus:

P1: Either everything has a cause, or some things do not have a cause.
P2: If everything has a cause, then God has a cause, and the argument fails.
P3: If some things do not have a cause, then the universe could be that thing, and the argument fails.
C: Therefore, in either case, the argument fails.

Is that essentially what you're saying?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:51:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 12:51:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 10:39:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as a debater of the other side, there are multiple fronts one could attack Kalam from, be it the A-theory point, infinity paradoxes or the interpretation of the science.

With Leibniz, it's much harder to find contention. The PSR, which is usually the target for most atheists seems, extremely plausible to me, at least on the surface.

I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?


What about Peter Van Inwagen's objection to the PSR?

Also, I think that the reason the PSR seems so cloudy is because of the modern philosophers' demise from essence/existence distinction. If contingent things are things with distinct essence and existences, then the argument seems more clear.

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?

I suppose it depends on what a "necessary thing" is. Obviously, the arrangement of the universe isn't necessary, and is contingent, but I suppose one could argue that the universe in some form is necessary. But I don't think that's a good objection, since something form-less isn't a thing at all. :P
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:56:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:53:08 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:09:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:48:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:37:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Which cosmological argument is better, and why?

I think the conclusion of Leibniz argument is more certain than the conclusion of Kalam, so it's better in that sense, but I think Kalam can give you more attributes of God than Leibniz can. So I don't know which one is better over all.

What is it about the KCA you think makes it uncertain?

I used to be a lot more convinced by the KCA than I am now. My biggest reason for doubts is the difficulty in accounting for how there could be a state of affairs in which God exists timelessly without the universe since that state of affairs could not have obtained before the beginning of the universe (since there was no "before") nor since the beginning of the universe (since it has existed since then). But unless there was such a state of affairs, then it cannot be the case that God caused the universe to begin to exist.

Wouldn't simultaneous causality answer this objection? I think the problem with the KCA is that it's often viewed as going back in time linearly, and this really is totally different than any other cosmological arguments. I think we should view it as more of whatever begins to exist is ontologically proceeded by something more fundamental than itself.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:59:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:51:45 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:51:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 10:39:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as a debater of the other side, there are multiple fronts one could attack Kalam from, be it the A-theory point, infinity paradoxes or the interpretation of the science.

With Leibniz, it's much harder to find contention. The PSR, which is usually the target for most atheists seems, extremely plausible to me, at least on the surface.

I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?


What about Peter Van Inwagen's objection to the PSR?

Also, I think that the reason the PSR seems so cloudy is because of the modern philosophers' demise from essence/existence distinction. If contingent things are things with distinct essence and existences, then the argument seems more clear.

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?

I suppose it depends on what a "necessary thing" is. Obviously, the arrangement of the universe isn't necessary, and is contingent, but I suppose one could argue that the universe in some form is necessary. But I don't think that's a good objection, since something form-less isn't a thing at all. :P

Well, this is why we need to make a distinction between the inherent form of a thing, and a contingent form of thing. The universe is either flat, closed, or open, and has this form inherently, even if it goes through changes. If B-Theory is true, then the universe doesn't go through any real change at all.

This applies to God as well, according to WLC, God goes from a timeless form to a temporal form, which is now a contingent form (it didn't have to be that way), but God also has an inherent form (immaterial).
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 5:05:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:59:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:51:45 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:51:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 10:39:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as a debater of the other side, there are multiple fronts one could attack Kalam from, be it the A-theory point, infinity paradoxes or the interpretation of the science.

With Leibniz, it's much harder to find contention. The PSR, which is usually the target for most atheists seems, extremely plausible to me, at least on the surface.

I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?


What about Peter Van Inwagen's objection to the PSR?

Also, I think that the reason the PSR seems so cloudy is because of the modern philosophers' demise from essence/existence distinction. If contingent things are things with distinct essence and existences, then the argument seems more clear.

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?

