Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Support For The First Premise Of The Kalam

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:59:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think I have ever seen the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument supported sufficiently. Any Theist care to take a crack at it?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:59:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't think I have ever seen the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument supported sufficiently. Any Theist care to take a crack at it?

The Fool: Holy obsession........
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen. One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.
The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.
One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 12:02:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

It sounds you're saying t=0 didn't begin. Then it seems we're on premise 2.
The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 12:07:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 12:02:40 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

It sounds you're saying t=0 didn't begin. Then it seems we're on premise 2.

We can say the universe had a beginning even though it wasn't a state of affairs that came from nothing, or came from something. It just had to exist, at the moment, to serve as the seed for everything else. But that doesn't mean it came from nothing if it had no cause, because that would mean:

"At first, there was nothing, and then, there was the first state of the universe"

What I am saying is:

"At first, there was the first state of the universe"

See the difference? There is no "nothing" in the equation.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 12:13:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 12:07:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:02:40 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

It sounds you're saying t=0 didn't begin. Then it seems we're on premise 2.

We can say the universe had a beginning even though it wasn't a state of affairs that came from nothing, or came from something. It just had to exist, at the moment, to serve as the seed for everything else. But that doesn't mean it came from nothing if it had no cause, because that would mean:

"At first, there was nothing, and then, there was the first state of the universe"

What I am saying is:

"At first, there was the first state of the universe"

See the difference? There is no "nothing" in the equation.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.

Why no rebuttal to my arguments http://www.debate.org...

I address that the existence of the universe show signs of a force from outside this universe in it's creation. The Universe is not eternal. It has a formative extra dimensional beginning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 12:21:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 12:13:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:07:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:02:40 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

It sounds you're saying t=0 didn't begin. Then it seems we're on premise 2.

We can say the universe had a beginning even though it wasn't a state of affairs that came from nothing, or came from something. It just had to exist, at the moment, to serve as the seed for everything else. But that doesn't mean it came from nothing if it had no cause, because that would mean:

"At first, there was nothing, and then, there was the first state of the universe"

What I am saying is:

"At first, there was the first state of the universe"

See the difference? There is no "nothing" in the equation.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.

Why no rebuttal to my arguments http://www.debate.org...

I'll get to that. I will respond to your arguments in my last round.


I address that the existence of the universe show signs of a force from outside this universe in it's creation. The Universe is not eternal. It has a formative extra dimensional beginning.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 12:55:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 12:07:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:02:40 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

It sounds you're saying t=0 didn't begin. Then it seems we're on premise 2.

We can say the universe had a beginning even though it wasn't a state of affairs that came from nothing, or came from something. It just had to exist, at the moment, to serve as the seed for everything else. But that doesn't mean it came from nothing if it had no cause, because that would mean:

"At first, there was nothing, and then, there was the first state of the universe"

What I am saying is:

"At first, there was the first state of the universe"

See the difference? There is no "nothing" in the equation.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.

I think I see, t=0 doesn't begin, but the universe does. I think Craig agrees that this is possible. But that's where he argues for premise 2.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:08:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 12:55:23 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:07:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:02:40 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

It sounds you're saying t=0 didn't begin. Then it seems we're on premise 2.

We can say the universe had a beginning even though it wasn't a state of affairs that came from nothing, or came from something. It just had to exist, at the moment, to serve as the seed for everything else. But that doesn't mean it came from nothing if it had no cause, because that would mean:

"At first, there was nothing, and then, there was the first state of the universe"

What I am saying is:

"At first, there was the first state of the universe"

See the difference? There is no "nothing" in the equation.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.

I think I see, t=0 doesn't begin, but the universe does.

I don't think I am explaining it very well (my bad).

