Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can theists logically refute this argument?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 10:04:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P2 is the problem premise here. While P1 is true, that causes occur in our universe, there is a hidden assumption that every cause must be material, that is, the transfer of matter and/or energy into a new... 'thing'. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" in the Kalam argument refers to both ex materia & ex nihilo causes, and presumably any other kinds of cause you can think of. (if there are any?)

For even more clarification, your argument replacing "cause" with "material cause":

P1: Material causes [only] occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a material cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a material cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a material cause.


P1 now is an assumption
P2 isn't relevant, as nobody is claiming that the universe had a material cause, except for, say, Quantum physicists.
P3 I already believe.
P4 I already believe.

In the end, you haven't really proven anything. Blah.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 10:17:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 10:04:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P2 is the problem premise here. While P1 is true, that causes occur in our universe, there is a hidden assumption that every cause must be material, that is, the transfer of matter and/or energy into a new... 'thing'. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" in the Kalam argument refers to both ex materia & ex nihilo causes, and presumably any other kinds of cause you can think of. (if there are any?)

For even more clarification, your argument replacing "cause" with "material cause":

P1: Material causes [only] occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a material cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a material cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a material cause.


P1 now is an assumption
P2 isn't relevant, as nobody is claiming that the universe had a material cause, except for, say, Quantum physicists.
P3 I already believe.
P4 I already believe.

In the end, you haven't really proven anything. Blah.

Actually your whole argument was a straw man fallacy, so you haven't actually refuted anything.

I never implied that a cause had to be material, so your argument is baseless. All I implied is that to claim that the universe must have a cause based off of the fact that cause and effect occurs within the universe, is fallacious.

You provided no reason to believe that claiming "the universe requires cause because things within the universe require causes" is not a Fallacy of Composition.

You also didn't refute any of my contentions you just twisted my premise around and based it on a straw man.

Hopefully this goes logically refuted soon.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 10:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 10:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:04:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P2 is the problem premise here. While P1 is true, that causes occur in our universe, there is a hidden assumption that every cause must be material, that is, the transfer of matter and/or energy into a new... 'thing'. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" in the Kalam argument refers to both ex materia & ex nihilo causes, and presumably any other kinds of cause you can think of. (if there are any?)

For even more clarification, your argument replacing "cause" with "material cause":

P1: Material causes [only] occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a material cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a material cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a material cause.


P1 now is an assumption
P2 isn't relevant, as nobody is claiming that the universe had a material cause, except for, say, Quantum physicists.
P3 I already believe.
P4 I already believe.

In the end, you haven't really proven anything. Blah.

Actually your whole argument was a straw man fallacy, so you haven't actually refuted anything.

I never implied that a cause had to be material, so your argument is baseless. All I implied is that to claim that the universe must have a cause based off of the fact that cause and effect occurs within the universe, is fallacious.


You provided no reason to believe that claiming "the universe requires cause because things within the universe require causes" is not a Fallacy of Composition.

You also didn't refute any of my contentions you just twisted my premise around and based it on a straw man.

Hopefully this goes logically refuted soon.

RationalThinker does not believe in causes, it seems. No, the argument hinges on the fact that ex nihilo causes occur within our universe, which is far from demonstrated.

And I do not accept P1 of the Kalam, that is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" because I observe causes, but because I don't. I don't observe things randomly popping in and out of existence, from nothing. Your P1 is itself a strawman of the Kalam's P1.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 10:45:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 10:29:54 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:04:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P2 is the problem premise here. While P1 is true, that causes occur in our universe, there is a hidden assumption that every cause must be material, that is, the transfer of matter and/or energy into a new... 'thing'. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" in the Kalam argument refers to both ex materia & ex nihilo causes, and presumably any other kinds of cause you can think of. (if there are any?)

For even more clarification, your argument replacing "cause" with "material cause":

P1: Material causes [only] occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a material cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a material cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a material cause.


P1 now is an assumption
P2 isn't relevant, as nobody is claiming that the universe had a material cause, except for, say, Quantum physicists.
P3 I already believe.
P4 I already believe.

In the end, you haven't really proven anything. Blah.

Actually your whole argument was a straw man fallacy, so you haven't actually refuted anything.

I never implied that a cause had to be material, so your argument is baseless. All I implied is that to claim that the universe must have a cause based off of the fact that cause and effect occurs within the universe, is fallacious.


You provided no reason to believe that claiming "the universe requires cause because things within the universe require causes" is not a Fallacy of Composition.