I suppose it depends on what a "necessary thing" is. Obviously, the arrangement of the universe isn't necessary, and is contingent, but I suppose one could argue that the universe in some form is necessary. But I don't think that's a good objection, since something form-less isn't a thing at all. :P

Well, this is why we need to make a distinction between the inherent form of a thing, and a contingent form of thing. The universe is either flat, closed, or open, and has this form inherently, even if it goes through changes. If B-Theory is true, then the universe doesn't go through any real change at all.


Yes, that's true. But then you'd have to say that it's metaphysically necessary for the universe to have a particular inherent form (the argument is a metaphysical one after all). Is that the case? I really don't know, but it doesn't seem like a plausible position to me.

Here's another thing... Assume that: "The universe in xyz form must exist." However, there's a dilemma here. If "the universe" has a substantial form, then we're undermining our own argument. However, if "the universe" has no substantial form, then it would be impossible for us to even speak about it, or predicate "xyz" of it.

This applies to God as well, according to WLC, God goes from a timeless form to a temporal form, which is now a contingent form (it didn't have to be that way), but God also has an inherent form (immaterial).

Well I disagree with WLC. That's not exactly classical theology, though it's definitely a tricky subject and I can sympathize with his motives.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 5:09:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It sounds to me like you're referencing Bertrand Russell's horned argument, which I summarize thus:

P1: Either everything has a cause, or some things do not have a cause.
P2: If everything has a cause, then God has a cause, and the argument fails.
P3: If some things do not have a cause, then the universe could be that thing, and the argument fails.
C: Therefore, in either case, the argument fails.

Is that essentially what you're saying?

No, at least I don't think so. The part I am directly arguing against is this part:

"Depends what you mean by "natural." Usually people interpret that to be physical. And if the physical world began to exist, and causa sui is impossible, then it can't be a physical process."

This ignores what I said in my first 2 contentions.

1.) Why is God not contingent upon the negation premise (begin's to exist, has an explanation, is initially moved)
2.) For whatever reason given for God to be an exception, then why can't those reasons be part of a natural process.

Now, the reasons why you said God would not be subject to the negation premise this is the following:
Because there's no reason to believe God began to exist, or has an explanation, or is moved by another
Therefore we have:

1.)An undefined natural process for which we have no reason to believe began to exist
2.)An deistic god for which we have no reason to believe began to exist

And I already stated that if a further argument was to be made that "God is not contingent upon time, it is timeless" then one can make exactly the same justification for a natural process that"s independent of time, or timeless.

Since God will inevitably have additional attributes to an undefined natural process, it is irrational to positively believe a god is the first cause.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 5:21:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 5:09:39 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
It sounds to me like you're referencing Bertrand Russell's horned argument, which I summarize thus:

P1: Either everything has a cause, or some things do not have a cause.
P2: If everything has a cause, then God has a cause, and the argument fails.
P3: If some things do not have a cause, then the universe could be that thing, and the argument fails.
C: Therefore, in either case, the argument fails.

Is that essentially what you're saying?

No, at least I don't think so. The part I am directly arguing against is this part:

"Depends what you mean by "natural." Usually people interpret that to be physical. And if the physical world began to exist, and causa sui is impossible, then it can't be a physical process."

This ignores what I said in my first 2 contentions.

1.) Why is God not contingent upon the negation premise (begin's to exist, has an explanation, is initially moved)
2.) For whatever reason given for God to be an exception, then why can't those reasons be part of a natural process.


I really don't see what you're saying. Physical matter began to exist. Nothing can cause itself. So the cause can't be physical matter. Could you please clarify? I'm kindof missing the point I guess...

Now, the reasons why you said God would not be subject to the negation premise this is the following:
Because there's no reason to believe God began to exist, or has an explanation, or is moved by another
Therefore we have:

1.)An undefined natural process for which we have no reason to believe began to exist
2.)An deistic god for which we have no reason to believe began to exist


So are you rejecting the impossibility of causa sui?

And I already stated that if a further argument was to be made that "God is not contingent upon time, it is timeless" then one can make exactly the same justification for a natural process that"s independent of time, or timeless.