The universe has a beginning point (which is completely compatible with all of Craig's support for P2), it just doesn't have a cause in this scenario, but it didn't come from nothing either! The reason why this is allowed is because something doesn't have to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning (even assuming A-Theory). Why? Well:

If the first state of the universe came from nothing, then S1 is necessarily the case:

S1: "At first, there is nothing, then, the first state of the universe exists and expands according to TBBT"

However, S2 is conceivable:

S2: "At first, the first state of the universe exists, then the universe exists and expands according to TBBT"

---

S1 and S2 are not the same, ergo, they cannot both be true. However, in BOTH scenarios, the universe is uncaused. The universe is uncaused in S1 because it came from nothing, but the universe is also uncaused in S2, because if it wasn't, then whatever the cause was would have to follow the "at first" instead of the first state of the universe. However, only in S1 does the universe come from nothing.

Therefore, even if A-Theory is true, the universe has a finite past (and a beginning) point, and it was uncaused by anything logically prior to it... that wouldn't necessarily entail the universe came from nothing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:11:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 12:55:23 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:07:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 12:02:40 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:21:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:15:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:07:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:57:32 PM, n7 wrote:
The metaphysical principle nothing comes from nothing is probably the best justification I've seen.

Well, I agree that something cannot come from nothing, but that is only because there never could have been nothing. This is because the laws of logic are necessary, meaning that there never could have been no laws of logic (ergo, there never could have been nothing). If we deny that argument, then as nothing could have been something (as nothing = no laws of logic), but that is clearly absurd.

Yes, I agree. However the KCAer could say since there never was nothing, everything must of came from somewhere.

One could respond by saying everything that came after t=0, came from t=0 and because of the state of affairs at t=0 (which is something). That wouldn't mean t=0 came from nothing, because as we have already established, that is impossible by default (there never could have been nothing), but the state of affairs at t=0 didn't come from something either if it was uncaused, ergo, we would say the state of affairs at t=0 didn't "come from" at all. So, basically, this is a false dichotomy:

"Either the first state of the universe 'came from' nothing, or 'came from' something."

Both of these options assume that the universe "came from". Period. Why believe that just because the universe has a beginning point?

So we can conceive of a universe that has a beginning point, and that is uncaused, and that doesn't violate ex nihilo nihil fit.

It sounds you're saying t=0 didn't begin. Then it seems we're on premise 2.

We can say the universe had a beginning even though it wasn't a state of affairs that came from nothing, or came from something. It just had to exist, at the moment, to serve as the seed for everything else. But that doesn't mean it came from nothing if it had no cause, because that would mean:

"At first, there was nothing, and then, there was the first state of the universe"

What I am saying is:

"At first, there was the first state of the universe"

See the difference? There is no "nothing" in the equation.

The thing is, I don't believe that something necessarily has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused with a beginning. I believe the equation of these two things is likely a mistake.

An uncaused cause would have nothing as a cause.

Read above.

One could argue probablisticly by saying it's common sense, we don't see things coming into existence from nowhere in everyday life.

I think that probabalistic argument is confined to within the universe, and therefore, doesn't necessarily apply to the universen as a whole. The more conservative statement would be that we don't see things within the universe coming into existence out of every day life. I don't think there is any justification for this "stretch" from observation within the universe, and applying those concepts to the universe as a whole.

Yeah, that would be flawed.

I think I see, t=0 doesn't begin, but the universe does. I think Craig agrees that this is possible. But that's where he argues for premise 2.

Basically, saying the universe came from nothing assumes "nothing" is the starting point of this scenario, if you will, which is then followed by the first state of the universe. All I am proposing is that we can just say the first state of the universe is the starting point. Then any talk about something "coming from" nothing is ruled out regardless if the universe had a starting point, as there never was nothing to begin with. Just the first state of the universe.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:11:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some important counters made by Dr Slezak......

1) The appeal to incredulity, making common sense the ultimate court of appeal.

2) Scientific notions of cause can't be applied to the "beginning" of the universe

3) No rules to decide what is metaphysical truth
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:19:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

Also, you assume the universe couldn't be a brute fact.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure. When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:54:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 8:19:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

Also, you assume the universe couldn't be a brute fact.

Explain what you mean by "brute fact".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer

Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...

, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...


If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself. Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation. I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean.

, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself.