You also didn't refute any of my contentions you just twisted my premise around and based it on a straw man.

Hopefully this goes logically refuted soon.

RationalThinker does not believe in causes, it seems. No, the argument hinges on the fact that ex nihilo causes occur within our universe, which is far from demonstrated.

And I do not accept P1 of the Kalam, that is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" because I observe causes, but because I don't. I don't observe things randomly popping in and out of existence, from nothing. Your P1 is itself a strawman of the Kalam's P1.

"RationalThinker does not believe in causes, it seems."

Then why was the first premise of my argument "causes occur within the universe"? If you read my first premise, you would know I believe in causes so your statement is laughable.

"I do not accept P1 of the Kalam, that is Everything that begins to exist has a cause because I observe causes, but because I don't. I don't observe things randomly popping in and out of existence, from nothing."

We don't observe things simply popping into existence you are right, so how does Dr.Craig (or anyone pushing the argument) know that things beginning to exist require a cause?

Anyway, the only reason you know causes exist is because you observe them in the universe, besides this, there would be no evidence causes exist.

If you are claiming that the universe must have had a cause, it has to be based off the universe having causes within it, because if not for that, you wouldn't know what a cause was.

So, if someone is claiming the universe must have had a cause they must be basing it causes within the universe (if not, where would the concept of a cause come from?).

Therefore, claiming the universe must have had a cause must be based on the fact that the universe has causes within it.

Since that is a Fallacy of Composition, saying the universe must have a cause is not logically sound.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 10:51:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 10:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:04:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P2 is the problem premise here. While P1 is true, that causes occur in our universe, there is a hidden assumption that every cause must be material, that is, the transfer of matter and/or energy into a new... 'thing'. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" in the Kalam argument refers to both ex materia & ex nihilo causes, and presumably any other kinds of cause you can think of. (if there are any?)

For even more clarification, your argument replacing "cause" with "material cause":

P1: Material causes [only] occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a material cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a material cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a material cause.


P1 now is an assumption
P2 isn't relevant, as nobody is claiming that the universe had a material cause, except for, say, Quantum physicists.
P3 I already believe.
P4 I already believe.

In the end, you haven't really proven anything. Blah.

Actually your whole argument was a straw man fallacy, so you haven't actually refuted anything.

I never implied that a cause had to be material, so your argument is baseless. All I implied is that to claim that the universe must have a cause based off of the fact that cause and effect occurs within the universe, is fallacious.


You provided no reason to believe that claiming "the universe requires cause because things within the universe require causes" is not a Fallacy of Composition.

You also didn't refute any of my contentions you just twisted my premise around and based it on a straw man.

Hopefully this goes logically refuted soon.

Classic KCA has an answer to this. It doesn't say something that begins to exist, even a universe has to have a cause because what happens inside the universe has causes, but rather based on a metaphysical premise that something that begins to exist must have a cause, as to deny this premise would mean its possible for something to begin too exist out of nothing.
"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
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 10:55:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 10:45:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"RationalThinker does not believe in causes, it seems."

Then why was the first premise of my argument "causes occur within the universe"? If you read my first premise, you would know I believe in causes so your statement is laughable.

"I do not accept P1 of the Kalam, that is Everything that begins to exist has a cause because I observe causes, but because I don't. I don't observe things randomly popping in and out of existence, from nothing."

We don't observe things simply popping into existence you are right, so how does Dr.Craig (or anyone pushing the argument) know that things beginning to exist require a cause?

Anyway, the only reason you know causes exist is because you observe them in the universe, besides this, there would be no evidence causes exist.

If you are claiming that the universe must have had a cause, it has to be based off the universe having causes within it, because if not for that, you wouldn't know what a cause was.

So, if someone is claiming the universe must have had a cause they must be basing it causes within the universe (if not, where would the concept of a cause come from?).

Therefore, claiming the universe must have had a cause must be based on the fact that the universe has causes within it.

Since that is a Fallacy of Composition, saying the universe must have a cause is not logically sound.

We know that nothing comes into existence without a cause because of the slippery slope. Imagine if we did know of a single ontologically uncaused event. It seems impossible to determine why such events do not occur at any or every moment in every and any possible way. Even if we have examples of empirically uncaused events, like the decay of Carbon-14, we must conclude that we just simply do not know why, as opposed to noncausation. Imagine! Organized reasonlessness!
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:02:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.

Every event has a cause huh? Well, what is that assertion based on? Oh ya that's right, causes within the universe.