Since God will inevitably have additional attributes to an undefined natural process, it is irrational to positively believe a god is the first cause.

I'm confused. I don't see what you're saying, sorry. As I stated above, the idea of causa sui comes into play, though only implicitly. If something can't cause itself to begin to exist, and the physical world began to exist, then the cause cannot be the physical world, nor any part of it.

The reason causa sui is absurd, is because for something to cause itself, it must ontologically precede itself. Which means the existence of x is ontologically prior to the existence of x...which violates the LNC.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 5:26:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 5:05:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:59:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:51:45 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:51:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 10:39:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as a debater of the other side, there are multiple fronts one could attack Kalam from, be it the A-theory point, infinity paradoxes or the interpretation of the science.

With Leibniz, it's much harder to find contention. The PSR, which is usually the target for most atheists seems, extremely plausible to me, at least on the surface.

I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?


What about Peter Van Inwagen's objection to the PSR?

Also, I think that the reason the PSR seems so cloudy is because of the modern philosophers' demise from essence/existence distinction. If contingent things are things with distinct essence and existences, then the argument seems more clear.

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?

I suppose it depends on what a "necessary thing" is. Obviously, the arrangement of the universe isn't necessary, and is contingent, but I suppose one could argue that the universe in some form is necessary. But I don't think that's a good objection, since something form-less isn't a thing at all. :P

Well, this is why we need to make a distinction between the inherent form of a thing, and a contingent form of thing. The universe is either flat, closed, or open, and has this form inherently, even if it goes through changes. If B-Theory is true, then the universe doesn't go through any real change at all.


Yes, that's true. But then you'd have to say that it's metaphysically necessary for the universe to have a particular inherent form (the argument is a metaphysical one after all). Is that the case? I really don't know, but it doesn't seem like a plausible position to me.

If B-Theory is true, then the universe is changeless and tenselessly eternal. Those seem like qualities of something that can be necessary.


Here's another thing... Assume that: "The universe in xyz form must exist." However, there's a dilemma here. If "the universe" has a substantial form, then we're undermining our own argument. However, if "the universe" has no substantial form, then it would be impossible for us to even speak about it, or predicate "xyz" of it.

Why doesn't this apply to God? If "God" has a substantial form, then we're undermining our own argument. However, if "God" has no substantial form, it isn't a thing.


This applies to God as well, according to WLC, God goes from a timeless form to a temporal form, which is now a contingent form (it didn't have to be that way), but God also has an inherent form (immaterial).

Well I disagree with WLC. That's not exactly classical theology, though it's definitely a tricky subject and I can sympathize with his motives.

I think Craig sees problems or incoherencies in the classical view, hence, why he has this idea. However, his ideas cause problems of their own.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 5:34:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 5:26:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 5:05:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:59:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:51:45 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:51:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 10:39:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as a debater of the other side, there are multiple fronts one could attack Kalam from, be it the A-theory point, infinity paradoxes or the interpretation of the science.

With Leibniz, it's much harder to find contention. The PSR, which is usually the target for most atheists seems, extremely plausible to me, at least on the surface.

I am starting to agree, in fact, I would argue that to deny the PSR is unreasonable by definition. The part I would attack Leibniz on is who said nature, in some form, isn't necessary like proponents think God is? I mean, according to the argument, even if the universe never had a finite past, why does the infinite chain exist at all? It still needs an explanation, but why does God exist at all?


What about Peter Van Inwagen's objection to the PSR?

Also, I think that the reason the PSR seems so cloudy is because of the modern philosophers' demise from essence/existence distinction. If contingent things are things with distinct essence and existences, then the argument seems more clear.

Basically, what is it about God that we can say he is necessary, but nature doesn't have?

I suppose it depends on what a "necessary thing" is. Obviously, the arrangement of the universe isn't necessary, and is contingent, but I suppose one could argue that the universe in some form is necessary. But I don't think that's a good objection, since something form-less isn't a thing at all. :P

Well, this is why we need to make a distinction between the inherent form of a thing, and a contingent form of thing. The universe is either flat, closed, or open, and has this form inherently, even if it goes through changes. If B-Theory is true, then the universe doesn't go through any real change at all.