False. Reality is reality regardless of whether it has an explanation for its existence. Ergo, not having an explanation wouldn't violate identity. You are assuming an explanation is necessary for a complete structure, but I see no reason to grant you this.

Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself.

False. Reality is reality regardless of whether it has an explanation for its existence. Ergo, not having an explanation wouldn't violate identity. You are assuming an explanation is necessary for a complete structure, but I see no reason to grant you this.

Explanation is identification of structure. If something is absolutely inexplicable, then its structure is incomplete. This is self-evident.

Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:35:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself.

False. Reality is reality regardless of whether it has an explanation for its existence. Ergo, not having an explanation wouldn't violate identity. You are assuming an explanation is necessary for a complete structure, but I see no reason to grant you this.

Explanation is identification of structure. If something is absolutely inexplicable, then its structure is incomplete. This is self-evident.

False, an explanation and identification are two different logically sphere. So, clearly, it is not self-evident. It is something you are fallaciously bare asserting without a single shred of support. If X has no causal explanation; X is still X. There is no law of identity being violated by X having no causal explanation. You have given 0 reasons to assume something's structure cannot be complete unless it has an explanation.


Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:35:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself.

False. Reality is reality regardless of whether it has an explanation for its existence. Ergo, not having an explanation wouldn't violate identity. You are assuming an explanation is necessary for a complete structure, but I see no reason to grant you this.

Explanation is identification of structure. If something is absolutely inexplicable, then its structure is incomplete. This is self-evident.

Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).

*spheres
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:52:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:35:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself.

False. Reality is reality regardless of whether it has an explanation for its existence. Ergo, not having an explanation wouldn't violate identity. You are assuming an explanation is necessary for a complete structure, but I see no reason to grant you this.

Explanation is identification of structure. If something is absolutely inexplicable, then its structure is incomplete. This is self-evident.

False, an explanation and identification are two different logically sphere. So, clearly, it is not self-evident. It is something you are fallaciously bare asserting without a single shred of support.

An explanation is merely a model of how things are. In answering the "why" and "how", one necessarily identifies the "what". E.g. "why does X exist"...because of Y.

If X has no causal explanation; X is still X. There is no law of identity being violated by X having no causal explanation. You have given 0 reasons to assume something's structure cannot be complete unless it has an explanation.

The point is that X cannot exist in the first place without having an explanation, because if it didn't have one, it wouldn't have complete structure, for if it did, it would have an explanation. "In order to fully specify the structure of a system, one must explain why its aspects and components are related in certain ways (as opposed to other possible ways). If one cannot explain this, then one is unable to determine the truth values of certain higher-order relations without which structure cannot be fully specified. On the other hand, if one claims that some of these higher-order structural components are "absolutely inexplicable", then one is saying that they do not exist, and thus that the systemic structure is absolutely incomplete. Since this would destroy the system's identity, its stability, and its ability to function, it is belied by the system's very existence."



Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:09:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:52:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:35:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself.

False. Reality is reality regardless of whether it has an explanation for its existence. Ergo, not having an explanation wouldn't violate identity. You are assuming an explanation is necessary for a complete structure, but I see no reason to grant you this.

Explanation is identification of structure. If something is absolutely inexplicable, then its structure is incomplete. This is self-evident.

False, an explanation and identification are two different logically sphere. So, clearly, it is not self-evident. It is something you are fallaciously bare asserting without a single shred of support.

An explanation is merely a model of how things are.

An explanation is an answer to the question "why?". The model of how things are deals with descriptions of the "what".

In answering the "why" and "how", one necessarily identifies the "what". E.g. "why does X exist"...because of Y.

Why believe that there needs to be an answer to the question "why?" in order to have a "what" with regards to the universe's existence?. I don't see how that necessarily entails at all.


If X has no causal explanation; X is still X. There is no law of identity being violated by X having no causal explanation. You have given 0 reasons to assume something's structure cannot be complete unless it has an explanation.

The point is that X cannot exist in the first place without having an explanation, because if it didn't have one, it wouldn't have complete structure

Why wouldn't it have a complete structure without a an explanation though? You are just repeating your argument; not supporting it. Again, there is no reason to think that X cannot have a complete structure without an explanation.