If you are basing "the universe must have had a cause" on the fact that things have causes within the universe, then you are committing the fallacy of composition. Therefore, it's not logical to claim the universe must have had a cause.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:10:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 10:51:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:04:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P2 is the problem premise here. While P1 is true, that causes occur in our universe, there is a hidden assumption that every cause must be material, that is, the transfer of matter and/or energy into a new... 'thing'. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" in the Kalam argument refers to both ex materia & ex nihilo causes, and presumably any other kinds of cause you can think of. (if there are any?)

For even more clarification, your argument replacing "cause" with "material cause":

P1: Material causes [only] occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a material cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a material cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a material cause.


P1 now is an assumption
P2 isn't relevant, as nobody is claiming that the universe had a material cause, except for, say, Quantum physicists.
P3 I already believe.
P4 I already believe.

In the end, you haven't really proven anything. Blah.

Actually your whole argument was a straw man fallacy, so you haven't actually refuted anything.

I never implied that a cause had to be material, so your argument is baseless. All I implied is that to claim that the universe must have a cause based off of the fact that cause and effect occurs within the universe, is fallacious.


You provided no reason to believe that claiming "the universe requires cause because things within the universe require causes" is not a Fallacy of Composition.

You also didn't refute any of my contentions you just twisted my premise around and based it on a straw man.

Hopefully this goes logically refuted soon.

Classic KCA has an answer to this. It doesn't say something that begins to exist, even a universe has to have a cause because what happens inside the universe has causes, but rather based on a metaphysical premise that something that begins to exist must have a cause, as to deny this premise would mean its possible for something to begin too exist out of nothing.

You don't understand do you, your only concept of a cause is what you see in the universe. You see somebody make something, that something was caused by that someone. Your whole life is based on cause and effect but it's only based within the universe.

To say that you aren't basing your belief that the universe must have a cause on what you see within the universe, makes no sense. Where else would you have gotten your sense of cause and effect?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:13:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theists act like the idea of a cause came first and causes in the universe fit some subcategory of a pre-existing idea of a cause. In reality, a cause is a label we put on something that only has evidence of existing within the universe.

Therefore, my argument still stands.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:16:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 11:02:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.

Every event has a cause huh? Well, what is that assertion based on? Oh ya that's right, causes within the universe.

No, it's all observable events. There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause.

And FYI, the Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It happened inside. So that flawed argument doesn't stand anyway.

If you are basing "the universe must have had a cause" on the fact that things have causes within the universe, then you are committing the fallacy of composition. Therefore, it's not logical to claim the universe must have had a cause.

The universe's creation happened within the confines of the universe, so it fits in the same category as every other event.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:21:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Example of fallacy of composition:

P1: Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
P2: Humans are made up of human cells.
P3: Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye.

Basically, anyone claiming that "the universe must have a cause" has to be basing the possibility of a "cause of the universe" on causes in the universe. Because if not for causes in the universe, we would not experience causes.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:24:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wanna respond to my comment thinker :)
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:24:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 11:16:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:02:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.

Every event has a cause huh? Well, what is that assertion based on? Oh ya that's right, causes within the universe.

No, it's all observable events. There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause.

And FYI, the Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It happened inside. So that flawed argument doesn't stand anyway.

If you are basing "the universe must have had a cause" on the fact that things have causes within the universe, then you are committing the fallacy of composition. Therefore, it's not logical to claim the universe must have had a cause.

The universe's creation happened within the confines of the universe, so it fits in the same category as every other event.

"There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause."

What are you basing this on? Oh ya, the fact that cause/ effect exists in the universe. If cause and effect didn't exist in the universe, you wouldn't experience cause/ effect and would have no knowledge of it.

Therefore, you must be basing your argument for the universe being caused, on the fact that causes exist in the universe. Therefore, committing the fallacy of composition.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:30:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 11:24:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:16:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:02:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.

Every event has a cause huh? Well, what is that assertion based on? Oh ya that's right, causes within the universe.

No, it's all observable events. There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause.

And FYI, the Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It happened inside. So that flawed argument doesn't stand anyway.

If you are basing "the universe must have had a cause" on the fact that things have causes within the universe, then you are committing the fallacy of composition. Therefore, it's not logical to claim the universe must have had a cause.

The universe's creation happened within the confines of the universe, so it fits in the same category as every other event.

"There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause."

What are you basing this on? Oh ya, the fact that cause/ effect exists in the universe. If cause and effect didn't exist in the universe, you wouldn't experience cause/ effect and would have no knowledge of it.