Yes, that's true. But then you'd have to say that it's metaphysically necessary for the universe to have a particular inherent form (the argument is a metaphysical one after all). Is that the case? I really don't know, but it doesn't seem like a plausible position to me.

If B-Theory is true, then the universe is changeless and tenselessly eternal. Those seem like qualities of something that can be necessary.


That seems like a plausible objection, though I don't know if it holds up. If B-theory is true, I exist changelessly and tenselessly, but am I necessary?

Also, it is absolutely metaphysically necessary that the universe exist the way it is? Even under B-theory, this is still an important question which needs to be answered.


Here's another thing... Assume that: "The universe in xyz form must exist." However, there's a dilemma here. If "the universe" has a substantial form, then we're undermining our own argument. However, if "the universe" has no substantial form, then it would be impossible for us to even speak about it, or predicate "xyz" of it.

Why doesn't this apply to God? If "God" has a substantial form, then we're undermining our own argument. However, if "God" has no substantial form, it isn't a thing.


Because in the case of God, his "substantial form" would be identical with his existence. In other words, it would be inconceivable and metaphysically impossible for God to not exist... And if you think you've conceived of God not-existing, then you're mistaken.

Now of course, I can already sense that you're going to say "Why can't the universe's essence and existence be identical?" but I don't think that works. We can very coherently explain what things are without any reference to whether or not they are.

The question really is whether or not it's possible for the universe to not exist.... I'm not sure, this is a tough one.


This applies to God as well, according to WLC, God goes from a timeless form to a temporal form, which is now a contingent form (it didn't have to be that way), but God also has an inherent form (immaterial).

Well I disagree with WLC. That's not exactly classical theology, though it's definitely a tricky subject and I can sympathize with his motives.

I think Craig sees problems or incoherencies in the classical view, hence, why he has this idea. However, his ideas cause problems of their own.

Yes, Craig isn't quite a classical theist, but he does have admixtures of potencies to be one. (Pun intended xD)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 5:39:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Depends what you mean by "natural." Usually people interpret that to be physical. And if the physical world began to exist, and causa sui is impossible, then it can't be a physical process."

This ignores what I said in my first 2 contentions.

1.) Why is God not contingent upon the negation premise (begin's to exist, has an explanation, is initially moved)
2.) For whatever reason given for God to be an exception, then why can't those reasons be part of a natural process.


I really don't see what you're saying. Physical matter began to exist. Nothing can cause itself. So the cause can't be physical matter. Could you please clarify? I'm kindof missing the point I guess...


Now, the reasons why you said God would not be subject to the negation premise this is the following:
Because there's no reason to believe God began to exist, or has an explanation, or is moved by another
Therefore we have:

1.)An undefined natural process for which we have no reason to believe began to exist
2.)An deistic god for which we have no reason to believe began to exist


So are you rejecting the impossibility of causa sui?
Not necessarily, I am saying whatever justification you use to have your God avoid causa sui, one can apply to an undefined natural cause. If you would like this formalized:

1.)God has a reason for avoiding causa sui
2.)I can give that same reason to an undefined natural process

And I already stated that if a further argument was to be made that "God is not contingent upon time, it is timeless" then one can make exactly the same justification for a natural process that"s independent of time, or timeless.

Since God will inevitably have additional attributes to an undefined natural process, it is irrational to positively believe a god is the first cause.

I'm confused. I don't see what you're saying, sorry. As I stated above, the idea of causa sui comes into play, though only implicitly. If something can't cause itself to begin to exist, and the physical world began to exist, then the cause cannot be the physical world, nor any part of it.

The reason causa sui is absurd, is because for something to cause itself, it must ontologically precede itself. Which means the existence of x is ontologically prior to the existence of x...which violates the LNC.

Even if this is true, the same argument can be made against God himself. It's that justification that you're giving it that I am after
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...