, for if it did, it would have an explanation.

But why is an explanation required for a complete structure? Read what you wrote, I bet you that once you understand what you wrote, you will catch the elementary blunder. You essentially just said X needs an explanation, because if it didn't, it wouldn't have an explanation, and it needs one. That is same as saying X needs an explanation, because X needs an explanation. Classic case of circular reasoning.

"In order to fully specify the structure of a system, one must explain why its aspects and components are related in certain ways (as opposed to other possible ways).

This assumes that there is an answer to the question "why this way and not another?". However, if there is no answer to such a question, then the structure can still be complete because all that is required are answers to questions that actually have answers.

If one cannot explain this, then one is unable to determine the truth values of certain higher-order relations without which structure cannot be fully specified.

Why is it unable? This begs the question, by assuming an explanation is required in the first place. If there is no explanation with regards to the structure, then the structure can necessarily still be complete without an explanation, as no explanation would be required.

On the other hand, if one claims that some of these higher-order structural components are "absolutely inexplicable", then one is saying that they do not exist, and thus that the systemic structure is absolutely incomplete.

But the problem is that there is 0 reasons to believe that a structure is incomplete if it doesn't have an explanation. You are just repeating your argument over and over again, without actually supporting it.

Since this would destroy the system's identity, its stability, and its ability to function, it is belied by the system's very existence."

But if the systems identity is that regarding brute facts [http://en.wikipedia.org...], then it would be complete without an explanation necessarily by definition .

Your entire argument is just a mental exercise in circular reasoning



Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:11:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 10:09:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:52:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:35:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



If reality has no explanation for its existence, then its structure is either incomplete or non-existent, in which case reality is not itself.

False. Reality is reality regardless of whether it has an explanation for its existence. Ergo, not having an explanation wouldn't violate identity. You are assuming an explanation is necessary for a complete structure, but I see no reason to grant you this.

Explanation is identification of structure. If something is absolutely inexplicable, then its structure is incomplete. This is self-evident.

False, an explanation and identification are two different logically sphere. So, clearly, it is not self-evident. It is something you are fallaciously bare asserting without a single shred of support.

An explanation is merely a model of how things are.

An explanation is an answer to the question "why?". The model of how things are deals with descriptions of the "what".

In answering the "why" and "how", one necessarily identifies the "what". E.g. "why does X exist"...because of Y.

Why believe that there needs to be an answer to the question "why?" in order to have a "what" with regards to the universe's existence?. I don't see how that necessarily entails at all.


If X has no causal explanation; X is still X. There is no law of identity being violated by X having no causal explanation. You have given 0 reasons to assume something's structure cannot be complete unless it has an explanation.

The point is that X cannot exist in the first place without having an explanation, because if it didn't have one, it wouldn't have complete structure

Why wouldn't it have a complete structure without a an explanation though? You are just repeating your argument; not supporting it. Again, there is no reason to think that X cannot have a complete structure without an explanation.

, for if it did, it would have an explanation.

But why is an explanation required for a complete structure? Read what you wrote, I bet you that once you understand what you wrote, you will catch the elementary blunder. You essentially just said X needs an explanation, because if it didn't, it wouldn't have an explanation, and it needs one. That is same as saying X needs an explanation, because X needs an explanation. Classic case of circular reasoning.



"In order to fully specify the structure of a system, one must explain why its aspects and components are related in certain ways (as opposed to other possible ways).

This assumes that there is an answer to the question "why this way and not another?". However, if there is no answer to such a question, then the structure can still be complete because all that is required are answers to questions that actually have answers.

If one cannot explain this, then one is unable to determine the truth values of certain higher-order relations without which structure cannot be fully specified.

Why is it unable? This begs the question, by assuming an explanation is required in the first place. If there is no explanation with regards to the structure, then the structure can necessarily still be complete without an explanation, as no explanation would be required.

On the other hand, if one claims that some of these higher-order structural components are "absolutely inexplicable", then one is saying that they do not exist, and thus that the systemic structure is absolutely incomplete.