Therefore, you must be basing your argument for the universe being caused, on the fact that causes exist in the universe. Therefore, committing the fallacy of composition.

The Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It was an event that happened within the confines of the universe. Just like a supernova, but bigger.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:30:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rationalthinker you remind me of Ali-G

There are exceptions to the fallacy of composition. With your particular argument you are saying that just because everything we experience in the cosmos has a cause does not necessitate that the cosmos itself had a cause. You are correct. However, there is absolutely no reason currently to think otherwise. Would it be possible to prove such a statement? I think not. Is it rational to think that the universe had a cause? I think it is absolutely rational simply because there are not recorded events that occur without a cause (to my knowledge atleast). So it would seem to me that one aught to atleast provide an event without a cause to challenge the axioim. This again just supports the notion that all reasoning is eventually circular in nature and this would be a good example.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:52:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 11:30:45 PM, joneszj wrote:
Rationalthinker you remind me of Ali-G

There are exceptions to the fallacy of composition. With your particular argument you are saying that just because everything we experience in the cosmos has a cause does not necessitate that the cosmos itself had a cause. You are correct. However, there is absolutely no reason currently to think otherwise. Would it be possible to prove such a statement? I think not. Is it rational to think that the universe had a cause? I think it is absolutely rational simply because there are not recorded events that occur without a cause (to my knowledge atleast). So it would seem to me that one aught to atleast provide an event without a cause to challenge the axioim. This again just supports the notion that all reasoning is eventually circular in nature and this would be a good example.

The problem with your statement is you are assuming that a cause has some intrinsic meaning and that causes in the universe just fit some subcategory.

In reality, a cause is strictly just a label we put on something that we observe within the universe, and humans create bare assertion fallacies regarding hypothetical causes.

In reality, someone claiming the universe as a whole must have a cause must be basing on the everyday common sense factor of cause and effect within the universe.

This is clearly a case of a fallacy of composition, and a don't see how a perfect fit can equate to an exception.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:53:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 11:30:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:24:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:16:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:02:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.

Every event has a cause huh? Well, what is that assertion based on? Oh ya that's right, causes within the universe.

No, it's all observable events. There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause.

And FYI, the Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It happened inside. So that flawed argument doesn't stand anyway.

If you are basing "the universe must have had a cause" on the fact that things have causes within the universe, then you are committing the fallacy of composition. Therefore, it's not logical to claim the universe must have had a cause.

The universe's creation happened within the confines of the universe, so it fits in the same category as every other event.

"There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause."

What are you basing this on? Oh ya, the fact that cause/ effect exists in the universe. If cause and effect didn't exist in the universe, you wouldn't experience cause/ effect and would have no knowledge of it.

Therefore, you must be basing your argument for the universe being caused, on the fact that causes exist in the universe. Therefore, committing the fallacy of composition.

The Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It was an event that happened within the confines of the universe. Just like a supernova, but bigger.

You are probably right, however I'm arguing against the people who say that the universe had an external cause.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 12:01:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 11:53:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:30:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:24:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:16:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:02:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.

Every event has a cause huh? Well, what is that assertion based on? Oh ya that's right, causes within the universe.

No, it's all observable events. There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause.

And FYI, the Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It happened inside. So that flawed argument doesn't stand anyway.

If you are basing "the universe must have had a cause" on the fact that things have causes within the universe, then you are committing the fallacy of composition. Therefore, it's not logical to claim the universe must have had a cause.

The universe's creation happened within the confines of the universe, so it fits in the same category as every other event.

"There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause."

What are you basing this on? Oh ya, the fact that cause/ effect exists in the universe. If cause and effect didn't exist in the universe, you wouldn't experience cause/ effect and would have no knowledge of it.

Therefore, you must be basing your argument for the universe being caused, on the fact that causes exist in the universe. Therefore, committing the fallacy of composition.

The Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It was an event that happened within the confines of the universe. Just like a supernova, but bigger.

You are probably right, however I'm arguing against the people who say that the universe had an external cause.

Ah...

Well... in that case...

Eh, I'm getting tired.

My personal belief is that the Big Bang was caused externally, but I realize that the idea of a multiverse, or outside-the-universe-outer space is beyond the scope of science at this point.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 2:30:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 12:01:29 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:53:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:30:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:24:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:16:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 11:02:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/7/2012 10:49:12 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P1 is wrong. Yes, causes occur within the universe, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with cause and effect.

P1: Every event has a cause.
P2: The Big Bang was an event.
C: The Big Bang must have had a cause.