But the problem is that there is 0 reasons to believe that a structure is incomplete if it doesn't have an explanation. You are just repeating your argument over and over again, without actually supporting it.

Since this would destroy the system's identity, its stability, and its ability to function, it is belied by the system's very existence."

But if the systems identity is that regarding brute facts [http://en.wikipedia.org...], then it would be complete without an explanation necessarily by definition .

Your entire argument is just a mental exercise in circular reasoning



Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).

I'm done. There's little to accomplish when you refuse to listen.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 10:11:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 10:09:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:52:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:35:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



I



False, an explanation and identification are two different logically sphere. So, clearly, it is not self-evident. It is something you are fallaciously bare asserting without a single shred of support.

An explanation is merely a model of how things are.

An explanation is an answer to the question "why?". The model of how things are deals with descriptions of the "what".

In answering the "why" and "how", one necessarily identifies the "what". E.g. "why does X exist"...because of Y.

Why believe that there needs to be an answer to the question "why?" in order to have a "what" with regards to the universe's existence?. I don't see how that necessarily entails at all.


If X has no causal explanation; X is still X. There is no law of identity being violated by X having no causal explanation. You have given 0 reasons to assume something's structure cannot be complete unless it has an explanation.

The point is that X cannot exist in the first place without having an explanation, because if it didn't have one, it wouldn't have complete structure

Why wouldn't it have a complete structure without a an explanation though? You are just repeating your argument; not supporting it. Again, there is no reason to think that X cannot have a complete structure without an explanation.

, for if it did, it would have an explanation.

But why is an explanation required for a complete structure? Read what you wrote, I bet you that once you understand what you wrote, you will catch the elementary blunder. You essentially just said X needs an explanation, because if it didn't, it wouldn't have an explanation, and it needs one. That is same as saying X needs an explanation, because X needs an explanation. Classic case of circular reasoning.



"In order to fully specify the structure of a system, one must explain why its aspects and components are related in certain ways (as opposed to other possible ways).

This assumes that there is an answer to the question "why this way and not another?". However, if there is no answer to such a question, then the structure can still be complete because all that is required are answers to questions that actually have answers.

If one cannot explain this, then one is unable to determine the truth values of certain higher-order relations without which structure cannot be fully specified.

Why is it unable? This begs the question, by assuming an explanation is required in the first place. If there is no explanation with regards to the structure, then the structure can necessarily still be complete without an explanation, as no explanation would be required.

On the other hand, if one claims that some of these higher-order structural components are "absolutely inexplicable", then one is saying that they do not exist, and thus that the systemic structure is absolutely incomplete.

But the problem is that there is 0 reasons to believe that a structure is incomplete if it doesn't have an explanation. You are just repeating your argument over and over again, without actually supporting it.

Since this would destroy the system's identity, its stability, and its ability to function, it is belied by the system's very existence."

But if the systems identity is that regarding brute facts [http://en.wikipedia.org...], then it would be complete without an explanation necessarily by definition .

Your entire argument is just a mental exercise in circular reasoning



Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).

I'm done. There's little to accomplish when you refuse to listen.

I listened to your question begging, tautology, and circular reasoning. How do you think I was able to point out your blunders unless I was listening? All you have to do is read this:

"The point is that X cannot exist in the first place without having an explanation, because if it didn't have one, it wouldn't have complete structure, for if it did, it would have an explanation."

X cannot exist without Y, because if X lacks Y, X wouldn't be complete, for if X was complete, it would have Y.

This translates to:

X needs Y to be complete, because if X didn't have Y, X wouldn't be complete. That is like saying a body needs oxygen to survive, because if it didn't have oxygen, it couldn't survive.

So, clearly I was listening, as I was able to point out clear problems with your argument lol
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:23:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 10:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 10:11:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 10:09:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:52:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:35:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:29:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:24:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:03:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:54:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:18:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 2:39:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Cause=explanation for existence of=identification of structure. When you deny that the universe has a cause for its existence, you are claiming that the structure of reality is incomplete or non-existent, which violates the law of identity (that reality - the structure in question - is reality).

How is a cause of something part of its identification? That is the weirdest thing I have heard all day... Can you at least support it?

Something's cause is its explanation for existing, and an explanation is a model of the thing in question...a mirror of its structure.When we say that something is caused by X, we are identifying the structure on which our claim is based. Since reality is identifiable as something which exists, it has structure. The question "why does reality exist" must therefore have an answer


Non-sequitur fallacy. Nothing you said supports the conclusion that there must be an answer to "why does reality exist?". You are also question begging, by assuming the universe needs an explanation to begin with. No reason to assume the universe needs an explanation...



I



False, an explanation and identification are two different logically sphere. So, clearly, it is not self-evident. It is something you are fallaciously bare asserting without a single shred of support.

An explanation is merely a model of how things are.

An explanation is an answer to the question "why?". The model of how things are deals with descriptions of the "what".

In answering the "why" and "how", one necessarily identifies the "what". E.g. "why does X exist"...because of Y.

Why believe that there needs to be an answer to the question "why?" in order to have a "what" with regards to the universe's existence?. I don't see how that necessarily entails at all.


If X has no causal explanation; X is still X. There is no law of identity being violated by X having no causal explanation. You have given 0 reasons to assume something's structure cannot be complete unless it has an explanation.

The point is that X cannot exist in the first place without having an explanation, because if it didn't have one, it wouldn't have complete structure

Why wouldn't it have a complete structure without a an explanation though? You are just repeating your argument; not supporting it. Again, there is no reason to think that X cannot have a complete structure without an explanation.

, for if it did, it would have an explanation.

But why is an explanation required for a complete structure? Read what you wrote, I bet you that once you understand what you wrote, you will catch the elementary blunder. You essentially just said X needs an explanation, because if it didn't, it wouldn't have an explanation, and it needs one. That is same as saying X needs an explanation, because X needs an explanation. Classic case of circular reasoning.



"In order to fully specify the structure of a system, one must explain why its aspects and components are related in certain ways (as opposed to other possible ways).

This assumes that there is an answer to the question "why this way and not another?". However, if there is no answer to such a question, then the structure can still be complete because all that is required are answers to questions that actually have answers.

If one cannot explain this, then one is unable to determine the truth values of certain higher-order relations without which structure cannot be fully specified.

Why is it unable? This begs the question, by assuming an explanation is required in the first place. If there is no explanation with regards to the structure, then the structure can necessarily still be complete without an explanation, as no explanation would be required.

On the other hand, if one claims that some of these higher-order structural components are "absolutely inexplicable", then one is saying that they do not exist, and thus that the systemic structure is absolutely incomplete.

But the problem is that there is 0 reasons to believe that a structure is incomplete if it doesn't have an explanation. You are just repeating your argument over and over again, without actually supporting it.

Since this would destroy the system's identity, its stability, and its ability to function, it is belied by the system's very existence."

But if the systems identity is that regarding brute facts [http://en.wikipedia.org...], then it would be complete without an explanation necessarily by definition .

Your entire argument is just a mental exercise in circular reasoning



Since this would destroy reality's capacity to exist, reality has an explanation.

You are assuming an explanation for X is required for X's structure to be complete. You give no reason to believe this.

I don't see how I am "question begging" anymore than the premise X=X. Explain what you mean

Because if X has no explanation, then its structure is complete without an explanation. Therefore, by saying the structure is incomplete without an explanation, you have to first presuppose an explanation is required. You are assuming the universe has an explanation, to prove it has an explanation.


, which is reflexive self-action (owing to the fact that any cause real enough to cause reality would already be part of reality).

I'm done. There's little to accomplish when you refuse to listen.

I listened to your question begging, tautology, and circular reasoning. How do you think I was able to point out your blunders unless I was listening? All you have to do is read this:

"The point is that X cannot exist in the first place without having an explanation, because if it didn't have one, it wouldn't have complete structure, for if it did, it would have an explanation."


That wasn't even meant to be the argument...something which would be clear to anyone who had taken the time to understand it.