Every event has a cause huh? Well, what is that assertion based on? Oh ya that's right, causes within the universe.

No, it's all observable events. There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause.

And FYI, the Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It happened inside. So that flawed argument doesn't stand anyway.

If you are basing "the universe must have had a cause" on the fact that things have causes within the universe, then you are committing the fallacy of composition. Therefore, it's not logical to claim the universe must have had a cause.

The universe's creation happened within the confines of the universe, so it fits in the same category as every other event.

"There is no reason to think that any event wouldn't have a cause."

What are you basing this on? Oh ya, the fact that cause/ effect exists in the universe. If cause and effect didn't exist in the universe, you wouldn't experience cause/ effect and would have no knowledge of it.

Therefore, you must be basing your argument for the universe being caused, on the fact that causes exist in the universe. Therefore, committing the fallacy of composition.

The Big Bang didn't happen outside the universe. It was an event that happened within the confines of the universe. Just like a supernova, but bigger.

You are probably right, however I'm arguing against the people who say that the universe had an external cause.

Ah...

Well... in that case...

Eh, I'm getting tired.

My personal belief is that the Big Bang was caused externally, but I realize that the idea of a multiverse, or outside-the-universe-outer space is beyond the scope of science at this point.

The big bang only claims that there was at a time a state in which matter was condensed, They call this the initial state, it was still hot and unstable energy which of course could explode. What they mean by universe is the emprical universe we see today.

Thiest strawman the big bang theory and think it really is about matter being created. But physics clearly states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It simply changes form, even in the "initial state it is hot' aka molecules moving thus changing. There is not reason to think that the universe has ever been devoid of change. What is called the 'initial state' could have came about from a previous change and so on and forever. Things may explode to eventually come together again by some gravitational pull only to explode again. We simply don't know. This is more consistent with cyclical explanation, from other religions. It is obviously an attempt to put a Christian god into science to try and give it credibility. And it is the job of the reasonable to not be fooled.
"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
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 3:21:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

In order to make that argument valid, you would have to modify it as follows:

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole by virtue of P1 would be committing the fallacy of composition.

P2-and-a-half: There is no good reason to claim that the universe had a cause, save by virtue of P1.

I think if that argument is defensible, it would have to be defended empirically, by showing that theists have not produced a sound cosmological argument.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 3:34:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 3:21:13 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

In order to make that argument valid, you would have to modify it as follows:

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole by virtue of P1 would be committing the fallacy of composition.

P2-and-a-half: There is no good reason to claim that the universe had a cause, save by virtue of P1.


I think if that argument is defensible, it would have to be defended empirically, by showing that theists have not produced a sound cosmological argument.

There is reason to assume the universe it self had a cause in the fist place. This is an assumed by theist. but there is no necessary premise to support this claim.
"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
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 4:19:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

Fallacy of the unfounded premiise, misplaced middle violation of the principle of non contradiction. Try again.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 4:59:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 4:19:31 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

Fallacy of the unfounded premiise, misplaced middle violation of the principle of non contradiction. Try again.

I must be either getting old or very tired at the moment -- what's the misplaced middle in this argument?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 5:33:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 4:19:31 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

Fallacy of the unfounded premiise, misplaced middle violation of the principle of non contradiction. Try again.

It's not unfounded, without causes existing within the universe you would have no reason to believe the universe had a cause. Therefore you are basing the universe had a cause 100% on the fact that causes exist within the universe.

Claiming the universe must have a cause is a fallacy of composition, and is an unfounded statement.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 5:40:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no way around it, the only reason to believe the universe had a cause is that things within the universe have causes. The principle of cause and effect is 100% based off knowledge of causes obtained within the universe, this does not have to apply to the universe as a whole and it is illogical to say it does.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 6:17:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 4:59:05 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/8/2012 4:19:31 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

Fallacy of the unfounded premiise, misplaced middle violation of the principle of non contradiction. Try again.

I must be either getting old or very tired at the moment -- what's the misplaced middle in this argument?

The premise should be a middle.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 6:18:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 9:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: Causes occur within the universe.

P2: To claim that a cause must apply to the universe as a whole would be committing the Fallacy of Composition.

P3: Without committing the Fallacy of Composition, there is no good reason to claim the universe had a cause.

P4: There is no logically sound reason to claim the universe had a cause.

The issue rests upon premise 3 and whether or not there are arguments that don't rely on this Composition.

More importantly, the argument is unnecessary. The "casual" arguments necessarily depend on induction, which has problems which are well established.